Agreements between Norwegian and Russian authorities were made on 31 August, where Norway resumed full responsibility for the recovery and investigation, but Russian help was accepted. To allow the Russian workers access from the morning of 1 September, the crew was allowed to fly in and establish a base camp, but no work was to be done until Norwegian supervisors arrived in the morning. However, two people were observed at the wreck at about 20:00 CEST, who were brought to the governor's offices for questioning. As they were both members of the Russian team, it was decided that the base would be disbanded. Fog was still on the plateau on 1 September, but by 15:00 CEST it was possible to fly a team there by helicopter. Because the fog stayed, the team retained work until 03:00 CEST in the night. In the following days, the fog lifted, making work and transport easier. By 5 September, all bodies had been recovered and the work at the plateau could be terminated. The recovery in the valley was completed two days later. The accident resulted in about 40 journalists staying in Svalbard to cover the story. The Norwegian authority's costs related to the investigation and other activities related to the accident were estimated at 30 million
Norwegian krone (NOK). All identification of people was performed in
Tromsø, as a cooperation between
Troms Police District,
National Criminal Investigation Service, and the
University Hospital of North Norway. By 18 September, all people had been identified, and the bodies were transported to Russia and Ukraine on 20 September after a short memorial in
Tromsøhallen. An autopsy was performed on all crew members, without finding any abnormalities. The official responsibility for investigating the incident lay with the
Air Accident Investigation Board/Norway (AAIB/N), although the investigation and report was a close cooperation with the
Interstate Aviation Committee and to a lesser extent, the
Federal Air Transport Agency. AAIB/N had the primary responsibility for investigations at the crash site, cooperation with the Norwegian police and the
Norwegian Civil Aviation Administration, and writing the report. IAC was responsible for handling the investigations in Russia, the reading of the
cockpit voice recorder, the
flight data recorder, the relationship with Vnukovo Airlines and a test flight. Both agencies agreed that English was to be the language of the final report; English is one of the ICAO languages.
Cause The official investigation concluded that the flight, regarded as a
controlled flight into terrain, was caused by
pilot errors and that no fault was found with the aircraft. Contributing factors causing the accident were lack of a procedure for offset localizer approach for setting approach course on the HSIs. Thus, both HSIs were set incorrectly, which along with the
course deviation indicator hinted that the plane was being blown to the left and needed to adjust course to the right. Because he was in a stressed situation, the navigator set the GPS in the wrong mode. He also did not have sufficient time to recheck his work, allowing mistakes to happen, and his work was not monitored by the pilots. As the navigator was overworked, it was inappropriate for the first officer to transfer the responsibility of lateral control to him. The AFIS air controller has a different role in Norway from in Russia, and the crew were not aware that they were being given information and advice, rather than orders. Communication with AFIS was left with the navigator, which is a breach of norms. Communication between air control and the crew was problematic, since the crew lacked sufficient English skills. The pilot in command had insufficient
crew resource management knowledge. After the crew decided to carry out the approach to Runway 28, a new approach briefing was not accomplished. The aircraft overshot the
approach centerline when turning inbound, because they did not try to intercept the outbound track from Advent. The crew showed a lack of situational awareness following their uncertainty of the aircraft position in relation to LLZ 28, caused by indications on the HSIs. Situational awareness was also reduced because the pilots did not have a chart in front of them at all times. The crew were not aware that they could check the aircraft location in relation to the centerline with a VDF (VHF
direction finder). The crew probably put too much emphasis on the indications displayed by the GPS. The aircraft descended into mountainous terrain without control over the lateral navigation. Despite uncertainty and disagreement in the group, the approach was not abandoned, as the aircraft should have climbed to a safe altitude while the problem was solved. ==Aftermath==