The prosecution began Wednesday, December 7 its indictment at the trial of the crash of the Rio-Paris flight, in which 228 people died on June 1, 2009, dismissing some ” faults of Airbus and Air France, provoking the anger of the civil parties.
Prosecutor Marie Duffourc stood up shortly after 10 a.m. in the full courtroom of the Paris Criminal Court, calling the accident of flight AF447, the most serious in the history of Air Franceof ” matchless drama “.
” This tragic accident is above all a human tragedy that has forever upset the relatives of the victims. “, of which the “ suffering has been constantly reactivated during these thirteen years “, a ” much too long delay “, she said.
” Representing society in such a trial means preserving the social order (and) remembering that respect for human life does not allow any compromise. However, this only supports prosecution if the offenses are characterized “, she warned.
Air France and Airbus contest any breach
The second prosecutor then proceeded to detail all the “ contributing factors ” of the accident, in order to know if a ” mistake ” can be used against Airbus and Air France in “ certain link with the disaster.
►Read also: Rio-Paris flight crash: a trial for what?
The two companies, which incur a fine of 225,000 euros each, contest any breach.
On June 1, 2009, the flight connecting Rio de Janeiro to Paris crossed the difficult weather zone of the “Doldrums” when the Pitot anemometric probes, which measured the speed of the aircraft outside the plane, were blocked by ice crystals.
The two co-pilots then in post were surprised. Soon joined by the captain who was off duty, the three men were unable to regain control of the plane, which hit the ocean 4 minutes and 23 seconds after the probes iced.
Prosecutor Pierre Arnaudin first addressed a ” central point of the debates “, which caused a ” feeling of revolt » among the civil parties: the non-replacement of the Thalès AA model Pitot probes by one of the two other models that existed at the time. The AF447 was equipped with these AA probes.
► Read also: Rio-Paris crash: judges dismiss Airbus and Air France
” It is clear that in view of the scientific data of the time, no criminal fault seems to me to be able to be retained “, he concluded, recalling that the court of appeal, which ordered the trial, had also dismissed this incriminating element.
Mrs Duffourc then went back at length to the consequences of the breakdown in the cockpit, concluding that no ” aircraft design flaw » had no « certain link with the loss of trajectory and therefore could not be held against Airbus.
Anger of civil parties
Mr. Arnaudin then focused on the classification of the incidents of icing of the probes, which had multiplied during the months preceding the accident. In reports of these failures, “ there had never been an escape and total loss of control of the aircraft “, he underlined, judging that the classification had been “ compliant “.
Members of the association Entraide et Solidarité AF447, which represents the families of the victims, then ostensibly left the room, before a suspension of the hearing. Marine de La Moissonnière has collected the anger of Danièle Lamy, the president of the association Mutual aid and solidarity AF447.
The attitude of the two prosecutors was unacceptable. It’s a shame for the families. I am ashamed. There are 32 nationalities, the whole world looks at French justice and this is the image that French justice gives. It’s a real shame. It is a travesty of justice. We came back to 2019… Excuse me, but the emotion is there and I can’t bear it anymore, we came back to 2019 when the investigating judges effectively declared a general dismissal. In France, we are unable, within the framework of collective aviation accident trials, to convict the real culprits. We asked for a fair trial and there, he does not take the path of being fair at all. It is a lawsuit against the pilots, which essentially defends the multinational Airbus
Danièle Lamy, president of the association Mutual aid and solidarity AF447
The lengthy legal process in this case saw two different positions on the part of the prosecution.
After a decade of investigation, the prosecution requested, in 2019, the referral to trial of Air France, but not that of Airbus. The judges then pronounced a dismissal the same year, which was appealed.
Before the investigating chamber, the public prosecutor’s office finally demanded, two years later, the dismissal of the two companies for intentional homicides, a point of view followed by the court of appeal which ordered this trial.
► Read also: Rio-Paris flight crash: the families of the victims are impatient
(With AFP)