terça-feira, 29 de setembro de 2009

U.S. reporter faces 'insult' suit in Brazil air crash aftermath

U.S. reporter faces 'insult' suit in Brazil air crash aftermath

New York, September 29, 2009—U.S. freelance journalist Joe Sharkey, who covered a 2006 plane crash in Brazil in which he was a passenger, faces an onerous civil defamation suit for comments he said were wrongly attributed to him. On the third anniversary of the accident, the Committee to Protect Journalists calls on Brazilian judicial authorities to dismiss the case, which is based on the tenuous claim that the comments insulted the nation of Brazil.

Sharkey, a freelance reporter who contributes regularly to The New York Times and other U.S. outlets, told CPJ that he was served with the complaint on September 16 of this year although the lawsuit was filed in Brazil in 2008. The plaintiff is identified as Rosane Gutjhar, a resident of Curitiba in southern Brazil, who claims that Sharkey offended Brazil’s honor in comments made on the journalist’s blog and in interviews with international media following the crash, according to legal documents reviewed by CPJ.

Gutjhar is asking for a public retraction and 500,000 reals (US$279,850) in damages, Sharkey said. Gutjhar’s suit is based on a provision of Brazilian law that allows private citizens to claim damages for perceived insults against national honor. Such a broad standard for insult is uncommon in the region, CPJ research shows.

Specifically, the plaintiff claims that Sharkey insulted Brazil’s dignity by calling it “archaic” and its citizens “idiots.” But Sharkey said he did not write the comments cited in Gutjhar’s lawsuit. In a letter to CPJ, Sharkey said the quotes cited in the lawsuit can be traced to reader comments published on the Brazilian news Web site Brazzil, which he said were falsely attributed to him.

“We believe that that the suit against Joe Sharkey is unfounded as it is based on commentary wrongly attributed to the reporter,” said Carlos Lauría, CPJ Americas senior program coordinator. “Brazilian judicial authorities should dismiss this case. Sharkey has the right to report on this tragic accident and voice his opinion on the ongoing investigation.”

On September 29, 2006, a mid-air collision killed Gutjhar’s husband and 153 other passengers traveling on a Brazilian commercial airliner that crashed with a U.S. business jet at 37,000 feet (11,000 meters) above the Amazon, according to press reports. Sharkey was aboard the business jet with two pilots and four other passengers, all of whom survived after an emergency landing in the jungle, the reporter told CPJ.

According to local and international press reports, Brazilian authorities opened a criminal negligence investigation against the two pilots flying the U.S. business jet. The pilots were detained in Brazil for two months before being allowed to return to the United States, according to news reports. They are now being tried in absentia. An investigation by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board pointed to the Brazilian air traffic control system as the probable cause of the crash, according to press reports.

Immediately following the collision, Sharkey reported firsthand for the Times, and gave a series of interviews to U.S. and international outlets as soon as he returned to the United States. He has vigorously criticized Brazilian authorities on his blog and in interviews, characterizing the air traffic control system as very poor.

CPJ research shows that businessmen, politicians, and public officials have filed thousands of lawsuits in recent years against news outlets and journalists as a way to strain their financial resources and force them to halt their criticism. The practice is so common that it’s known as the “industry of compensation.” The lawsuits are filed in a politicized climate in which lower court judges routinely interpret Brazilian law in ways that restrict press freedom, CPJ has found.

“The case again Joe Sharkey and the onslaught of civil and criminal complaints against Brazilian journalists are unbecoming of a robust democracy such as Brazil,” Lauría said. “Brazil must update its defamation laws in a way that protects individual reputations while ensuring a healthy debate of public issues.”

segunda-feira, 28 de setembro de 2009

Sharkey, Who Wrote About Air Crash for 'NY Times,' Now Faces Lawsuit for 'Defamation' -- in Brazil

'Libel Tourism': Sharkey, Who Wrote About Air Crash for 'NY Times,' Now Faces Lawsuit for 'Defamation' -- in Brazil

By Joe Sharkey

Published: September 25, 2009 12:40 PM ET

NEW YORK Last week, I was served at my home in New Jersey with an extraordinary lawsuit charging me with defamation in Brazil for things I allegedly wrote or said in the United States.

The lawsuit cites my reporting and commentary in the days and months after a Sept. 29, 2006 midair collision at 37,000 feet over the Amazon between a Brazilian 737 and a business jet, on which I was a passenger. All 154 on the 737 died; the seven of us on the badly damaged business jet made an emergency landing in the jungle.

The suit is a new twist in a phenomenon called "libel tourism," in which typically a foreign national claiming to be offended by something written in the United States travels to a pliant court in another country and obtains a libel judgment against the American defendant, even though the allegedly offensive speech would be fully protected under the U.S. Constitution.

The most prominent victim of “libel tourism” so far been Rachel Ehrenfeld, a New York writer and academic expert on funding of Islamic terrorism, who lost a defamation case filed against her in Britain by a rich Saudi businessman and alleged terrorism financier, now dead, who claimed he was libeled in her 2003 book “Funding Evil.” As a result, Dr. Ehrenfeld cannot travel to Britain.

The twist in my case is that the plaintiff, a Brazilian citizen and a widow of one of those killed in the collision, was never mentioned in anything I said or wrote after the crash. I had never heard of her till the suit was filed.

The suit claims to rest on an unusual Brazilian law that any citizen can claim damages for any alleged insult to the dignity or honor of Brazil in any case involving a crime – and in this instance, Brazil had been quick in 2006 to charge the American pilots of the business jet with criminal negligence. (The two, Joseph Lepore and Jan Paladino, remain on criminal trial in Brazil, in absentia).

The complaint against me states that the plaintiff “feels discriminated against” by a defense of the American pilots that I began in television and other media interviews starting a day after my initial account of the crash ran on page one of the New York Times on Oct. 3, 1006 – the day after I was released from Brazil.

The complaint is directed against a personal blog I started, and not the Times -- though the demand for relief includes apologies in the Times and on all of the TV and radio outlets that interviewed me after the crash.

What was my real offense here? Well, as the only survivor of the crash who has been free to speak (the other six are under various legal constraints) I stood up for the pilots, who were clearly being scapegoated in an intensely anti-American atmosphere in the Brazilian media and public arena.

In several national television and radio interviews right after my Times account ran, I mentioned that international pilots had been telling me that air space over the Brazilian Amazon was notorious for “dead zones,” where radar and radio communications don’t work, and that Brazilian air-traffic control – run by the country’s Air Force – was famously not always up to international standards.

These comments ignited a firestorm in Brazil. I was denounced publicly by Brazilian officials, including the nation’s defense minister, who asserted days after the crash that pilots of the business jet had been executing reckless “aerial maneuvers” over the Amazon to impress the “American journalist” – i.e. me. (I was merely along as a hitchhiker on the 13-seat on the plane, which had just been delivered in Brazil to a Long Island charter company, while on a freelance assignment for a business-aviation trade magazine).

While being vilified in Brazil, I was getting a barrage of hate e-mails and even death threats from Brazil. Day after day, crazy conspiracy theories were repeated in Brazilian media and among bloggers there. One asserted that the American pilots had turned off equipment to avoid detection in the skies because they were transporting drugs for the CIA.

Even the lawsuit against me prominently alludes to one of these absurd conspiracy theories. The complaint states: “There is a rumor that the defendant made the ill-fated journey with the intent of writing an article about the Amazon, intending to demonstrate that the air space belongs to no one, the reason for this [sic] is he asked the pilots to turn off the device that would allow them to be detected in that space, and this is why he feels such a responsibility to clear the pilots of all blame for the accident.”

There is no doubt that posts on the blog I started to report and comment on the crash were forceful. I argued intensely, citing a growing body of evidence and world airline industry opinion, that it was a grave mistake for the Brazilians to rush to criminalize an aviation accident, because doing so impedes free and honest investigation.

The blog was provocative, but the accuracy of the reporting has never been challenged, and the commentary was always about Brazilian public authorities, never private citizens. (The complaint also cites me for giving offense to a Brazilian-born aviation pioneer Santos Dumont, who died in 1932, but in fact I wrote favorably about him. The offense was that I noted that his aviation accomplishments mostly occurred in France, not Brazil.)

A few times over the 15 months that blog was active, I did post stock photos of the Keystone Kops and the Three Stooges to illustrate what I regarded as particularly egregious misconduct by Brazilian authorities. In hindsight, frankly, I wish I had not gone that far in ridicule. As Boss Tweed said of Thomas Nast’s savage editorial cartoons, it’s “them damned pictures” that hurt.

Weirdly, by the way, the complaint almost exclusively cites things, often in less-than-standard English, I never wrote or said about Brazilian authorities. I did not refer to the country as “most idiot of idiots,” for example, nor did I ever write or say that “Brazil is a country of Carnaval, soccer, bananas, thieves and prostitutes” -– although in one post I did mention Brazilian media accounts that a particularly bumptious police official involved in the scapegoating of the pilots had earlier in his career once been kidnapped and locked in the trunk of his police car by three teenaged female prostitutes.

Actually, nearly all of the allegedly offensive words and phrases cited in the complaint evidently were scraped from comments on other Web sites, in Brazil, that linked to my blog, or from messages between people who made comments on my blog in Brazil.

It’s important to remember that I always expressed deep grief and sympathy toward the relatives of the victims of that crash, who I thought were extremely ill-served by Brazilian authorities who were more intent on finding a scapegoat than on improving aviation safety.

The cause of the crash is not in any serious dispute. Last year, the highly respected U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, which had been involved in the investigation because an American-owned aircraft was involved, finally issued its report. Evidence “strongly supports the conclusion that this accident was caused by N600XL [the American jet] and Gol1907 [the Brazilian airliner] following ATC [air traffic control] clearances which directed them to operate in opposite directions on the same airway at same altitude, resulting in a mid-air collision.”

The Amazon crash was big international news for a few weeks, but three years later it has n an event that has mostly faded from memory in the U.S. For me, of course, it has always been current, and the arrival of that man at the door with the court papers made it even more so.

In short, the Brazilians are seeking to ruin me financially and, it seems to me, to inflame the intense public anti-Americanism that accompanied this incident from day one. Next Tuesday, the third anniversary of the crash, a Brazilian prosecutor against the American pilots, along with the plaintiff in the suit against me and other relatives of the dead, are holding a public hearing in Brasilia to discuss the “progress of the criminal cases,” according to media accounts.

Meanwhile, the New York City law firm Grant, Herrman, Schwartz & Klinger, which dispatched the process server to me, has been retained by the plaintiff’s representatives in Brazil to enforce a judgment against me in the United States. There has been no trial or verdict yet in my case, but the judgment in Brazil seems to be a foregone conclusion.

That’s where this becomes a very important issue of free speech in America. If Brazil can claim a ruinous judgment in the U.S. against an American citizen who has "offended" that nation, what is to stop any other country – Iran? Libya? North Korea? – from trying the same tactic? And it could be directed not just against a journalist or blogger, but also an academic, a researcher, an analyst, an entertainer, a casual traveler who writes something that is deemed insufficiently respectful.

There is legislation in Congress called the "Free Speech Protection Act of 2009" that would protect Americans from foreign judgments in these kinds of cases, but it has been stalled for about a year and does not appear to be going anywhere. Also, several states, New York among them, have passed laws that prohibit enforcement of foreign judgments against citizens sued for defamation, in cases involving speech that would be protected in the U.S.

Dr. Ehrenfeld, who lost that lawsuit in Britain filed by a Saudi terrorism financier, is protected in New York State against the enforcement of the judgment against her. I am not protected in New Jersey, though State Senator Loretta Weinberg has sponsored a bill similar to New York’s. In most states, you would not be protected.

Everyone who writes something negative about a paranoid foreign country remains exposed. The process-server hired for a foreign government can jump out of your front-yard bushes when you least expect it.

Joe Sharkey (gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com) is a freelance writer who regularly writes for The New York Times, among other publications.

Audiência em Brasilia marce 3 anos de tragédia com avião da Gol em MT

Audiência em Brasília marca 3 anos da tragédia com avião da Gol em MT
Folha Online

A tragédia com o voo 1907 da Gol --que matou 154 pessoas em setembro de 2006-- completa três anos na próxima terça-feira (29). Para marcar a data, as famílias das vítimas promovem no dia uma audiência pública em Brasília (DF), programada para ocorrer às 14h30 na Câmara Federal.

Segundo a Associação dos Parentes e Amigos das Vítimas do Voo 1907, o objetivo do evento é discutir e analisar o andamento das investigações sobre a queda do Boeing da Gol. A ideia também é cobrar agilidade nos dois processos criminais sobre o caso, que continuam em andamento na Justiça.

Foram convocados para participar da audiência o Ministério Público Federal em Mato Grosso --que em maio deste ano ofereceu nova denúncia contra os pilotos do jato Legacy, que colidiu com o avião da Gol; o chefe do Cenipa (Centro de Investigação e Prevenção de Acidentes Aeronáuticos), brigadeiro Jorge Kersul Filho; e o perito Roberto Peterka, responsável pelos dois laudos que apontava falhas dos pilotos Joe Lepore e Jan Paul Paladino, do Legacy; além do assistente de acusação Dante DAquino.

Em 2008, os pilotos do jato Legacy da empresa americana ExcelAire foram absolvidos pela Justiça brasileira. A Procuradoria e as famílias recorreram da decisão, que ainda depende de análise do TRF (Tribunal Regional Federal) em Brasília.

"É com o coração angustiado que esperamos que nosso recurso seja aceito e os pilotos voltem a responder na justiça de Sinop (MT) por todos os seus crimes", afirmou na ocasião Rosane Guthjar, viúva de uma das vítimas. Rosane também deverá acompanhar a audiência.

Acidente

O Boeing da Gol que fazia o voo 1907 ia de Manaus (AM) para o Rio com previsão de fazer uma escala em Brasília (DF). Ao sobrevoar a região Norte do país ele bateu em o Legacy da empresa de taxi aéreo americana ExcelAire.

Os destroços do Boeing caíram em uma mata fechada, a 200 km do município de Peixoto de Azevedo (MT). Mesmo avariado, o Legacy, que transportava sete pessoas, conseguiu pousar em segurança em uma base na serra do Cachimbo (PA).

O acidente expôs a fragilidade do controle aéreo brasileiro. O assunto deflagrou ainda aberturas de CPI (Comissões Parlamentares de Inquéritos) e investigações da Polícia Federal e Cenipa (Centro de Investigação e Prevenção de Acidentes Aeronáuticos).

Gol Accident: search for justice is nearly three years old

Gol Accidente: search for justice is nearly three years old

Families of the 154 victims press to achieve judgement of the Americans who were on the Legacy jet before the statute of limitations runs out

Renata Mariz

Getting over the grief, reorganizing life without the deceased family member, reading the accident report, among other mishaps, are stages overcome by relatives of the 154 victims of the disaster with the Gol plane. However, the aviation tragedy that is reaching íts third anniversary next Tuesday, seems far from coming to a conclusion in the courts. The fear, now, is that the slowness of the courts will bring with it the expiration of punibility for the crimes for which the pilots of the Legacy - the aircraft which collided with the Brazilian airline's Boeing - are responding in Brazil. “The principal accusation, of an attack on the safety of air traffic, expires in eight years, considering the proportions of the crime. But the defense is stretching it out by calling witnesses from the United States and Switzerland", complained Dante d’Aquino, assistant to the prosecution hired by the families of the victims. Lawyer Theo Dias, who is defending Joe Lepore and Jan Paladino, rebuts the argument. “They are North American citizens, it would be inevitable that the witnesses, not only people who were on the flight but workers who can testify as to their competence, would be foreigners”, he emphasizes.

Dias says he believe in a rapid end to the case, before the charges go stale. “It's clear that this is a very delicate question which involves technical knowledge, but I affirm with conviction that this case will be over in less than eight years.”
Besides the Legacy pilots, responding for crimes related to the accident in the Federal Court of Sinop (MT), there area where the airplane crashed, are air traffic controllers Jomarcelo Fernandes dos Santos and Lucivando Tibúrcio de Alencar.

Besides the two, in the Military Courts, also being tried are Felipe Santos dos Reis and Leandro José Santos de Barros, also air traffic controllers. Although they are answering as defendants in the cases, the Air Force professionals are not targets of the victims' families.

Gol was consulted about the number of settlements already reached, as well as the terms of the negotiations, but did not supply the information to reporters. Mellina Galvanin, who represents the families of nine victims, affirmed that the airline has been inflexible on amounts. “For non-material damages the indemnity established is about 350 monthly minimum salaries [about US$90,000]. As to the financial damages, the amount varies according to the age and income of the person at the time of the disaster. Someone who earned R$ 4,000 per month [about US$29,000 per annum] for example, and was 30 years old, the total value is about R$ 460,000 [US$256,000].

This is absurd if we think of how Constantino himself, the owner of Gol, affirmed in a Congressional hearing that the airplane's insurance policy was from 750 million to a billion dollars”, the lawyer criticized.

Close to 30 families turned to the United States courts to ask for indemnification. They are waiting for a decsion by the Amerian Supreme Court related to an appeal against the prior ruling, that established that the court of Brazil were the right forum for the case, and not those of North America. On Tuesday, the day in which the accident marks its third anniversary, there will be a hearing in the [Congressional] Travel and Transport Committee. The objective is to analyze the investigations and the measures taken after the Flight 1907 accident, which set off the country's most serious aviation crisis.

“Some changes to the operational system are underway. What's curious is that when we publicly related the shortcomings, they said that there were none, that it's one of the best systems in the world. Why change it them?" asked Edleuzo Cavalcante, president of the Brazilian Air Traffic Controllers' Association, currently under administrative arrest, for having given an interview to the press. The Correio asked the Air Force for information about the country's air traffic control, but received no answer.

TIME LINE

At 17:51 on September 29, 2006
The Legacy jet took off from São José dos Campos with two crew members and five passengers. The destination was Flórida (USA) with a stopover in Manaus.

At 18:35
Took-off from Manaus airport, with six crew memberes and 148 passagers the Boeing of Gol. The destination was Rio de Janeiro with an intermediate stop in Brasilia.

At: 19h56
The two aircraft collide head-on, their left wings touching.

The Legacy lost part of the left wing and suffered damage to the stabilizer, but did not lose stability, managing an emergency landing at Brigadeiro Veloso Test Field, located in the Serra do Cachimbo mountains in the state of Pará. The occupants were uninjured.

The Gol plane lost about a third of the left wing and became uncontrollable, going into a dive and breaking apart in midair. There were no survivors.

Acidente da Gol: busca por justiça perto de completar três anos

Acidente da Gol: busca por justiça perto de completar três anos

Familiares das 154 vítimas pressionam para conseguir o julgamento dos americanos que estavam no jato Legacy antes da prescrição do crime

Renata Mariz

Superar o luto, reorganizar a vida sem o familiar morto, conhecer o relatório de investigação, entre outros percalços, são etapas vencidas pelos parentes das 154 vítimas do desastre com o avião da Gol. No entanto, a tragédia aérea prestes a completar três anos, na próxima terça-feira, parece longe de ter um fim no tribunal. O temor, agora, é que a lentidão do Judiciário acarrete na prescrição dos crimes a que os pilotos do Legacy — a aeronave que colidiu com o Boeing da companhia brasileira — respondem no Brasil. “A principal acusação, de atentado à segurança do tráfego aéreo, prescreve em oito anos, considerando as proporções do delito. Mas a defesa vem protelando com o arrolamento de testemunhas nos Estados Unidos e na Suíça”, reclama Dante d’Aquino, assistente de acusação contratado por familiares de vítimas. O advogado Theo Dias, que defende Joe Lepore e Jan Paladino, rebate o argumento. “Eles são cidadãos norte-americanos, seria inevitável que as testemunhas, tanto pessoas que estavam no voo quanto trabalhadores que podem atestar a competência deles, fossem estrangeiras”, ressalta.

Dias diz acreditar em um desfecho rápido do caso, antes da prescrição. “Claro que se trata de uma questão muito delicada, que envolve conhecimento técnico, mas afirmo com convicção que antes de oito anos esse caso terminará.” Além dos pilotos do Legacy, respondem por crimes relacionados ao acidente na Justiça Federal em Sinop (MT), região onde o avião caiu, os controladores de tráfego aéreo Jomarcelo Fernandes dos Santos e Lucivando Tibúrcio de Alencar. Além dos dois, na Justiça Militar, foram processados ainda Felipe Santos dos Reis e Leandro José Santos de Barros, também operadores de voo. Apesar de responderem como réus nas ações, os profissionais da Aeronáutica não são os alvos dos familiares das vítimas.

A Gol foi consultada sobre o número de acordos já fechados, bem como os termos das negociações, mas não disponibilizou os dados à reportagem. Mellina Galvanin, que representa famílias de nove vítimas, afirma que a companhia aérea tem se mantido inflexível quanto aos valores. “De danos morais, a indenização estabelecida gira em 350 salários mínimos. Quanto aos danos materiais, a quantia varia conforme idade e renda da pessoa na época do desastre. Alguém que ganhava R$ 4 mil, por exemplo, e tinha 30 anos, o valor total é de R$ 460 mils. Isso é um absurdo se pensarmos que o próprio Constantino, dono da Gol, afirmou em audiência no Congresso que a apólice de seguro da aeronave era de 750 milhões a 1 bilhão de dólares”, critica a advogada.

Cerca de 30 famílias recorreram à Justiça dos Estados Unidos para pedir indenização. Elas aguardam uma decisão da Suprema Corte americana relacionada a um recurso contra determinação anterior, que estabeleceu como foro adequado para o caso o Judiciário brasileiro, e não o norte-americano. Na terça-feira, dia em que o acidente completa três anos, haverá uma audiência na Comissão de Viação e Transportes. O objetivo é analisar as investigações e as providências adotadas após o acidente com o voo 1907, que desencadeou a maior crise do setor aéreo no país.

“Algumas modificações no sistema operacional estão em curso. O curioso é que, quando relatamos publicamente os defeitos, disseram que não havia nada, que era um dos melhores sistemas do mundo. Por que mudar, então?”, questiona Edleuzo Cavalcante, presidente da Associação Brasileira de Controladores de Tráfego Aéreo, atualmente preso, em caráter administrativo, por ter dado uma entrevista à imprensa. O Correio pediu à FAB informações a respeito do controle de tráfego aéreo no país, mas não houve resposta.

sexta-feira, 25 de setembro de 2009

Controladores de voo denunciados por greve

Controladores de voo denunciados por greve

O Ministério Público Militar denunciou 89 controladores pelo levante que paralisou o tráfego aéreo do País em 30 de março de 2007. Eles são acusados dos crimes de atentado contra o transporte e motim

SÃO PAULO – O Ministério Público Militar (MPM) em Brasília ofereceu ontem denúncia contra 89 controladores de voo militares envolvidos na greve que paralisou o tráfego aéreo do País em 30 de março de 2007. Todos foram enquadrados nos crimes de atentado contra o transporte e motim, ambos previstos no Código Penal Militar. Os sargentos Edleuzo Cavalcante e Carlos Trifilio, apontados como articulares e líderes do levante, deverão responder também por incitar à prática de crime militar. A acusação pede que os controladores citados sejam expulsos dos quadros da Força Aérea Brasileira (FAB).

Iniciada há dois anos e meio, a investigação demorou para ser concluída porque a Justiça exigia que o MPM descrevesse as condutas de cada um dos envolvidos. A procuradora Ione de Souza Cruz, responsável pelo Inquérito Policial-Militar, decidiu, então, requerer à FAB a degravação das conversas telefônicas feitas naquele dia a partir do centro de controle do espaço aéreo de Brasília (Cindacta-1), de onde teriam partido as ordens para o restante do Brasil.

Para o MPM, a data da greve foi cuidadosamente escolhida. Tratava-se de uma sexta-feira, em que era comemorado o Dia Internacional do Meteorologista, além de haver formatura e um churrasco em homenagem ao Dia do Especialista da Aeronáutica. O presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva e o então ministro da Defesa Waldir Pires não se encontravam em Brasília, assim como a ministra-chefe da Casa Civil, Dilma Rousseff, e a procuradora do caso. Por fim, diz a denúncia, o comando da FAB e do próprio Cindacta-1 acabara de ser trocado.

Coube ao ministro do Planejamento, Paulo Bernardo, negociar com a liderança do movimento – a maioria integrantes da Associação Brasileira dos Controladores de Tráfego Aéreo (ABCTA). Naquele dia, diversos controladores que não estavam na escala de trabalho permaneceram no Cindacta-1, “não para exercer suas funções regulamentares, mas para reverter normas de hierarquia e promover a indisciplina”, diz a denúncia.

A investigação constatou que as decolagens e sobrevoos de aeronaves na área sob jurisdição do Cindacta-1, o mais importante do País, foram dificultados propositalmente. O MPM diz ter identificado ainda participação ativa dos sargentos Edleuzo Cavalcante, diretor de Mobilização da ABCTA, e Carlos Trifilio, presidente da Federação Brasileira das Associações de Controladores de Tráfego Aéreo (Febracta), na condução do levante.

O advogado Roberto Sobral, da ABCTA, afirmou que deve usar todos os instrumentos disponíveis para mostrar a inocência de seus clientes.

89 controladores de voo são denunciados

89 controladores de voo são denunciados

Militares são acusados pelo Ministério Público de atentar contra o tráfego aéreo em motim que causou apagão aéreo Dois sargentos acusados de liderar a paralisação dos controladores de voo, em março de 2007, podem ainda ser expulsos da FAB

O Ministério Público Militar ofereceu denúncia à Justiça contra os 89 controladores de voo militares que participaram da paralisação do tráfego aéreo em 30 de março de 2007. Naquele dia, todos os voos do país foram interrompidos por 30 horas, gerando o que ficou conhecido como apagão aéreo.

A instituição acusa especificamente os sargentos Edleuzo Cavalcante e Carlos Trifílio, apontados como líderes do motim, pela prática de "incitação" e pede que eles sejam expulsos da FAB (Força aérea Brasileira). Todos os demais responderão por desobediência e atentado contra o tráfego aéreo. A informação foi publicada pelo jornal "O Estado de S. Paulo".

Após o choque no ar do Boeing da Gol com um jato Legacy, em setembro de 2006, os controladores militares iniciaram protestos contra excesso de trabalho, falhas nos equipamentos e defasagem tecnológica dos Cindactas (Centros Integrados de Defesa aérea e Controle do Tráfego Aéreo), que resultaram na paralisação.

Inicialmente, os controladores ficaram aquartelados sem trabalhar no Cindacta 1 (Brasília). Depois, o movimento se expandiu para outras regiões.

O MPM caracteriza o ato dos controladores como uma "conspiração" que teria se iniciado após o acidente.

"A data de 30 de março de 2007 foi intencionalmente escolhida para a suspensão dos trabalhos. Naquela dia, haveria uma confraternização no Cindacta 1, o presidente da República, o vice-presidente, o ministro da Defesa, a ministra-chefe da Casa Civil e a procuradora-geral de Justiça Militar estavam fora de Brasília e, para completar o ciclo de circunstâncias favoráveis, o comando da Força aérea acabara de ser trocado e o próprio Cindacta 1 estava mudando de chefia", diz.

O advogado da ABCTA (Associação Brasileira dos Controladores do Tráfego Aéreo), Roberto Sobral, criticou ontem o que chamou de ligação "espúria" entre o Ministério Público e a Justiça militares. "O Ministério Público não teve a coragem de dizer quais crimes de fato foram cometidos."

"Esperamos que movam o processo até que ele chegue ao Supremo, onde iremos mostrar que a Justiça Militar é uma Justiça de exceção", afirmou.

terça-feira, 1 de setembro de 2009

Limitação de movimentos aéreos entre São Paulo e Rio de Janeiro

01/09/2009 - 16h15

Nota à imprensa: Limitação de movimentos aéreos entre São Paulo e Rio de Janeiro

Entre 11h15 e 11h42 do dia de hoje, 1º de setembro de 2009, canais de comunicações (freqüências-rádio) do Centro de Controle da Área de Brasília (ACC-BR) foram degradados em virtude do rompimento de dois cabos de fibra ótica da EMBRATEL, localizados entre as cidades de Barretos e Ribeirão Preto (SP), e entre as cidades de Sete Lagoas e Confins (MG). Com o objetivo de se preservar a segurança da atividade aérea, as decolagens da área compreendida entre Brasília e São Paulo foram suspensas nesse período.

Contando com o apoio de técnicos da Aeronáutica, o problema foi sanado pela Concessionária de Telecomunicações responsável por volta das 15h e às 15h15 as freqüências foram restabelecidas no ACC-BR. Limitadas por esse problema, as decolagens foram seqüenciadas de acordo com um planejamento conjunto e colaborativo entre o CGNA (Centro de Gerenciamento da Navegação Aérea), Empresas Aéreas e INFRAERO, de forma a evitar maiores congestionamentos e mitigar atrasos.

Até 13h50, as duas maiores companhias aéreas do Brasil, TAM e GOL, registravam atrasos acima de 30 minutos em 6% e 8% dos vôos, respectivamente.

Brasília, 1º de setembro de 2009.

Brigadeiro do Ar Antonio Carlos Moretti Bermudez
Chefe do CENTRO DE COMUNICAÇÃO SOCIAL DA AERONÁUTICA