SmartLynx Airlines Estonia

SmartLynx Airlines Estonia is an Estonian charter airline and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Latvian SmartLynx Airlines.

History
The airline commenced operations in 2012 with aircraft from its parent company and since gradually acquired its own fleet. As of June 2015, the subsidiary employed 40 people.

Fleet
As of December 2022, the SmartLynx Airlines Estonia fleet consists of the following aircraft:

SmartLynx Estonia Flight 9001
On 28 February 2018, a SmartLynx Estonia Airbus A320-214 (registered ES-SAN) whilst operating for SmartLynx Estonia Flight 9001, was a training flight for 4 new student pilots. Aboard the flight was also an Instructor, a second pilot and an Estonian Civil Aviation Administration inspector. The flight had to do five touch-and-go landing cycles and two full-stop landings for each student. While one of the student pilots was controlling the aircraft during takeoff, they lifted the side-stick back; however, the aircraft ceased to respond. It soon gained altitude but thereafter rapidly lost elevation, and engine 2 hit the runway and again gained altitude and climbed to 1590 ft, and subsequently pitched down again. The aircraft also was not responding to several flight inputs. Pilots used manual pitch trim and engine thrust to stabilize the flight path and make a turn back to the runway. Shortly after, engine 2 flamed out and failed; and, during final approach, engine 1 also flamed out and failed. The safety pilot recognized the problem in time, and the instructor took control from the trainee. The aircraft touched down hard 150 m from the runway. No one aboard was killed; however, there was severe damage to the aircraft, and it was subsequently written off.

Investigation later found that the accident was caused by a combination of factors which contributed to the accident.


 * A part of the plane that helps control its movement (THSA) wasn’t working properly because of the wrong oil used. This caused a loss of control by the plane’s elevator and aileron computers (ELACs). The plane’s maintenance didn’t include a check of a safety device (OVM), which might have let this problem go unnoticed.
 * There was a design issue in another computer (SEC) which caused a loss of control when there was a temporary issue with the left landing gear. Not having ground spoilers ready for landing during training may have contributed to this problem.
 * The training instructor decided to keep flying despite the repetitive warning messages from the ELAC. There weren’t clear rules for training flights and there was pressure to finish the training.