“I think I would have done better” than the pilots, tackles the Airbus representative at the hearing

After a month and a half of hearing, the trial of the flight of the Rio-Paris crash was marked Tuesday, November 15 in the afternoon by a moment of great tension between a lawyer for the civil parties and the representative of Airbus. Airbus and Air France are tried for “involuntary homicides” before the Paris Criminal Court, after this air disaster which caused the death of 228 people on June 1, 2009.

>>> Rio-Paris crash trial: Air France rejects any form of responsibility in the crash

As the audience purrs, Christophe Cail, the 61-year-old Airbus representative, answers questions from the first civil party lawyers with flying lessons and aeronautical jargon, for 10 minutes, the atmosphere becomes electric. Alain Jakubowicz, counsel for a hundred relatives of victims, stands up and looks down at the Airbus representative. Barely three meters apart, the two men look each other straight in the eye, the Airbus executive crosses his arms, he stretches out. Alain Jakubowicz quickly reveals his game, but the strategy is effective: make it clear to Christophe Cail that the air disaster is indeed due to the errors of the crew, as the aircraft manufacturer has assured for more than 13 years. Except that since the start of the trial on October 10, Airbus has never said it that way at the hearing.
First attack by Alain Jakubowicz. “Are the plane’s speed probes the cause of the accident?” , asks the lawyer. For the Airbus test pilot, “the answer is no. Nobody can admit that a simple icing of the Pitot probes caused the plane to crash”, The tone is set. Between the two, there is no concession. “Let’s be honest, let’s go”, raises Alain Jakubowicz. The accident “Is it due to a pilot error, is this clearly your position?” In front of about forty families, the representative of Airbus responds, clearly. “The triggering event is piloting errors”.

The blow is harsh. Danièle Lamy, president of the “Entraide et Solidarité” association, who lost her son in the crash, stands up. Trembling, she leaves the courtroom. It’s not over yet. “We saw that the crew did not work, I’m sorry…”pushes Christophe Cail. “It’s a fault, it’s not a value judgement. You shouldn’t be afraid to say it’s a driving fault. The real question is why?” Applause full of irony resounds from the bench of the civil parties. “Champion!”exclaims Ophélie Toulliou who lost her brother in the crash.

Imperturbable, the man from Airbus, still with his arms crossed, drives the point home: “When I get on a plane, I expect the pilot to know how to manage this breakdown” waves. “I think I would have done better”. This is the coup de grace for the relatives of the victims, struck by these remarks. Alain Jakubowicz takes it up: “At Airbus, you are so sure of your statistics, that for you this type of accident is so improbable and you tell yourself that it will not happen. In my conception, Airbus must foresee that it can happen. The best proof is that it happened”. The lawyer does not however succeed in destabilizing his adversary, but launches a last spade at the address of Airbus as of Air France, whose representative attends the interrogation of the aircraft manufacturer.