Technical Aircraft Faults: Are They Extraordinary Circumstances?

"Technical problem" is an explanation many passengers hear when a flight is delayed or cancelled, and it can sound like the end of the discussion. A fault with the aircraft seems like nobody's fault, and certainly not something the airline should pay for. It is easy to accept that reason and move on.

Under EU rules, that explanation usually settles very little. Since 2008, the EU Court of Justice has held that a technical fault arising in the normal operation of an aircraft is, as a rule, not an extraordinary circumstance. In practice, aircraft technical fault compensation is due in most cases where the delay or cancellation meets the usual conditions.

This guide explains what the rules say, which technical problems do and do not exempt the airline, how delays and cancellations are treated, what the 2026 reform changes and what to do when the airline cites a fault. If your disruption was caused by technical problems, flight delay compensation and cancellation compensation follow the same test. The rules referred to are those of EU Regulation 261/2004, which applies to the operating air carrier rather than to the airline that sold the ticket.

Is a Technical Fault an Extraordinary Circumstance?

An airline does not have to pay compensation if it can prove that a delay or cancellation was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. The recitals of the regulation mention "unexpected flight safety shortcomings" among the possible examples, and that wording is what airlines point to when they cite a technical problem.

The EU Court of Justice has read that exemption narrowly. In case C-549/07, it held in 2008 that an event qualifies only if, by its nature or origin, it is not inherent in the normal exercise of the airline's activity and is beyond the airline's actual control. Technical problems that come to light during maintenance, or that result from a failure to carry out maintenance, are not in themselves extraordinary circumstances.

In case C-257/14, decided in 2015, the Court went further. A technical problem that occurs unexpectedly, is not attributable to poor maintenance and was not detected during routine maintenance checks is still not an extraordinary circumstance, because keeping aircraft systems working is part of an airline's normal operations. Breakdowns are considered an ordinary part of running a fleet, and the airline is expected to plan for them, for example by keeping spare parts and reserve aircraft available.

The short answer to the question "is a technical fault an extraordinary circumstance" is therefore: as a rule, no. Our overview of extraordinary circumstances covers the other events airlines rely on.

Why Good Maintenance Alone Does Not Protect the Airline

Two further points from the 2008 ruling matter in practice. First, proof that the aircraft received the minimum required maintenance is not, on its own, enough to show that the airline took all reasonable measures. Second, how often an airline experiences technical problems says nothing, in itself, about whether a particular problem was extraordinary. A rare fault is not extraordinary simply because it is rare.

In other words, maintenance records alone cannot protect the airline; it has to show that it did everything reasonably possible in the specific case. A carrier that inspected the plane on schedule has not necessarily done everything the regulation requires.

In every case, the burden of proof lies with the airline, not with you. A rejection email that simply states "technical reasons" proves nothing about whether the exemption applies. In our experience, many of these rejections do not survive a closer look at the case law.

Technical Problems That Usually Do Not Exempt the Airline

Based on the case law, the following situations generally leave the airline liable:

• Component failures during normal operation, even when they occur unexpectedly and were not detected in routine checks (case C-257/14).

• Problems found during maintenance, or caused by maintenance that was not carried out (case C-549/07).

• Damage from airport equipment used in everyday operations, such as mobile boarding stairs colliding with the aircraft (case C-394/14).

• A technical problem on an earlier flight of the same aircraft that delays yours. The EU Court of Justice treated such a problem as a circumstance for which the airline is responsible (case C-315/15).

In each of these situations, aircraft technical problem compensation remains available as long as the other conditions are met, in particular a delay of three hours or more at your final destination.

When a Technical Problem Can Be an Extraordinary Circumstance

The exemption is not empty. The Court has recognised situations in which a technical problem, or damage to the aircraft, originates outside the airline's normal operations:

• A hidden manufacturing defect that affects flight safety and is revealed by the aircraft manufacturer or a competent authority (cases C-549/07 and C-257/14).

• Damage caused by sabotage or terrorism, which are security events rather than technical ones (cases C-549/07 and C-257/14).

• A collision between the aircraft and a bird (case C-315/15).

• Damage to a tyre caused by a foreign object, such as a screw, lying on the runway (case C-501/17).

Even then, the exemption is not automatic, because the airline must still show that it took all reasonable measures, including measures to limit the delay. In case C-501/17, the Court held that the airline must pay compensation for a delay caused by the damaged tyre unless it proves that it used all the means at its disposal, in terms of staff, equipment and finances, to limit that delay.

The same logic applies after a bird strike. In case C-315/15, once an authorised expert had confirmed that the aircraft was airworthy, the airline could not justify further delay by having a second check carried out by an expert of its choice. Time lost that way remains the airline's responsibility.

And where a delay has several causes, only the part caused by the extraordinary event is deducted. The rest, including any delay caused by a technical problem with the aircraft, still counts towards the three hours. This makes a blanket "extraordinary circumstances" defence harder for the airline to sustain than a rejection letter suggests.

Flight Delay Due to Technical Problem: Compensation and the Three-Hour Rule

For a delay, what counts is your arrival at the final destination, not your departure. If you arrived three hours or more late and the technical problem was not an extraordinary circumstance, you can be entitled to €250, €400 or €600 per passenger, depending on the flight distance.

Arrival is the moment at least one aircraft door opens and passengers can leave (case C-452/13), and on a journey with a connection booked as one reservation, the delay is measured at your final destination.

Flight distance	Compensation per passenger
Up to 1,500 km	€250
Within the EU over 1,500 km, and other flights of 1,500 to 3,500 km	€400
All other flights over 3,500 km	€600, or €300 if you arrive at least three but less than four hours late

Example: A Fault Found Before Departure

You and a travelling companion are booked on a 1,200 km flight within the EU. During the pre-flight check on the day of departure, the crew finds a hydraulic fault and the plane needs a replacement part. The flight lands four hours late, and the airline cites "technical reasons" for not paying.

The fault arose in the normal operation of the aircraft, the delay at your destination is more than three hours and no replacement flight was involved, so this is a standard aircraft technical fault compensation case: €250 each, or €500 in total. Had the flight been longer than 1,500 km, for example 2,000 km within the EU, the amount would be €400 per person.

The arrival time, the three-hour threshold and the distance band together decide aircraft technical fault compensation for delays. More detail is available in our guides to how delay is measured for connecting flights and how flight distance is calculated for compensation, and on our flight delay compensation page.

Flight Cancelled Due to Technical Issues: Compensation Rules

For a flight cancelled due to technical issues, compensation is due unless the airline informed you at least two weeks before departure, or informed you later and offered a replacement flight with departure and arrival times close enough to your original schedule. A cancellation announced a week or a day before departure because of a known technical issue does not meet that test.

The airline may reduce the amount by 50% if it managed to rebook you on a replacement flight that brought you to your final destination within set time limits, a situation explained in our guide on what happens when an airline offers less compensation than the law requires.

Compensation comes on top of your other rights: a refund of the original flight or a replacement flight, as described in our guide to your right to rerouting, and care while you wait. More on cancellations is available on our cancelled flight compensation page.

Care Is Owed Either Way

Whatever the cause, the airline must provide care during a long wait: meals and refreshments, and hotel accommodation with transfers when an overnight stay becomes necessary. This duty applies even when extraordinary circumstances are proven (case C-12/11).

If meals or accommodation were not provided, keep the receipts for what you paid yourself and claim reimbursement of those costs from the airline. Reimbursement of expenses is separate from compensation and does not reduce it. See our guide to meals and accommodation during a flight delay.

Does the 2026 Reform Change This?

A revision of the EU rules received final approval in July 2026 and will apply around a year after its publication in the EU's Official Journal. It introduces an open list of extraordinary circumstances, with examples such as natural disasters, war, weather conditions, disruptive passengers and strikes by airport, air navigation or ground handling staff, and it keeps the burden of proof on the airline, including proof that all reasonable measures were taken.

Technical defects are not among those examples, and airline industry representatives have criticised the new text for not treating safety-related technical defects as extraordinary circumstances. Until the new rules apply, claims are assessed under the case law described above. Our article on the EU passenger rights reform covers the other changes.

What to Do When the Airline Cites a Technical Problem

When an airline cites technical problems, flight delay compensation is often still due. To protect your claim:

• Note what you were told about the cause, and when, and keep any email or message that mentions it.

• Keep your booking confirmation, boarding pass and receipts for anything you paid for yourself while waiting.

• Do not accept a voucher or goodwill payment offered on the basis that the problem was beyond the airline's control before checking what you are owed.

• Check your flight with FlyPayout and let us know what the airline told you about the fault.

FlyPayout assesses the airline's explanation against the case law. If the airline maintains that the fault was extraordinary, it has to prove it with evidence such as maintenance logs and technical reports, and we pursue your claim, including legal steps where needed. How long this takes depends on the airline.

You do nothing further and pay only if your compensation arrives, which is how no win no fee flight compensation works. Our guide to the most common mistakes that cause passengers to lose compensation covers other decisions to avoid along the way.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the airline have to prove that a technical problem was extraordinary?

Yes. The burden of proof lies with the airline. It must show both that the event was an extraordinary circumstance and that it could not have been avoided even with all reasonable measures, including measures to limit the delay.

Does aircraft technical fault compensation also apply to cancellations?

Yes. The same test applies to cancellations and to delays of three hours or more at the final destination. For cancellations, compensation is excluded if you were informed at least two weeks in advance, or later with a replacement flight close enough to your original schedule.

What if the technical problem was discovered during a routine check before departure?

That generally does not exempt the airline. The EU Court of Justice has held that technical problems coming to light during maintenance are not in themselves extraordinary, and that even unexpected faults not detected in routine checks do not qualify.

The airline says the fault affected safety. Does that change anything?

Not by itself. Safety is the reason a faulty aircraft does not fly, not a reason to refuse compensation. The exception covers specific situations, such as a hidden manufacturing defect revealed by the manufacturer or a competent authority, which the airline must prove.

Can the airline refuse compensation because the fault occurred on the aircraft's previous flight?

Generally not. In case C-315/15, the EU Court of Justice treated a technical problem on an earlier flight of the same aircraft as a circumstance for which the airline is responsible, so the delay it caused counts towards your three hours.

What if the technical problem delayed my flight by less than three hours?

Then there is no compensation for the delay itself, because compensation starts at three hours at the final destination. You may still be entitled to care, such as meals and refreshments, which applies after a delay at departure of two, three or four hours, depending on the flight distance.

Is compensation excluded if a bird strike or runway debris damaged the aircraft?

It can be, because both have been recognised as extraordinary circumstances. The airline must still prove that it took all reasonable measures to limit the delay, and any part of the delay caused by other factors, such as a separate technical problem, still counts, so the airline may still owe aircraft technical problem compensation.

Do Not Take "Technical Problem" as the Final Word

A technical fault is one of the strongest grounds for aircraft technical fault compensation, not a reason to give up. Check your flight with FlyPayout: it is free, you do nothing further, and you pay only if your compensation arrives.

FlyPayout helps passengers claim compensation for delayed and cancelled flights, denied boarding and missed connections under EU Regulation 261/2004, UK261 and related passenger rights rules. No win, no fee: you pay only when your compensation is paid.