Introduction
Aerodrome safety is an essential part of overall air security, as it concerns such cornerstone procedures as take-off and landing. A considerable number of accidents happen during those, so ensuring that the airside is secure is crucial. For instance, a major accident in Brazil occurred due to inadequate safety measures exacerbated by weather conditions and the human factor. Although the tragic situation prompted a response from the airport to enhance security, the issue persisted until as recently as 2020. The following report will attempt to analyze the circumstances of the original accident, investigate the current state of affairs, and propose changes that would lead to further improvements.
Objectives
- Analyze the airport conditions present during the accident (2007) and discuss how they contributed to its outcome.
- Assent the current situation at São Paulo–Congonhas Airport and compare it to 2007.
- Suggest improvement measures based on the obtained information and identify
Summary
During the accident, the airport had major security issues concerning the maneuvering area, the lighting, and the layout. First of all, the runways were put into operation prematurely, without the grooving, although the original intent was to prevent situations similar to what happened by reducing water accumulation (Aviation Safety Network, 2021, para. 6). Pavement grooving almost eliminates hydroplaning, so its absence could have contributed to the vehicle’s excursion (Pasindu, 2020). Another significant factor is luminosity, which was also absent during the landing (Aviation Safety Network, 2021, para. 28). As São Paulo is situated in the Southern Hemisphere, summer months have shorter day longevity, which could be true for July 17, when the accident happened. At 18:54, the luminosity was necessary for the pilots to make weighted decisions regarding the landing procedure. The airport also had an issue with a petrol station being situated close to the warehouse with which the plane eventually collided. Such an oversight is a critical safety point, as incidents involving vehicle excursions are not a rare occurrence (Kuklev et al., 2019). Thus, the aerodrome conditions considerably contributed to the circumstances surrounding the accident.
As mentioned, other factors could have affected the outcome, but they seem secondary to the state of the aerodrome security, as maintaining it was crucial in preventing the disaster. For instance, the weather conditions on that day were adverse, and the runway was wet as a result (Aviation Safety Network, 2021, para. 4). Meanwhile, it appears that there were no issues until the moment of landing, so the environmental factor could not be as significant as the pilots’ and the infrastructure’s condition. The former was apparently in psychological distress due to the incomplete runway and the absence of guidance, causing them to make the wrong assessment of the situation. Therefore, it is likely that under different circumstances, their action could have been more organized. Moreover, the airport had several fatal accidents before the one under consideration, so it is sensible to attribute the brunt of the responsibility to the inadequate security measures (Aviation Safety Network, 2018, para. 1). Overall, even if other factors were present at that time, proper adherence to safety standards could have alleviated them.
Many things have changed since 2007 for São Paulo–Congonhas Airport. First of all, it no longer hosts international flights, being restricted to domestic operations (Visnevskyte, 2020). It has also set a limit to their number per hour, as low as 30 for narrow-bodied aircraft (Visnevskyte, 2020). Additionally, being in the center of a major city causes such a problem as aircraft noise, which has environmental, economic, and health implications (Scatolini and Alves, 2016). While those factors do not directly impact operations, they may affect the airport’s capability to implement security measures, as it will face complaints and reputation damage. As far as the current movement area is concerned, the airport does not seem to have any critical errors in the layout. The landing distance has been decreased to 1400 meters to provide more space for a security area (Casagrande, 2020). Altogether, it appears that several appropriate decisions have been made regarding safety enhancements, although they do not address the possible underlying reason for ongoing issues.
The pandemic revealed several safety hazards, which probably would not have been addressed otherwise. For instance, the airport had a long-standing issue with the main runway, the same one where the tragedy occurred in 2007 (Casagrande, 2020). It was in dire need of repair, but it was only after the passenger flow dropped that the idea was considered, simultaneously with removing the airport from the national airway reorganization (Casagrande, 2020). The construction works lasted for one month, from August 5 to September 5, and their investment is estimated to be at 11.5 million reais, which is equivalent to $2.3 million (ANAC, 2020). Other than renovating the runway superficially, Infraero also equipped it with the technology allowing for a better drainage capacity, increased tire adhesion, and a reduction in hydroplaning (ANAC, 2020). In other words, the administration addressed the underlying cause of the accident only 13 years later. Perhaps, the possible financial implications of halting operations for a considerable period of time made the airport’s management wary of undertaking the works. However, other initiatives appear superfluous in comparison, such as the status demotion, and damaging to the brand.
2020 also saw irregular operations due to the pandemic and underlined construction works. The number of flights dropped drastically after the pandemic started by 98%, which is 11% more than what São Paulo/Guarulhos, the airport’s main competitor, experienced (Campos and Lopes, 2020). In April, the airport had approximately 6 operations per day, and it only managed to recover in September, after the main runway construction was completed. However, the renewed interest in air transportation amidst the pandemic also led to an increased risk of infection, as not all passengers adhered to the regulations (Aldano and Vaz, 2020). The airport’s domestic status somewhat mitigated the danger, but the staff and passenger safety was threatened regardless. It may seem that it does not directly impact operational safety, especially with the implemented aerodrome changes. Still, the human factor is significant, and its role in the initial accident should not be overlooked.
Overall, compared to 2007, the airport has improved considerably as far as aerodrome safety is concerned. The passenger flow and the number of operations have decreased, the maneuvering area was optimized to make the safety zone more pronounced, and the layout, including the landside and the airside, was slightly reconstructed. On the other hand, the lighting situation remains unclear, and whether it has been altered mirroring the runway length change is also undisclosed. Furthermore, testing the repaired runway regarding its safety soundness is complicated by the pandemic, as the amount of operations is insufficient to determine whether the technology successfully reduced hydroplaning and accelerated water drainage. The aerodrome’s security is also hindered by COVID-19, potentially affecting the staff in charge of maintaining the airside and the pilots, for which the infection could be a critical factor during flights. To summarize everything, more improvements are still needed to address what remains unresolved from 2007 and the new challenges.
After analyzing the 2007 accident and the current situation, it becomes evident that while the necessary measures have been implemented, they are not sufficient to make the airport completely sound. The pandemic presents an opportunity to consider the options while the passenger flow is low and take action once the situation subdues. The following suggestions are relatively radical, and it is impossible to judge whether they will work before the implementation. Therefore, the measures that should indicate their validity will be additionally provided.
A feasible solution is to address the reasons for the errors made during the accident and the current obstacles. For instance, the premature implementation of the runway and the absence of lighting in 2007 could be linked with the attempts to earn or save financial resources at the expense of safety. Thus, the airport’s funding should be overhauled, and the expenditure rates should also be closely analyzed. Operational issues do not exist in a vacuum, as the quality of management directly impacts the decision-making regarding such instances. The lighting system should be replaced according to the current movement area length, and it can be either MALSF and MALS. Moreover, its usage, especially during the nighttime and shorter-day periods, is to be closely supervised. Similarly, the pavement’s condition will also be subject to meticulous monitoring to discover abnormalities and determine whether the technology targeting tire adhesion and hydroplaning works appropriately. COVID-19 regulations for the passengers and the staff should also be more robust while the infection still poses a danger. Altogether, the measures should minimize the number of accidents and entirely prevent major ones.
The ultimate value representing the proposal’s success is the number of operational accidents caused by hazardous aerodrome conditions within a set period, compared to the previous timeframe. However, performing minor measures addressing particular elements of the proposed changes can impact the overall result. For instance, it is possible to track whether the lighting is active when it should be and determine who is responsible for its late or inactive running. Checking the customer’s temperature is also an established procedure, although asking for a test confirming the negative status or performing it on-site is more reliable (Fox, 2020). Keeping the statistic of admitted passengers with a particular status will be instrumental in determining whether the initiative is successful. As for the runway, measuring the speed of drainage and other relevant characteristics may show if the technology works as intended or needs some tweaking. Altogether, those measures will allow the staff to identify issues regularly and immediately address them without waiting for an accident to happen to drive changes, and the originally indicated value will be lower.
Another valid solution that will address both previous and current obstacles is to relocate the airport. It will be a costly initiative, and many factors, such as site selection, the new design, and safety regulations, will have to be considered. However, by proceeding with the proposal, a safer and more remote location can be used, allowing the airport to resolve the persisting problems. Being in the city center might be convenient for several reasons, such as spending fewer resources on marketing, but having a constant and uncontrollable stream of passengers has its disadvantages, as evident by the recent COVID-19 situation. Moreover, the aircraft noise issue mentioned during the current situation analysis is only likely to be resolved by relocation. While it may seem wasteful, considering that a significant sum of money was invested in repairing the runway, the airport can still be used for other purposes than civil aviation.
Following the procedure, several opportunities will become available for São Paulo–Congonhas. The population will no longer base their airport choice on proximity, and other aspects, such as safety, infrastructure, and service might become more relevant. The competition with São Paulo/Guarulhos Airport will facilitate the changes and shift the focus to implementing improvements to seem a better alternative. The domestic status may still contribute to a bias towards São Paulo–Congonhas, so it can be reconsidered if the updated safety level allows it. As mentioned in the current situation analysis, restricting several operational aspects is a direct answer to a series of accidents, but relocating the airport may indicate a clean slate. However, before attempting the relocation, it might be useful to survey the local population regarding the decision. Despite the issues, the citizens may find the airport’s current location advantageous, and the initiative will require more funds allocated to marketing to build a new client base. In the case of relocation, the new opportunities will be accompanied by certain losses.
The measures to determine the initiative’s success and impact on aerodrome security will mostly mirror those described in the first proposal. It will also be instrumental to regularly rate the pavement based on individual operations, and all the necessary markings should also be added. As the original airport hosted narrow-bodied aircraft, it would probably be reasonable not to change it to make the standards consistent and ensure continuity. It is also crucial to follow The Target Level of Safety while constructing the airport and measure the Level of Service. The latter might not directly impact aerodrome security, but it will serve as an important value for the competition and influence the new airport’s public perception. Both safety and service should be high-quality to succeed in the competitive industry.
The two suggested proposals are complementary and do not contradict each other. The second one is riskier, as relocating the airport requires significant investments and leads to losing the original audience, but it might prove safer in the long run. Both initiatives target improved security and underline the measures necessary to reach the goal and determine whether they work as intended. The new airport might have other issues to consider, but the underlined procedures are more or less universal, so it will not be a waste of resources to perform them. Regardless of the chosen proposal, the airport’s safety should increase, and accidents related to the aerodrome factor will drop dramatically or halt indefinitely if the measures are meticulously implemented.
Conclusion
This report described São Paulo–Congonhas Airport’s safety conditions during its deadliest accident and 2020 and proposed changes targeting the prevalent hazards. According to the analysis, 2007 saw several security issues, including the runway condition, lighting, and layout composition. By 2020, most of those points had been addressed, but a new set of challenges occurred, including COVID-19, which allowed the runway reconstruction to happen but affected operations. The suggested proposals imply either addressing the issues on the existing airport or relocating it, as some obstacles cannot be overcome otherwise. Overall, both options should guarantee safety improvements and positively impact Brazilian airway transportation.
Reference List
Aldano, M. and Vaz, L. (2020) Cumbica e Congonhas registram filas de passageiros, aglomeração e falta de distanciamento em aeroportos de SP a 2 dias do Natal. Web.
ANAC (2020) Pista principal do Aeroporto de Congonhas será reformada. Web.
Aviation Safety Network (2018) São Paulo-Congonhas Airport, SP profile. Web.
Aviation Safety Network (2021) Airbus A320. Web.
Campos, A.P. and Lopes, M. (2020) Aeroporto de Congonhas tem queda de 98% em voos durante pandemia do novo coronavirus. Web.
Casagrande, V. (2020) Aeroporto mais disputado do paÃs, Congonhas é abandonado durante crise. Web.
Fox, A. (2020) ‘Airports that offer COVID-19 testing on-site for travelers’, Travel and Leisure, Web.
Kuklev, E.A. et al. (2019) Aviation system risks and safety. Singapore: Springer.
Pasindu, H.R. (2020) ‘Analytical evaluation of the impact of groove deterioration on runway frictional performance’, Transportation Research Procedia, 48, pp. 3814-3823. Web.
Scatolini, F. and Alves, C.J.P. (2016) ‘Background noise analysis in urban airport surroundings of Brazilian cities, Congonhas Airport, São Paulo’, Revista de Saúde Pública, 50, pp. 69-78. Web.
Visnevskyte, E. (2020) Situation in South America’s busiest airports. Web.