The “against everything” crowd

It was 2023 and they had been wanting to install a steel cable, parallel to those of the “Sugarloaf cable cars”, along which some bored little children of mommy-and-daddy would rehearse their suicides, hanging from a pulley (the so-called “zipline”), competing with other nonsense such as jumping off bridges tied by elastic bands around the ankles, riding roller coasters, getting tattoos, in short, things one cannot go back on, almost everyone regrets, or does not confess, or could not care less. It is a warning sign of sanity or bad taste.

In the old days, “tiroleza” was a cheap and easy-to-make carnival costume, with which children looked ridiculous, but mothers were happy for having dressed up their child, as other mothers did. Fashion is fashion, a demand of society.

Hence, for lack of anything to do, groups of little bourgeois types emerge, against and in favor of the so-called “zipline”. It is fashionable to be against something claiming to preserve the environment.

Meanwhile, the airplanes heading to Santos Dumont Airport (SDU) make some neighborhoods of the city’s life hell and no one is bothered or takes sides.

I remember this because the approach of airplanes to SDU from the south side, when the winds so require (landing and takeoff are always against the wind), forces a sharp turn with the aircraft threatening to launch themselves, by centripetal force, onto the Sugarloaf aerial tramway system, therefore also onto the said zipline. If not that far, it will fall on some residence in Urca or on Fort São João, or on the Eleva school, also implemented under protest from people who protest about everything.

The “air corridors” through which airplanes travel are true virtual ducts and were defined long ago (the 1940s?) in such a way as, by organizing airplanes in the air, to minimize the probability of collisions between aircraft. The competence of those who did this is undeniable; air transport boasts the lowest number of incidents per passenger transported.

The maintenance of these “corridors”, almost without changes, has always been defended by the people in charge, for two main reasons: A> one of them seems reasonable: “the pilots are used to them”, presupposes that pilots would be fated to always fly the same routes, which is not true. B> another argument is regrettable, and resembles laziness: it may coincide with some accident, the person responsible for the change may be held responsible, it will be a lot of work and no one “is” being paid for it.

Since nowadays everyone uses GPS by image and flies with a lot of automatic instrumentation, these changes can be much easier and safer. The access “corridor” to SDU, from the south, needs to be changed, not only to free the residents of Laranjeiras, Flamengo, Botafogo and Urca from excessive noise (the turn is made with the engines accelerated to provide lift), but also to reduce risks. The approach by sea and through the entrance of Guanabara Bay would be much smoother.

What is being suggested here is nothing new, the subject has circulated other times, but apparently did not go forward because of opposition from the airlines, which supposedly would spend one more minute of flight from São Paulo to SDU on the approaches, when the wind is in the northern direction. That is, not always. It must not have been only that. First because, being a concession, the State, the granting authority, needs to look after everyone’s interests. On the other hand, the corridor by sea, as happens when takeoff is to the south (landing and takeoff are done against the wind) and the airplanes avoid Sugarloaf to port (to the left, right over the entrance of the bay), works much more smoothly, without noise for the population that pays heavy taxes.

The “non-governmental” entities could and should technically evaluate this issue, much more interesting and more important to society than taking care of some pseudo-suicidal people playing on ziplines. In fact, if anyone wants intense emotions in this city of São Sebastião of ours, they may choose more “root” things, such as, for example, driving along Avenida Brasil.

I write these lines at 11 p.m. on a Wednesday, after visiting a friend who lives between Flamengo, Botafogo and Laranjeiras (on Morro Azul), where the airplanes passed every 3 or 4 minutes, uninterruptedly, and where they begin the tangent of the curve over Botafogo Cove, seeking the other tangent, in the direction of the runway authorized for landing at SDU. I imagine the decibels in Urca and on Morro da Viúva.

In the intervals, when we managed to hear one another, the main subject of the conversation with my friend was the persecution by environmentalists of Petrobras’s drilling on the so-called equatorial margin and the Iberian blackout, apparently related to the intermittent energy generation of wind and solar power, a subject so dear to NGOs and interest groups, which oppose nuclear plants, hydroelectric plants with reservoirs and conventional thermal plants, which have already made other places so rich and developed. Now, when it would be our turn, they convince us not to do anything to save the world, no one knows exactly from what.

No one complains about not cutting down a tree that threatens to fall on children or damages the sidewalk. No one complains about disorderly illegal occupations nor about excess population. Is it only discussed where people think there is some little money to be extorted? Where there is something to get in the way of?

Many NGOs, many interests and many managers proliferating out there hardly ever propose to improve or correct anything. They only want to prohibit, to make things difficult. When they are in favor of something, it is to harm others. Why would that be? What for would that be? On whose behalf would they be?

Miguel Fernández y Fernández, engineer, chronicler and columnist, member of the National Academy of Engineering and of the Institute of Engineering # written on Apr 30, 2025 R2026 Jan Rf, 5,407 characters.