We cannot allow quantity without quality while preserving lives
Três dias após a morte da cantora Marília Mendonça em um acidente com táxi aéreo, o Brasil se viu diante de uma questão que transcende a burocracia: como abrir os céus sem multiplicar os riscos? O Projeto 2166/21, que criaria uma nova categoria de transporte aéreo individual remunerado, revelou uma tensão antiga entre o desejo de democratizar serviços essenciais e a responsabilidade de proteger quem os utiliza. Em um país de dimensões continentais, onde o avião pequeno é muitas vezes a única ligação com o mundo, a resposta a essa pergunta carrega peso de vida e morte.
- A tragédia que matou Marília Mendonça e mais quatro pessoas em 5 de novembro pairou sobre o debate como uma advertência silenciosa — se uma operação legal pode terminar assim, o que garante uma categoria ainda menos regulada?
- Sindicatos de pilotos e empresas de táxi aéreo rejeitaram o projeto, enxergando nele não uma solução de segurança, mas uma porta dos fundos para legalizar o transporte clandestino que já opera nas sombras.
- Lacunas técnicas alarmaram os críticos: o projeto não define limite de horas de trabalho dos pilotos, nem quantas pessoas podem operar a mesma aeronave, criando um arcabouço que parece completo na superfície e frágil por dentro.
- O governo federal, em movimento aparentemente contrário, avança com o programa 'Voo Simples', apostando na desregulamentação e em regras mais leves para atrair novos operadores ao mercado de aviação regional.
- O impasse revela duas visões irreconciliáveis: para uns, regular o que já existe ilegalmente é o caminho da segurança; para outros, é acelerar em direção ao precipício com a bênção do Estado.
Na segunda-feira de novembro, enquanto o Brasil ainda processava o choque da morte de Marília Mendonça, o setor de aviação se reuniu para debater o Projeto 2166/21 — uma proposta que criaria o Tarp, Transporte Aéreo Remunerado de Passageiros Individual. Na prática, pilotos certificados com aeronaves de até seis assentos e 310 cavalos de potência poderiam transportar passageiros pagantes, funcionando como um 'Uber do ar'. O deputado Marcelo Freitas, autor do projeto, defendeu a medida como forma de levar serviços aéreos a regiões remotas e trazer segurança a um mercado que já opera à margem da lei.
Mas a audiência na Comissão de Transportes da Câmara expôs fraturas profundas. O presidente do Sindicato Nacional dos Aeronautas rejeitou a premissa: para ele, o projeto não combate o transporte clandestino — ele o legaliza. Representantes das empresas de táxi aéreo foram além, apontando lacunas técnicas graves: ausência de limite de jornada para pilotos, indefinição sobre quantos operadores podem compartilhar uma mesma aeronave, e falta de estrutura real de fiscalização. A alternativa proposta pelo setor era modernizar o sistema existente, reduzindo custos operacionais e renovando frotas, especialmente na Amazônia.
O acidente de três dias antes dava urgência ao debate. O deputado que presidia a audiência invocou a tragédia diretamente: 'Não podemos permitir quantidade sem qualidade.' A aeronave que caiu era de uma empresa regularmente registrada — o que levantava a pergunta inevitável sobre o que uma categoria ainda menos estruturada poderia oferecer de diferente.
O governo, por sua vez, sinalizava em direção oposta. O secretário nacional de aviação civil anunciou que uma medida provisória chamada 'Voo Simples' seria enviada ao Congresso para reduzir barreiras burocráticas e atrair novos operadores. A Anac desenvolvia uma abordagem regulatória menos punitiva e mais orientada a resultados. O que ficou no ar, ao fim do dia, foi a dúvida central: o Brasil encontraria um caminho do meio, ou a pressão para expandir os serviços aéreos superaria a capacidade de mantê-los seguros?
On a Monday in early November, Brazil's aviation sector gathered to debate a proposal that would fundamentally reshape how small aircraft operate in the country. The bill in question—Project 2166/21—would create a new category of air transport called Tarp, short for Individual Paid Passenger Air Transport. In practical terms, it would allow licensed pilots who own small aircraft to legally carry paying passengers, much like ride-sharing apps work on the ground. The planes would be limited to six seats and 310 horsepower. The author, Deputy Marcelo Freitas from Minas Gerais, argued the regulation would expand air taxi services to remote regions while bringing safety to a market already operating in the shadows.
But the hearing before the Chamber's Transportation Commission revealed deep fractures in how Brazil's aviation community views this path forward. Ondino Cavalheiro Neto, president of the National Pilots Union, rejected the framing entirely. He saw the bill not as a safety measure but as a backdoor legalization of clandestine air transport—the very thing it claimed to prevent. The union representing air taxi companies, represented by consultant Raul Marinho, raised technical objections that cut to the heart of the safety question. The bill left crucial details undefined: how long pilots could work in a day, how many people could operate the same aircraft as auxiliaries, what oversight would actually exist. Marinho's organization preferred a different path—modernizing the existing air taxi system by reducing operational costs and encouraging fleet renewal, particularly for remote areas like the Amazon.
The timing of the debate carried weight. Just three days earlier, on November 5th, a chartered air taxi had crashed near a small city in Minas Gerais, killing five people including the singer Marília Mendonça. The aircraft had been operating legally, registered to a legitimate air taxi company in Goiás. Deputy Bosco Costa, who chaired the hearing, invoked the tragedy directly. "We cannot allow quantity without quality," he said. "We need something that improves quality while preserving lives." The crash hung over the room like a question mark: if a legal operation could end this way, what safeguards would a new, less-regulated category actually provide?
The federal government's position suggested a different priority. Ronei Glanzamann, the national secretary for civil aviation, explained that current regulations prohibit privately registered aircraft from carrying paying passengers. When an owner flies alone or with friends, the risk is theirs to bear. But the moment money changes hands and strangers board, the liability calculus shifts. The government, however, was moving toward deregulation rather than tightening rules. Glanzamann announced that a provisional measure called "Voo Simples"—Simple Flight—would soon be sent to Congress, designed to reduce bureaucratic barriers and attract new operators to the air taxi market. The Anac, Brazil's aviation authority, was developing a new regulatory approach: less punitive, more focused on performance outcomes. The agency had recently authorized apps that let passengers book empty seats on flights operated by licensed air taxi companies using larger aircraft.
What emerged from the hearing was a collision between two visions. One side saw regulation as a way to bring safety and legitimacy to services people were already using illegally. The other saw it as a dangerous shortcut that would multiply the very risks it promised to contain. The bill's requirements—300 hours of flight experience, commercial pilot certification, aircraft under 310 horsepower—sounded reasonable in isolation. But without defined work-hour limits, without clarity on who could operate the aircraft, without the infrastructure of oversight that larger operators maintained, critics argued the framework was incomplete. The government's parallel push toward deregulation suggested it was betting on market forces and lighter-touch rules to solve problems that, three days before this hearing, had killed five people in a legal aircraft operated by a credentialed company. The question hanging over the debate was whether Brazil would find a middle path or whether the pressure to expand air services would outpace the capacity to keep them safe.
Citas Notables
This bill aims to legalize clandestine air transport under the pretense of safety by defining aircraft size and pilot experience— Ondino Cavalheiro Neto, president of the National Pilots Union
We cannot allow quantity without quality. We need something that improves quality while preserving lives— Deputy Bosco Costa, referencing the Marília Mendonça crash
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does a bill that seems to just formalize what's already happening face such strong resistance?
Because the unions see a difference between regulating something that exists and creating a legal framework for something that's been deliberately prohibited. Right now, illegal air transport happens in the shadows. This bill would drag it into the light but with fewer safeguards than the existing taxi operators maintain.
What's the actual safety gap the unions are worried about?
The bill doesn't specify how many hours a pilot can work in a day, or how many different people can operate the same aircraft. Those aren't small details—they're the difference between a pilot who's rested and one who's exhausted, between accountability and chaos.
The government says this will bring services to remote areas. Isn't that a real benefit?
It is. But the existing air taxi companies say they can do that too, if the government helps them reduce costs instead of creating a parallel system with lower standards. The question is whether you need to lower the bar to expand access.
The singer's crash happened in a legal operation. How does that factor in?
It's the thing no one can ignore in the room. It shows that being legal doesn't guarantee safety. So when you're about to create a new legal category with fewer rules, people remember that crash and ask: what are we actually gaining?
Is the government trying to deregulate or regulate?
Both, in a way. They're pushing deregulation through the Voo Simples program to reduce bureaucracy, but they're also considering this new Tarp category. It's not clear those two things are compatible—one opens the door wider, the other tries to define who can walk through it.
What happens next?
The bill is still in committee. The government will send its provisional measure on deregulation. The unions will keep pushing back. And somewhere in that process, Brazil has to decide whether it wants more flights or safer flights, or if it can actually have both.