A Paris court is set to deliver its verdict on Thursday in the appeal trial of Air France and Airbus over the 2009 crash of Flight AF447 – a disaster that claimed 228 lives and remains the deadliest accident in the history of the French flag carrier.
Issued on:
3 min Reading time
The case has once again drawn attention to one of aviation’s most haunting tragedies, while reopening painful questions for families who have spent more than a decade seeking accountability. In 2023, both Air France and Airbus were acquitted of involuntary manslaughter after a court ruled that, although mistakes had been made, there was insufficient proof that they directly caused the crash.
If the companies are convicted in the appeal ruling, each could face fines of up to €225,000, alongside potentially serious reputational consequences.
Flight AF447 departed Rio de Janeiro for Paris on 1 June 2009, carrying 216 passengers and 12 crew aboard an Airbus A330. While crossing the Atlantic during stormy weather, the aircraft’s pilots lost control and the plane plunged into the ocean. There were no survivors.
Air France, Airbus face trial over fatal 2009 Rio-Paris plane disaster
Among those killed were 72 French nationals and 58 Brazilians, with victims also coming from several other countries, reflecting the international scale of the tragedy.
The earlier acquittal deeply angered many relatives of the victims, who argued that the judgment failed to recognise the responsibility of two major aviation companies. Although prosecutors initially recommended dropping the charges, they later pursued an appeal in order to allow what they described as the “full potential” of the legal process to be explored.
The appeal hearings began in September 2025, and for many families they have represented a final opportunity to secure criminal convictions.
Philippe Linguet, who lost his brother in the crash, described the proceedings as the “last resort”.
“We want a justice system that is combative, that goes beyond the usual procedures to convict two European and multinational companies,” he said.
Black box recording of deadly Rio-Paris flight to be played in court
Pitot tube failures at centre of case
Central to the trial has been the role of the aircraft’s pitot tubes – instruments used to measure airspeed. Investigators found that the tubes became blocked by ice crystals during a mid-Atlantic storm, causing conflicting speed readings, cockpit alarms and the disconnection of the autopilot system.
Technical experts told the court that, after the instruments malfunctioned, the pilots placed the aircraft into a climb that ultimately caused it to stall before crashing into the ocean.
Lawyers representing the victims’ families have argued that Airbus and Air France were already aware of problems linked to pitot tubes before the disaster. They also contend that pilots had not received sufficient training to handle such a high-altitude emergency.
Prosecutors accuse Airbus of underestimating the seriousness of repeated pitot probe failures and failing to properly warn airline crews about the risks. Air France, meanwhile, is accused of not providing adequate training for pilots dealing with pitot tube icing incidents and failing to sufficiently inform flight crews.
The prosecution’s criticism became particularly forceful during the hearings.
“We will seek to overturn the judgment and secure the conviction of both companies,” prosecutor Agnes Labreuil said in November.
Another prosecutor, Rodolphe Juy-Birmann, sharply criticised the conduct of the companies over the past 16 years.
“Nothing has come of it – not a single word of sincere comfort. It’s a rock-solid defence. One word sums up this whole circus: indecency,” he told the court.
Despair, dismay and anger as court acquits Air France, Airbus over Rio disaster
Companies reject criminal responsibility
Airbus and Air France have consistently denied any criminal liability, maintaining that pilot error was the decisive factor behind the crash.
During the trial, lawyers for both companies acknowledged the scale of the tragedy while insisting that the evidence did not justify criminal convictions.
Christophe Cail, representing Airbus, told the court in October that the manufacturer’s objective was “zero accidents”.
“Even the smallest accident is a failure for our entire community,” he said.
Pascal Weil, acting for Air France, admitted that the airline had the capability to conduct high-altitude training exercises but had not considered them necessary at the time.
“We had the means to conduct high-altitude training, but we did not do so because we sincerely believed it was unnecessary,” he said.
The verdict is expected to be closely watched across the aviation industry, not only because of its legal implications but also because of the broader questions it raises about corporate responsibility, pilot training and flight safety standards.
(With newswires)
