Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
AIR FRANCE AND Airbus must stand trial on involuntary manslaughter charges over the 2009 crash of a Rio de Janeiro-to-Paris flight that killed all 228 people on board, a Paris court ruled today.
Flight AF447 plunged into the Atlantic Ocean during a storm on 1 June 2009, the deadliest crash in Air France’s history.
Three Irish women aged in their 20s - Aisling Butler from Co Tipperary, Jane Deasy from Dublin and Eithne Walls who lived in Co Down – were killed in the air crash.
The court followed the general prosecutor’s recommendation, overturning an earlier court decision to drop the case against both the French flagship carrier and Europe’s top aircraft maker.
It took two years to find the wreckage of the Airbus A330 jet, which was eventually located by remote-controlled submarines at a depth of 3,900 metres.
Investigators determined the crash was caused by errors by pilots, who were disorientated by faulty speed-monitoring equipment.
The general prosecutor’s office call for a manslaughter trial against both Air France and Airbus went beyond the Paris prosecutor’s initial demand that only Air France should face manslaughter charges.
Both prosecuting teams contested a 2019 decision to drop the charges by the two investigating magistrates assigned to the case, who said they could not ascribe fault to the companies in what appeared to be a case of pilot error.
‘No criminal act’
But prosecutors accused Air France of indirectly causing the tragedy by providing insufficient training on how to react in case of malfunction of the so-called Pitot tubes, which enable pilots to monitor their speed.
The pilots reacted incorrectly when the plane stalled after the speed sensors froze over as it flew through a large cloud at high altitude.
Lawyers for Airbus said they would lodge an appeal against the decision, saying it “in no way reflects the conclusions of the investigation which resulted in no charges against Airbus in this case”.
Air France told AFP that it had committed “no criminal act” and that it, too, reserved the right to lodge an appeal.
The Paris appeals court decision had been much awaited by victims’ families.
“It’s a huge satisfaction to feel that we have finally been heard by the courts,” Daniele Lamy, president of an association of victims’ families, said after today’s ruling.
“But we still deplore that it took 12 long years to get to this point. Twelve years of unwavering determination, full of uncertainty, of tricky and obscure procedures and of dejection, but never resignation,” she said.
The French pilots’ association also welcomed the decision, with a spokesman saying that “accusations were aimed at the pilots, while the aircraft maker and airline were cleared of all wrongdoing”.
But the truth, he said, was that “the instruments didn’t function the way they should have”.
Since the disaster, pilot training on dealing with unforeseen circumstances has been stepped up in France and several other countries.
Air France and Airbus have stood trial in France once before, over a crash that killed 87 people onboard an A320 near the eastern city of Strasbourg in January 1992. They were both found not guilty.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Wow, housing crisis, healthcare in a mess, judiciary suspending sentences of thugs, prisoners being let out early due to lack of capacity, people working full time but struggling to make ends meet, nurses emigrating while we trawl the world looking for nurses, I could go on and on…….but Michael Martin wants to ban sun beds, Jesus ….use your time to do something useful.
@Eddie Garvey: Multiple things can be done at the same time.. jesus fkin wept like..
@Ian: Yes, multiple things can, but he chooses to do none.
@Eddie Garvey: With skin cancer being the fastest growing cancer in Ireland (more than 13,000 new cases (over 12,000 non-melanoma skin cancers and 1,100 melanomas) diagnosed each year, I’d say reducing these numbers is “something useful”.
@Jack Hayes: “7% of the population using sunbeds and 3% regularly” seems very high!
No point, it’s only chavs that use them anyways so who cares
@Eddie Garvey: tell us ye love sunbeds without telling us ye love sunbeds !
@Ian: While obviously the above sentiment is predictable I’m not so sure we do anything but make life harder for ourselves.
@Eddie Garvey: Your wasting your time talking about the Bertie Kisser who has been
fooling the people for 40 years
Can we possibly, just maybe, allow grown adults to make up their own minds? Don’t like it? don’t do it/use it/get one/smoke/drink/eat whatever it is but allow us to be a free thinking people
@Isla Carabine: The problem is that grown adults are destroying themselves and are a drain on the health system and public finances because of bad habits!
@another one? what’s going on is the semi state sec: Public finance’s? You mean the taxes the public pays which in turn pays for the health system? Our health system isn’t drained because people are using sunbeds. It’s drained because of poor management and running.
@Ger Whelan: Yes. Well done. Public finances = made up in part of income tax. There is a lot of money spent treating people from issues ranging from skin cancer, to addiction, to obesity…..etc all due to people damaging themselves by poor lifestyle choices….. It is also drained by poor management. Wasted money in the health sector is not down to one thing. People looking after themselves would save a lot of money and resources. Thanks for missing the point completely.
@another one? what’s going on is the semi state sec: Yes, but we always legislate for the minority. It’s driving people nuts.
@Isla Carabine:
We all want freedom,but we also owe it to the younger upcoming generation to lead by example
If we allowed them to do all of those things,including drug taking,the country,and health system would fall apart
How’s about a ban on RTE?
@Padraig O’Brien: All we’ll be left with is Virgin Media channels. No thanks.
Who does Mehole think he is? Justin Trudeau?
Skin cancer is the fastest growing cancer in Ireland. There are over 13,000 new cases of skin cancer diagnosed each year. If you have ever used a sunbed your risk of melanoma increases by 20% and using it before the age of 35 increases your risk by almost 60%. But the usuals whinging here … even if it comes to trying to reduce these numbers.
@Jack Hayes: if you want to help try to find a reason for the global excess mortality rate. I will give you a clue. It is not because of sun beds nor is it because I had a bag of tayto when I was seven
@Oh Mammy: were they cheese and onion or smokey bacon flavoured tayto?
@Ger Whelan: without a doubt it was the smokey bacon. The smoke did not come from organic wood.
@Oh Mammy: But nobody is talking about excess mortality, they’re talking about increased cases of skin cancer – or is that a global conspiracy now too?
@Jason Memail: why do you have to wait till everyone is talking? Independent, critical thinking is what’s needed. Sunbeds are nonsense. I do not doubt they are harmful but nonetheless a distraction. No one was talking about Biden being incapacitated until last week. And that was an easy one.
@Oh Mammy: Here I thought we were living longer.
@Thesaltyurchin: you are behind the times. Update your reading.
@Oh Mammy: I’m talking about skin cancer, not any ‘global excess mortality’, Dim Bulb.
@Jack Hayes: keep burying yourself in their distraction.
Ah he’s back from globe trotting and saving the planet.good man micháel
Mehole.again…stop now journal just stop
Six articles about mehole this week,there’s other chancers out there too
Don’t sun-beds boost the immune system in areas where the population don’t get enough Vitamin D? Maybe we should all use them, not to be browner, just to subsidise our sunless existence.
@Thesaltyurchin: you are better off taking large doses (50,000 mcg) of vitamin d
@Oh Mammy: I was reaching a bit far there in fairness :)
Its proven that sunbeds cause skin cancer and when your in your twenties you don’t realize that later in life you will pay for the sun bed treatments with skin cancer that can kill. Skin cancer becomes a life changing experience for people that get the cancer and it becomes a ailment that is avoidable and a drain on the health service. Choice is good but the choice of giving yourself skin cancer later in life is not a choice a person should have.
What’s that? Mr. Burns wants to block out the Sun?!
I support The ban on him commenting anything
Nice, no more orange lady ?
Where these not banned in the 80s and 90s. Why were they allowed to start up again.
@Colette Byrne: (a) They were not (b) they were not.
have your say