Investigation Summary
The flight was operated by Enimex on behalf of ELK Airways using a PZL-Mielec built Antonov An-28. During the short flight to Hiiumaa island, the aircraft's anti-ice system activated shortly after takeoff and remained active for most of the flight. Although the system was functioning, the captain remained concerned about ice accumulation. Upon reaching the Kärdla area, the crew received weather reports indicating temperatures of 0 degrees Celsius, high humidity, and snow, which presented a high risk of severe icing. To minimize time spent in these conditions, the captain decided to descend rapidly and switch to a visual approach rather than following the standard instrument procedure. This decision was made without informing or receiving clearance from air traffic control. During the final stages of the approach, the crew failed to properly monitor their altitude and vertical speed. The aircraft descended below the safe glide path, striking treetops in a marshy area 1,500 meters from the runway threshold. The soft terrain of the marsh was credited with absorbing some impact force and preventing a post-crash fire, as the fuel tanks remained intact.
Final Conclusions
The Estonian Civil Aviation Administration released its final report in February 2002, concluding the accident was a Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT). The primary cause was the captain's inadequate assessment of the situation, specifically the decision to transition to a visual approach under active descent to exit icing conditions. Contributing factors included the crew's failure to consider a go-around when encountering adverse weather, maintaining an unjustified low airspeed and high descent rate, and poor crew resource management. The first officer was noted to have remained passive, overestimating the captain's experience. Additionally, the lack of a Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) system at Kärdla Airport runway 32 was cited as a factor that hindered the crew's ability to visually assess their descent trajectory.
Photographic Evidence (1)
Video Analysis
No video analysis linked for this case file yet.
Airframe & Maintenance
Crew Experience
Captain
Aged 46. Also had experience on Tu-134, Yak-40, and An-72. Note: BAAA sources cite 9,840 total hours and 192 on type, though Wikipedia/ASN figures are more consistent with the official narrative of his experience on the An-28.
First Officer
Aged 23. Name: Alexander Golovko.
Systems & Failure Modes
Anti-ice System
The system activated shortly after takeoff and remained on; investigators found it was functioning, but the captain's fear of ice accumulation led to the decision to deviate from the standard approach.
PAPI (Precision Approach Path Indicator)
The investigation noted the absence of this visual aid on runway 32, which could have helped the crew identify their dangerously low glide path.
Interesting Facts
- 01The accident is the only fatal passenger plane crash in the history of independent Estonia.
- 02The aircraft was manufactured in 1986 and had accumulated only 1,690 airframe hours.
- 03The captain was highly experienced with 4,494 total hours, though only 1,437 were on the An-28 type.
- 04The soft marshland at the crash site prevented the rupture of fuel tanks and a subsequent fire.
- 05The Estonian Civil Aviation Administration grounded all An-28s in the country for three days following the accident for safety checks.
Safety Actions & Advisories
Temporary Grounding
The Estonian Civil Aviation Administration grounded all Antonov An-28 aircraft registered in Estonia from November 24 to November 26, 2001, to conduct safety inspections.
Government Investigation Commission
The Government of Estonia formed a government commission on the investigation of the crash, headed by Tõnu Naestema, vice secretary of the Ministry of Roads and Communications.
Known Controversies & Unanswered Questions
Legal Proceedings and Captain's Acquittal
Reference ↗Following the accident, the captain, Aleksandr Nikolajev, faced a decade-long legal battle. He was accused of violating flight safety rules, which led to the crash. The case went through multiple court levels in Estonia. In 2011, the Pärnu County Court finally acquitted Nikolajev, a decision that was later upheld by the Tallinn Circuit Court. The defense argued that the crash was caused by severe icing and technical factors rather than pilot negligence.