Descreve o panorama do surgimento da aviação e das teorias de investigação de acidentes aeronáuticos. Objetivo - Analisar a investigação dos acidentes e incidentes aeronáuticos ocorridos na Aviação Geral no Estado de São Paulo no período de 2000 a 2005 e verificar sua associação a fatores organizacionais. Método - Foram comparadas as atuações das agências de investigação de acidentes aeronáuticos dos Estados Unidos, União Européia e Brasil, identificado os métodos de investigação de acidentes empregados. Foi realizado o levantamento das ocorrências com as aeronaves classificadas na categoria de aviação geral no estado de São Paulo no período 2000 a 2005 e feita a análise comparativa de 36 relatórios finais de acidentes utilizados pelo Centro de Investigação e Prevenção de Acidentes (CENIPA) com o Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS). Resultados Identificou-se que as agências de investigação dos Estados Unidos e União Européia atuam de forma sistêmica e a brasileira atua isoladamente. Foi constatado que houve 636 ocorrências com aeronaves da aviação geral, sendo que 92 por cento foram incidentes, que não foram investigados. Dos acidentes, 5,5 por cento possuíam relatórios finais concluídos. A análise dos relatórios finais, segundo o CENIPA, apontou 163 fatores contribuintes, sendo que o principal fator foi o deficiente julgamento presente em 80,5 por cento dos acidentes. A utilização do modelo HFACS identificou a presença de 370 fatores contribuintes e os erros de habilidade, de decisão e planejamento inadequado foram os principais fatores contribuintes com 86,1 por cento . Considerações Finais O estudo possibilitou a identificação da falta de integração de diversos órgãos governamentais na investigação dos acidentes aeronáuticos. A ausência de investigação de incidentes aeronáuticos dificultando a prevenção. A análise do CENIPA não contempla de forma adequada os fatores organizacionais. O HFACS não deve ser uma ferramenta apenas quantificadora das causas de acidentes aeronáuticos / Introduction Describes the birth of aviation and aeronautical accidents factors. investigation theories. Objective Analyze the investigation of aeronautical accidents and incidents occurring in the General Aviation in the State of São Paulo during the period of 2000 through 2005 and verify their association with organizational factors. Method The air accident agencies of the United States, European Union and Brazil were studied, identifying and comparing the accident investigation methods used. It was registered the number of events with aircrafts in the State of Sao Paulo from 2000 to 2005, and performed the comparative analysis of 36 accident final reports used by the Centro de Investigação e Prevenção de Acidentes (CENIPA; Accident Prevention and Investigation Center) using the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS). Results It was observed that the investigation agencies of the United States and the European Union work in a systemic way, and that the Brazilian one works alone. It was observed that there were 636 events with aircrafts of the general aviation, of which 92 per cent were not-investigated incidents. Of the accidents, 5.5 per cent had their final reports finished. The analysis of the final reports according to CENIPA pointed out 163 contributing factors, being the main factor \"inadequate evaluation\", present in 80.5 per cent of the accidents. The HFACS model identified 370 contributing factors, and the \"skill errors\", \"decision\" and \"inadequate planning\" were the main contributing factors, being present in 86.1 per cent of the cases. Final Considerations The study allowed identifying the lack of integration of several administration agencies when investigating air accidents. The non investigation of air incidents hinders the prevention. The CENIPA analysis does not study properly the organizational factors. HFACS must not be just a quantifying tool of the air accidents causes.

Descreve o panorama do surgimento da aviação e das teorias de investigação de acidentes aeronáuticos. Objetivo - Analisar a investigação dos acidentes e incidentes aeronáuticos ocorridos na Aviação Geral no Estado de São Paulo no período de 2000 a 2005 e verificar sua associação a fatores organizacionais. Método - Foram comparadas as atuações das agências de investigação de acidentes aeronáuticos dos Estados Unidos, União Européia e Brasil, identificado os métodos de investigação de acidentes empregados. Foi realizado o levantamento das ocorrências com as aeronaves classificadas na categoria de aviação geral no estado de São Paulo no período 2000 a 2005 e feita a análise comparativa de 36 relatórios finais de acidentes utilizados pelo Centro de Investigação e Prevenção de Acidentes (CENIPA) com o Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS). Resultados Identificou-se que as agências de investigação dos Estados Unidos e União Européia atuam de forma sistêmica e a brasileira atua isoladamente. Foi constatado que houve 636 ocorrências com aeronaves da aviação geral, sendo que 92 por cento foram incidentes, que não foram investigados. Dos acidentes, 5,5 por cento possuíam relatórios finais concluídos. A análise dos relatórios finais, segundo o CENIPA, apontou 163 fatores contribuintes, sendo que o principal fator foi o deficiente julgamento presente em 80,5 por cento dos acidentes. A utilização do modelo HFACS identificou a presença de 370 fatores contribuintes e os erros de habilidade, de decisão e planejamento inadequado foram os principais fatores contribuintes com 86,1 por cento . Considerações Finais O estudo possibilitou a identificação da falta de integração de diversos órgãos governamentais na investigação dos acidentes aeronáuticos. A ausência de investigação de incidentes aeronáuticos dificultando a prevenção. A análise do CENIPA não contempla de forma adequada os fatores organizacionais. O HFACS não deve ser uma ferramenta apenas quantificadora das causas de acidentes aeronáuticos / Introduction Describes the birth of aviation and aeronautical accidents factors. investigation theories. Objective Analyze the investigation of aeronautical accidents and incidents occurring in the General Aviation in the State of São Paulo during the period of 2000 through 2005 and verify their association with organizational factors. Method The air accident agencies of the United States, European Union and Brazil were studied, identifying and comparing the accident investigation methods used. It was registered the number of events with aircrafts in the State of Sao Paulo from 2000 to 2005, and performed the comparative analysis of 36 accident final reports used by the Centro de Investigação e Prevenção de Acidentes (CENIPA; Accident Prevention and Investigation Center) using the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS). Results It was observed that the investigation agencies of the United States and the European Union work in a systemic way, and that the Brazilian one works alone. It was observed that there were 636 events with aircrafts of the general aviation, of which 92 per cent were not-investigated incidents. Of the accidents, 5.5 per cent had their final reports finished. The analysis of the final reports according to CENIPA pointed out 163 contributing factors, being the main factor \"inadequate evaluation\", present in 80.5 per cent of the accidents. The HFACS model identified 370 contributing factors, and the \"skill errors\", \"decision\" and \"inadequate planning\" were the main contributing factors, being present in 86.1 per cent of the cases. Final Considerations The study allowed identifying the lack of integration of several administration agencies when investigating air accidents. The non investigation of air incidents hinders the prevention. The CENIPA analysis does not study properly the organizational factors. HFACS must not be just a quantifying tool of the air accidents causes.

The thesis objective is considerations of effect safety campaigns, which are issued by CAA CZ, on safety of air traffic in Czech Republic. In thesis are considered categories of aircrafts from 0 to 5700 kg except for Ultralight Aircrafts in period 1993 to 2011. Recognition involves describe given campaigns, assurance of information, processing and final assessment of efficiency published safety campaigns.

La problématique des catastrophes aériennes en Afrique centrale peut être appréhendée sous une approche systémique qui questionne l'efficacité et l'efficience du droit applicable. En effet, régi par des principes et règles, le droit applicable au traitement juridique des catastrophes aériennes pose un questionnement profond de l'ensemble des règles de droit mises en place pour remédier à la grande insécurité aérienne dénoncée par les organisations internationales. C'est ainsi que dans la recherche des sources de droit applicable, il a pu être établi que l'ordonnancement des sources formelles présente une architecture complexe. Concrètement, le droit applicable au traitement juridique des catastrophes aériennes en Afrique centrale est marqué par un pluralisme juridique. La première conséquence est la compétence concurrente et/ou complémentaire de trois règles communautaires à régir les mêmes faits, alors qu'elles sont issues d'ordres juridiques bien distincts. De même, le droit international n'est pas en reste, sans toutefois mettre de côté le niveau divergent des pays d'Afrique centrale en ce qui concerne la ratification des conventions de droit international aérien. Ainsi, dans la mesure où l'ordre juridique interne est seul, il ne peut intervenir pour ordonner l'agencement du droit conventionnel. Par ailleurs, il est ressorti que les multiples sources formelles relevaient du droit commun. En effet, les sources matérielles du traitement juridique des catastrophes aériennes en Afrique centrale sont tantôt celles de l'enquête accident d'aviation civile, tantôt tout simplement celles de droit pénal et de droit civil général. Ce détachement des faits, caractéristique de catastrophes aériennes, est manifeste dans le droit matériel applicable qui ignore la singularité de la catastrophe aérienne d'être un accident collectif. Cette situation qui s'étend à la mise en œuvre du traitement juridique des catastrophes aériennes est marquée par un classique, tant de la titularité de l'action en justice que de celle de la compétence matérielle de la juridiction. Elle appelle à connaître de ce type de contentieux, qui sont pourtant des contentieux sui generis. Si ce régime confirme en tout point le caractère général et abstrait de la règle de droit, il convient de ne pas oublier que le droit est une solution juridique technique qui se doit d'apporter une réponse concrète et satisfaisante à un fait de société surtout lorsque celui-ci perdure. / The problem of air disasters in Central Africa can be apprehended under a systematic approach that questions the efficiency and effectiveness of the applicable law. Indeed, governed by principles and rules, the law applicable to the legal treatment of air disasters raises a profound questioning of all the legal rules put in place to remedy the great air insecurity denounced by international organizations. Thus, in the search for sources of applicable law, it has been established that the scheduling of formal sources presents a complex architecture. In practical terms, the law applicable to the legal treatment of air disasters in Central Africa is marked by legal pluralism. The first consequence is the competing and / or complementary competence of three Community rules to govern the same facts, even though they come from distinct legal orders. Similarly, international law is not left out, however, without setting aside the divergent level of Central African countries in the ratification of conventions of international air law. Thus, insofar as the domestic legal system is alone, it cannot intervene to order the arrangement of the conventional law. Moreover, it emerged that the multiple formal sources fell under common law. Indeed, the material sources of the legal treatment of air disasters in Central Africa are sometimes those of the civil aviation accident investigation, sometimes simply those of criminal law and general civil law. This detachment of facts, characteristic of air disasters, is manifest in the applicable substantive law which ignores the singularity of the air disaster to be a collective accident. This situation which extends to the implementation of the legal treatment of air disasters is marked by a classic, both the ownership of the action in court and the jurisdiction of the jurisdiction. It calls to deal with this type of litigation, which are sui generis litigation. If this diet at any point confirms the general and abstract rule of law character, it should be not to forget that the right is a technical legal solution that needs to provide a concrete and satisfactory to a fact of society especially when response it endures.

Le transport aérien s'est fortement démocratisé ces dernières décennies, la réglementation qui l'accompagne s'est considérablement renforcée. Les sources applicables à la responsabilité du transporteur aérien reposent sur des conventions internationales, des règlements communautaires et des législations internes. Ce travail de recherche montre l'application dynamique des sources et les résultats produits par les différentes combinaisons. L’évolution de la notion de responsabilité ouvre d'autres champs de réflexion à travers une étude combinée des concepts de risque et de sécurité du transporteur aérien à l'égard des passagers. Il s'agit également d'étudier le particularisme du contrat de transport aérien de personnes au regard des nouvelles considérations. Le droit communautaire a insufflé une nouvelle vision au contrat de transport, au point d'assimiler le passager à un consommateur. La responsabilité du transporteur aérien s'apprécie sur le terrain des nouvelles technologies. Aujourd'hui, le passager aérien bénéficie des mesures protectrices du droit de la consommation. L'analyse des postes de responsabilité du transporteur aérien permet de comprendre ce processus d'imbrication des sources, et la variété des solutions jurisprudentielles. Le droit communautaire a instauré une réglementation innovante et pragmatique en phase avec les nouvelles exigences des passagers en matière de retard et d'annulation de vol. L'intérêt est de montrer le rôle important de la jurisprudence communautaire dans l'application cumulative du droit conventionnel et du règlement n°261/2004. Le retard est à dissocier des situations générant du retard; le droit communautaire a élaboré une distinction aboutie entre ces événements. Le retard peut être subi collectivement par les passagers, comme en cas d'annulation de vol, ou les affecter de manière individuelle, comme par exemple en cas de refus d'embarquement. Le droit communautaire a édicté des mesures standardisées d'assistance et d'indemnisation. Il conviendra d'expliquer ces dispositifs et les perfectionnements envisagés par le législateur européen. La responsabilité du transporteur aérien en cas d'accident replace le droit conventionnel au centre de toutes les attentions. L'exclusivité des conventions est plus que jamais réaffirmée par la jurisprudence internationale. Mais cette élévation du droit conventionnel est mise à mal par la pratique de certains tribunaux, qui n'hésitent pas mettre à l'écart la Convention au profit du droit interne. Le risque de démantèlement du droit conventionnel est tempéré par les différents renvois du droit communautaire et du droit interne à la primauté de la Convention. La responsabilité du transporteur aérien est une responsabilité objective. Elle met fin à toute limitation financière en cas de lésion corporelle ou de décès du passager. L'absence de définition de la notion d'accident suscite toujours autant d'interrogation. En matière d'accident, le droit conventionnel opère un renvoi implicite au droit interne pour la détermination des postes de préjudices. Dans le cadre de la complémentarité des sources, il est important d'avoir une approche combinée du droit interne français, qui consacre le principe de réparation intégrale et l'application du droit conventionnel. Le passager aérien voyage avec ses effets personnels. Le droit conventionnel a instauré des régimes de responsabilité différents en fonction de la destination du bagage. L'apport du droit communautaire est minimaliste en matière de bagages, mais la jurisprudence de la CJUE a permis une interprétation renouvelée de la réparation due pour les dommages aux bagages. L'étude de cette responsabilité nous conduira à souligner l'importance des réglementations de l'IATA et des conditions générales de transport qui viennent combler les lacunes du droit communautaire et conventionnel, peu intéressés par cette partie de la responsabilité du transporteur aérien. (...) / In recent decades, air transport has been greatly democratized, the regulations has increased significantly. The applicable sources for the air carrier liability are based on international conventions, EU regulations and domestic legislations. This research points dynamic application of the sources and the results produced by different combinations. The evolution of the responsibility concept starts other fields of thought through a combined study of the concepts of risk and safety of air carrier towards passengers. It's also studying the particularism of the carriage contract by air of persons under new regards. EU law has brought a new vision of the carriage contract to the point that it assimilates the passenger to a consumer. The liability of the air carrier also values the new technologies field. Today, air passenger benefits from protective measures of consumer law. The damage analysis helps to understand this nesting process sources, and the diversity of cases law. EU law has set up an innovative and pragmatic regulation in line with new requirements on passenger delays and flight cancellations. The purpose is showing the important role of EU law in the cumulative application of treaty law and of Regulation No 261/2004. The general notion of delay has to be dissociated from ordinary situations generating delay; EU law has drawn a distinction between these events. The delay may be experienced collectively by the passengers, as in case of flight cancellation or individually as in case of denied boarding. EU law enacted standardized measures of assistance and compensation. These mechanisms should be explained such as the improvements proposed by the European legislator. In case of accidents the air carrier liability puts the Convention at the center of attention. Exclusivity agreements are more than ever reasserted by international jurisprudence. However this elevation of treaty law is undermined by some courts practices, which do not hesitate to put aside the Convention to the benefit of the domestic law. Dismantling risk of conventional law is softened by the different references of EU law and domestic law to the primacy of the Convention. The air carrier's liability is a strict liability. It puts an end to any financial limitations in case of body injury or death of passenger. The lack of definition of accident concept continues to raise many questions. For accidents, treaty law carries out an implicit reference to domestic law in order to determine the positions damages. As part of the complementarity of sources, it is important to have a combined approach of French domestic law, which enshrines the principle of full compensation, and the enforcement of treaty law. Air passenger travels with his personal effects. Treaty law has introduced different liability regimes depending on luggage destination. The provision of EU law is minimalist in terms of luggage, but the CJUE cases law allowed a renewed interpretation of the compensation for luggage damages. The study of this liability will lead us to stress the importance of IATA regulations and general terms of carriage which fill in the gaps in EU and treaty law, not interested in this part of the air carrier's liability. The Convention has established options of competence which lead to a multitude of courts. The advent of fifth option of competence is part of a consumerist approach of treaty/conventionnal law. More ground of jurisdiction are, more important is the practice of forum shopping. Jurisdiction rules have been enacted by the jurisprudence as mandatory. The introduction of standardized measures of assistance and compensation by EU law highlighted the purview of exclusive nature of the jurisdiction rules. A liability action of victims in case of aircraft accidents or their heirs before the U.S. courts is likely to result in a forum non conveniens. A survey of American and French jurisprudence is needed to measure the extent of this phenomenon. (...)