A private aircraft filled with 26 suitcases containing over 1,500 pounds of what seems like a movie plot, actually occurred in 2013.
Pascal Fauret and Bruno Odos, the pilots, were arrested in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, after the discovery of the illicit cargo on a plane headed to France. In a cinematic turn of events, they escaped to France by boat in 2015. Although convicted in 2019 and sentenced to six years in prison, they appealed and were acquitted in 2021.
The pilots are now featured in a new Netflix docu-series, Cocaine Air, which premiered on June 11. The central legal question was whether they were obligated to inspect the contents of the suitcases. The series presents Fauret and Odos defending their innocence, claiming they couldn’t have known about the drugs, while Christine Saunier Ruellan, the lead investigator in France, highlights what she found suspicious leading up to the 2013 flight.
Cocaine Air presents both sides of the story.
Pilots seen as heroes
Both pilots recount the shock of their detention in the Dominican Republic. Odos describes his emotional state: “When you’re innocent, you almost turn yourself in. It’s like a way to say—okay, please help me.”
In France, the pilots were viewed as national heroes due to their prior service in the French army, where they transported nuclear weapons before entering commercial aviation. This background garnered significant public support, with many finding it hard to believe that French army veterans would engage in drug trafficking. They are shown throughout the series with supporters holding signs outside the legal proceedings.
Jérôme Pierrat, co-director of Cocaine Air, explains that the pilots’ lawyers successfully compared them to taxi drivers, arguing that just as taxi drivers aren’t required to inspect luggage, neither are pilots.
The defense argued that checking suitcase contents is the responsibility of border control, not pilots, who are not expected to inquire about the contents of passengers’ luggage.
As Fauret stated in the documentary, “they tell me the date, and I fly. I never know the purpose of the trip.”
The series also includes Alain Afflelou, the owner of the plane. Afflelou, an eyeglasses magnate, leased the plane when not in use and was never directly connected to the flight.
An investigator sees red flags
The series shows that Christine Saunier-Ruellan’s investigation centered on why the same pilots and passenger were used for three flights. On the March 2013 flight leading to the arrest, the manager and stewardess were informed that the client didn’t require their services.
By intercepting the pilots’ communications, she discovered messages she deemed suspicious, such as “nature of cargo confirmed” and “we did what we had to do.” Saunier-Ruellan also found internet searches on Fauret’s computer related to drug trafficking in Ecuador and the associated penalties.
She questioned whether these signs indicated the pilots’ awareness of the cocaine in the suitcases, but no definitive link was established between the messages, behaviors, and the luggage. Olivier Bouchara, co-director of Cocaine Air, notes that “The appeals court considered these arguments solid enough to overturn the conviction.”
She even went as far as tapping former President Nicolas Sarkozy’s phone due to his past use of the airline. However, he had no involvement with the cocaine-laden plane and appears in Cocaine Air to clarify any misconceptions.
“In the case of the two pilots, she didn’t have direct proof,” Bouchara says. “What she had were indications, or circumstantial evidence.”
Despite extensive investigation, the filmmakers remain uncertain about the pilots’ involvement. Bouchara states, “Jerome and I were wondering during all of the shooting, are they responsible? And I have to say that we don’t have the final answer.”
Bouchara emphasizes that he and Pierrat acted as journalists, not jurors or judges: “Sometimes, we’d be shooting a scene and we’d look at each other and think, ‘Wait, maybe they knew. Maybe they were in on it.’ Other times, we’d come across a detail that made us doubt everything again. And that’s part of what we wanted to share: not a verdict, but a conversation.”
“`