CT NAV admits ‘failure’ but says airport security ‘never questioned’

The NAV Working Commission (CT) acknowledged this Wednesday that “there was a mistake” in the origin of the incidents that occurred at Porto and Ponta Delgada airports, but stressed that “security has never been called into question”.

“NAV, as an air traffic service provider, [seu] the main goal is safety. All actions taken by NAV employees are aimed at ensuring aviation safety, and safety is never called into question. In this case, there was a failure, but despite all the equipment that can exist at the level of air traffic control, there is always a human factor,” the president of the DH company said at the parliamentary hearings.

Heard before the Economics, Public Works, Planning and Housing Commission as part of the PCP parliamentary group’s request for “the safe operation of civil aircraft”, Luis Reis said that “the human factor will always prevail.”

“This needs to be managed – and these tools are being developed – to ensure that the result of human error is as small as possible,” stressed the president of CT at NAV, adding that “the safety that the company provides” is regularly reviewed either by the national aviation regulator or by international authorities such as Eurocontrol.

In a final report released in December 2022, the Cabinet Air and Rail Accident Prevention and Investigation (GPIAAF) concluded there were major air traffic control failures at two airports that authorized takeoffs and landings while vehicles were still present for inspection or runway maintenance.

The first incident took place on the night of 27 April 2021 at Porto Airport involving a cargo Boeing 737-400 operated by ASL Airlines Belgium, and the other took place at Ponta Delgada Airport on 13 May this year involving a TAP A321. .

In terms of “NAV safety parameters in European airspace, we are very well positioned, we are above the European average. There is no need to be afraid of this situation,” the President of NAV CT stressed to the deputies.

Luis Reis indicated that the company has already implemented, for example, the sterilization of operating rooms, preventing, for example, the use of mobile phones, or is adopting several safety recommendations issued by the GPIAAF, including the purchase of equipment to reduce risks.

“I emphasize once again: security will never be questioned. There are elements, albeit insufficient, but necessary to carry out the service at the required level, so that everything goes well. We hope that these new acquisitions for NAV will also make it possible to mitigate the work done by people who have always been in NAV and who were more overworked, and may they do better in the future,” said the Chairman of the NAV Working Commission.

The GPIAAF investigation of two incidents found, for example, that “the barriers put in place by the organization to overcome operator failures in situations like this, namely in terms of operational procedures for determining an occupied runway, were unreliable and an accident occurred in every situation.” managed to avoid only in exceptional circumstances.

The researchers also identified “deficiencies in personnel and shift management that created hidden organizational conditions that contributed to the events.”

The GPIAAF also concluded that there was a “systematic practice” of handling records of controllers’ presence in the control tower at the two airports, as well as “participant amenities” including “controllers and the control tower chief”. “.