Arizona Tribune - Air France, Airbus convicted of manslaughter in 2009 Rio-Paris crash

The Paris Court of Appeal ruling was a dramatic reversal of a lower court decision.

The appeal court said that the French flag carrier and Europe's leading aerospace manufacturer were "solely and entirely responsible for the crash of flight AF447", ordering each to pay 225,000 euros ($261,000) -- the maximum fine for corporate manslaughter.

While the penalties are symbolic, the ruling is seen as significant reputational damage for both companies.

Air France and Airbus have consistently denied any criminal liability, blaming pilot error.

The lower court ruling acquitted them in 2023, finding that the companies had made mistakes but could not be proven to have caused the crash.

But on Thursday the presiding judge said the lower court had not taken into account "the existence of the causal chain within which the pilots' actions occurred, and which led to the deaths of all the passengers.

"The AF447 crash was a disaster waiting to happen -- and one that could have been avoided if each of the companies involved had fully grasped the seriousness of the failure," said Sylvie Madec.

Both companies announced they would appeal the ruling.

- 'Self-satisfaction and pride' -

Alain Jakubowicz, a lawyer for the civil parties, said he expected the ruling to set a legal precedent following a 17-year legal battle.

"No fight is unwinnable," he added.

Air France, announcing its appeal, said it was "aware that this appeal prolongs what has already been a lengthy process, particularly for the families". But it pointed out that Air France's criminal liability had previously been ruled out twice.

"The legal battle will continue," said Simon Ndiaye, a lawyer for Airbus.

On June 1, 2009, Air France Flight AF447, travelling from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, was cruising over the Atlantic when the pilots lost control of the aircraft, causing it to plunge into the ocean.

There were no survivors among the 216 passengers and 12 crew on board the Airbus-built A330 aircraft, the dead including 72 French nationals and 58 Brazilians.

In Paris, the families of those killed in the crash praised the ruling.

Daniele Lamy, the head of an association of families of the victims, said the justice system had finally taken into account "the pain of the families."

"These prestigious firms will no longer be able to hide behind their self-satisfaction and technological pride," she addded.

But the mood was darker in Rio de Janeiro.

Nelson Faria Marinho, who lost his 40-year-old son in the crash, said the ruling brought him no comfort.

"I feel as if my son had died today," said the head of an association of families of the victims in Brazil, adding he was outraged because no executive had been held accountable.

Although prosecutors in 2023 had asked for the charges to be dropped, they had subsequently lodged the appeal.

The eight-week appeal trial ran between September and December last year.

- 'Pilots tried everything' -

Lawyers for the families have argued that both companies were aware of the problem with the pitot tubes, used to measure flight speed, but the pilots were not trained to deal with such a high-altitude emergency.

The court heard how a malfunction with the tubes, which became blocked with ice crystals during a mid-Atlantic storm, caused alarms to sound in the plane's cockpit and the autopilot system to switch off.

Experts highlighted how, after the instrument failed, the pilots put the plane into a climb that caused the aircraft to stall and then crash into the ocean.

The appeal court held Airbus responsible for several faults, including underestimating the seriousness of problems with sensors and failing to properly inform the crews of operating airlines.

Air France was found guilty of having failed to provide pilot training and to adequately inform flight crews.

Without ruling out that "pilot errors" might have been made during the 4 minutes and 30 seconds between the icing of the sensors and the impact with the ocean, the court nevertheless considered that the crew had not been sufficiently prepared to deal with the "extremely complex failure".

"They went as far as their abilities allowed, and nothing can be held against them."

M.King--AT