Brazilian Air Force operations in disaster response – a process analysis

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the status of the current Brazilian regulations regarding the Brazilian Air Force (BAF) operations during disaster response compared with the real BAF operations in the landslides that affected the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 2011. This analysis reveals the evolutions and challenges that warrant further discussion, even six years after the deadliest disaster in recent Brazilian history.

Design/methodology/approach

The research is structured using a case study method and a process approach. The data gathered from official BAF reports and professionals and BAF regulations are compared using a theoretical reference process model as a guide.

Findings

The spread of documentations and laws that prescribe the BAF operations during disaster response limit the replication of BAF standards in future disasters. Among the 96 processes described in the theoretical reference process model, 12 processes that are identified in the BAF reports and interviews that address the response to the Rio landslides of 2011 remain unaddressed in the BAF regulations. Considering the BAF expertise, three additional processes are suggested for future consideration in the reference process model that guided this research.

Research limitations/implications

This paper does not discuss the collaborative perspective of BAF operations with other military forces and stakeholders in disaster response.

Practical implications

The findings are indications of improvement in BAF regulations.

Originality/value

In addition to providing an analysis of the military force operations in response to a massive disaster, this paper can also serve as a reference for a benchmark discussion of military operations in disaster response.

Citation

da Costa, N.d.B.O.L., Fontainha, T.C. and Leiras, A. (2017), "Brazilian Air Force operations in disaster response – a process analysis", Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 479-498. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-04-2017-0081