The decision by the Paris Appeals Court to convict both Air France and Airbus of manslaughter is the end (at least for now) of a more than 15-year saga. The case brought against both companies goes back to a 2009 air disaster that remains the deadliest in French history, where an Air France jet crashed on its way from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, killing all 228 people on board. 

The outcome has been greeted with enormous relief by many of the relatives of the victims, but also questioned by some in the aviation and wider business communities. The decision to find both firms wholly responsible for the disaster raises interesting questions about corporate responsibility for businesses in France—and the extent to which companies can or should be responsible for such complex incidents.

A deadly disaster

Air France Flight 447 was a routine passenger flight from Brazil to the French capital. The aircraft in question was an Airbus A330, a modern airliner which remains in service and production today. As with all Airbus aircraft, the A330 is known for its heavy automation, relieving the crew of many complex duties, and providing a number of contingencies to protect against errors by the pilots.

During the flight, it’s believed that the airspeed sensors on the plane became blocked by ice, leading them to provide unreliable airspeeds. As the autopilot couldn’t continue to fly by itself without this key data, it handed control back to the pilots in a mode that reduced the available protections, known as ‘alternate law’. The pilot flying the plane, startled by the sudden change and not sufficiently familiar with this mode, struggled to gain control of the plane, and unknowingly put it into a steep climb.

Related article: The risks of doing business in France

Because the stall protection was disabled in this mode, this action caused the plane to stall. Due to the extremely low speed and high angle of the nose, the plane’s computers now believed it could not possibly be flying, and turned the audible stall warning off. When the pilots did the right thing and tilted the nose down to pick up speed, the stall warning would reengage, making it seem like they were doing the wrong thing. This confusion was eventually resolved, but too late to prevent the aircraft from crashing.

Who was really to blame for Flight 447?

As summarised above, this was both an extremely complex and unique incident, involving a combination of human error, insufficient training, and computer automation behaving in unexpected ways. All of this ultimately caused a plane that had no mechanical or technical issues to fall from the sky, in a way that initially baffled both investigators and aviation experts. Until the final report was published, many placed the blame on pilot error—a position that both Air France and Airbus largely maintained throughout the process.

In a sense, this was true. The pilot in control at the time largely went against one of the first lessons any pilot is taught, which is to point the nose down to recover from a stall. But there were also a number of factors contributing to this. It’s well known that the ‘startle effect’ can make people behave irrationally during an emergency, something that repetitive training is designed to help you overcome, making the right actions almost instinctive when an emergency occurs.

In this case, there were several factors contributing to the errors. Not only was this exact kind of problem—a stall at high altitude—rarely trained, but the characteristics of the Airbus also made it harder to spot. Because the sidesticks used by the pilots to control the plane don’t have haptic feedback (i.e. movement to reflect what the other pilot is doing), one pilot in this incident was pushing up, while the other was pushing down. This meant the two movements were averaged out, and one pilot had no idea about the other one’s mistake until he vocalised it, at which point it was too late.

Legal ramifications for businesses

All of this is momentous for the airline industry. But what about for other businesses, in France and further afield? Perhaps the most interesting aspect, and one criticised by voices such as Mentour Pilot, is the decision to run a criminal investigation in parallel to the accident investigation. Accident investigations rely on a lack of culpability in order to get honest responses. By threatening criminal liability, any pilots, mechanics, or other personnel involved might not speak up for fear of reprisals, jeopardising the investigation, and ultimately making the industry less safe.

Related article: How To Start A Business In France in 8 Steps

There’s something to be learned for businesses here when it comes to learning from disasters, and not punishing people for honest mistakes, but instead using them as an opportunity for improvement. However, there are also questions about corporate responsibility, as well as reputational damage. After the 737 Max crashes, the revelation that Airbus and Air France were wholly responsible for this crash could impact general sentiments about the safety of flying.

It isn’t a great look for two of France’s biggest businesses. But it also reflects a refreshing willingness by the Appeals Court not to let them off the hook. Given the evidence, it’s clear that maintaining the position that the pilots were most at fault was incorrect, and no doubt difficult for their families. The resulting fines for both are paltry given their revenue, but the legal costs will be greater, and the reputational damage greater still.

Transparency and trust

What the case reflects for French businesses is an almost unprecedented willingness to prosecute ‘accidents’, which could have a negative impact on safety if not carefully managed. This is unlikely to have too much of a chilling effect on French aviation, which is a world leader. But it does perhaps reflect growing attitudes that big businesses should be held culpable for mistakes regardless of their size or importance.

This is something every business ought to be aware of. The public appetite for businesses to be held accountable for their actions seems to be growing. That should be a driver not just for greater transparency, but more careful planning, such that anything which might result in a violation of the law (whether that’s data security, a breach of contract or an environmental hazard) has an associated process that’s designed to prevent it.

Related article: How France is preparing for a new industrial era

What’s also extremely interesting about this case is the role of computer automation. Many pilots have long-argued that Airbus’ planes are over reliant on automation, leading to the degradation of pilots’ skills. When automation is suddenly taken away, they can be more prone to panic, as they haven’t spent enough time doing their jobs without it.

That’s a growing reality for businesses in all fields, albeit with less catastrophic consequences. With AI now replacing many everyday tasks, there is a realistic prospect that our ability to perform certain tasks degrades. Should the AI market crash in the next few years, as some people expect it to, we could be left with a skills shortage in areas where AI has replaced certain tasks, or even consumed entire job roles. That could have a disproportionate impact on startups, who are starting to use AI more and more as a differential, helping them to close the gap with larger companies.

While all of this presents a cost for businesses on the face of it, it’s also the prevailing direction for the EU as a whole. Legislation is pushing for more transparency for businesses in areas like carbon neutrality and workers’ rights. This brings costs, but also associated benefits in areas like productivity, happiness, and reduced energy costs. For startups, this is a great opportunity to instil this kind of transparency early, and more easily scale things like reporting and record-keeping with your business.

The crash of Flight 447 also serves as an example of how not to handle PR. Airbus had been riding high on the success of its planes after a string of bad news for competitor Boeing, while Air France had shaken off the reputational hits of the Habsheim Air Show and Concorde crashes. Having refused to carry the can for this crash, both companies now find their reputations tarnished, in a period where the aviation industry is already struggling with fuel prices and the cost of living. The case should stand as an example for every business of the value of compliance—and of learning from mistakes rather than disputing them.