Yeferson Cossio Avianca Flight Ban Controversy Explained

Colombian influencer Yeferson Cossio agreed not to fly with Avianca for one year after a chemical odor device known as a “stink bomb” activated aboard a March 2026 flight from Bogotá to Madrid. Avianca said the incident violated Colombian aviation rules and affected the safety, order, comfort and sanitation of the flight. Cossio disputed descriptions of the episode as a deliberate prank, saying the device accidentally depressurized inside his carry-on luggage. After Avianca pursued legal action, the dispute ended through a restorative-justice agreement in August 2026 under which Cossio apologized and agreed not to use Avianca services until August 21, 2027.

The Avianca Flight Incident

The Incident Happened On A Bogotá-To-Madrid Flight. Cossio was aboard Avianca flight AV46 from Bogotá, Colombia, to Madrid, Spain, on March 11, 2026 when a device that generated a strong chemical odor activated inside the passenger cabin. [Caracol Radio] [Noticias RCN]

The Device Was Described As A “Stink Bomb.” Cossio himself later referred to the item as a “stink bomb,” a small device designed to produce an extremely unpleasant smell. Avianca described it more formally as an artifact that generated a chemical odor inside the aircraft cabin. [Noticias RCN] [El Espectador]

Avianca Said The Device Was A Prohibited Chemical Item. When the dispute was ultimately resolved, the airline characterized Cossio’s conduct as involving the activation of a prohibited chemical element inside the cabin and said it violated provisions of Colombia’s Civil Aeronautical Regulations. [El Espectador] [Asuntos Legales]

Why Avianca Said The Incident Was Serious

The Aircraft Was Over The Atlantic When The Incident Occurred. Avianca emphasized that the aircraft was crossing the Atlantic Ocean and remained far from the nearest airport at the time, making any incident capable of generating an onboard emergency more serious than it might be on the ground. [Caracol Radio] [Noticias RCN]

Avianca Said The Chemical Odor Affected Safety And Order Aboard The Flight. The airline said Cossio’s conduct affected operational safety as well as the comfort, order, discipline and sanitation of the flight. Avianca specifically noted that an aircraft is an enclosed pressurized environment in which cabin air is circulated. [Noticias RCN] [Caracol Radio]

Avianca Said Passengers And Crew Experienced Legitimate Concern And Discomfort. When announcing the eventual settlement, Avianca attorney Mauricio Pava Lugo said the incident had generated concern and discomfort among the crew and passengers in addition to affecting operational safety. [Noticias Caracol]

Was It Actually A Prank?

Early Coverage Described The Incident As A Prank. The episode attracted particular attention because Cossio is known for prank content and had previously posted videos involving similar foul-smelling devices. Caracol Radio identified earlier videos in which Cossio used chemical odor devices while joking with his sister Cintia Cossio. [Caracol Radio]

Cossio Insisted The Incident On Flight AV46 Was Not A Prank. In his detailed response, Cossio said the device accidentally activated approximately one hour before the plane landed. He denied that the incident was part of a video production, sketch, social-media strategy or planned joke. [Noticias RCN] [Caracol TV]

Cossio Said The Device Depressurized Inside His Carry-On Bag. According to Cossio, the stink bomb was not intentionally or manually activated. He said it depressurized accidentally while inside his hand luggage. [Noticias RCN]

Cossio Said Videos Circulating Online Were From Older Pranks. The influencer argued that footage appearing in media coverage after the incident showed previous videos involving similar devices and did not depict what happened aboard flight AV46. He urged news organizations and social-media users not to treat those older videos as footage of the March incident. [Noticias RCN]

Cossio Disputes Avianca’s Description Of The Danger

Cossio Said The Stink Bomb Was Not Flammable. Cossio maintained that the device did not create combustion and did not present an actual threat to the physical integrity of the aircraft or its ability to complete the flight. That was Cossio’s characterization of the device; Avianca nevertheless maintained that bringing and activating the chemical element violated aviation rules and affected operational safety. [Noticias RCN] [El Espectador]

Cossio Said The Smell Lasted Approximately Three Minutes. He said the odor was temporary and was controlled using a manual air freshener. Cossio disputed suggestions that the incident caused widespread or prolonged discomfort throughout the passenger cabin. [Noticias RCN]

Cossio Said He Immediately Followed The Crew’s Instructions. He said he cooperated with the flight attendants, apologized to the crew and affected passengers and explained that the activation had been accidental. [Noticias Caracol]

Avianca Cancels Cossio’s Return Flight

Avianca Terminated Its Transportation Contract With Cossio. After reviewing the incident, the airline announced on March 29 that it had terminated Cossio’s contract of carriage because of what it described as disruptive behavior aboard AV46. [Caracol Radio] [El Tiempo]

Avianca Canceled His Return Trip. One immediate consequence was that Cossio could not use the Avianca ticket he had purchased for the return journey. [Caracol Radio] [Noticias Caracol]

The Airline Announced Legal Action. Avianca said it would pursue legal action over the incident and publicly described Cossio’s conduct as irresponsible and contrary to aviation-safety requirements. [Caracol Radio]

Cossio And Avianca Reach An Agreement

The Legal Dispute Ended Through Restorative Justice. On August 21, 2026, Avianca announced that its legal action against Cossio had concluded through a restorative-justice process. Reporting said the agreement followed a conciliation hearing before the Bogotá Chamber of Commerce. [Caracol Radio] [Infobae]

The Agreement Recorded That Cossio’s Conduct Was Contrary To Colombian Aviation Rules. Reporting on the settlement said the process recognized that activation of the unauthorized chemical element violated the Colombian Aeronautical Regulations and affected the flight’s operational safety. [Caracol Radio] [Infobae]

The Settlement Included Commitments Intended To Prevent Another Incident. Along with the flight restriction and apologies, reporting on the agreement said Cossio assumed commitments of non-repetition as part of the restorative process. [Caracol Radio]

One-Year Avianca Flight Ban

Cossio Agreed Not To Use Avianca Until August 21, 2027. Under the settlement, Cossio accepted that he would abstain from using Avianca’s services for one year. The restriction runs through August 21, 2027. [EFE] [El Espectador]

The “Ban” Was Part Of A Negotiated Resolution. Headlines have widely described Avianca as banning Cossio, but the precise language of the settlement is that Cossio “accepted” or agreed to abstain from using the airline’s services until the specified date. It was therefore a condition of the restorative-justice agreement that ended Avianca’s legal action rather than simply an unexplained lifetime blacklist imposed by the airline. [El Espectador] [Asuntos Legales]

The Restriction Applies To Avianca, Not All Air Travel. The agreement prevents Cossio from using Avianca’s services during the one-year period. It is not a government order prohibiting him from boarding airplanes or using other airlines. [EFE]

Cossio Apologizes

Cossio Formally Apologized To Avianca And The Flight Crew. As part of the restorative process, Cossio presented apologies to Avianca and to the crew members of flight AV46 for his behavior. The airline formally accepted the apologies within the settlement process. [El Espectador] [Noticias Caracol]

The Agreement Also Included Reparative Measures For Passengers. Reporting on the conciliation said the restorative resolution included non-material reparative measures involving the airline, crew and passengers affected by the incident. [Infobae]

Avianca’s Response

Avianca Said “Air Safety Is Not Negotiable.” Attorney Mauricio Pava Lugo, speaking for Avianca after the settlement, said the company had maintained a firm position from the beginning and characterized the agreement as producing recognition, repair and guarantees that the conduct would not be repeated. [Caracol Radio]

The Airline Reiterated A Zero-Tolerance Policy For Dangerous Passenger Behavior. Avianca said it would continue promoting respect among passengers and employees and maintain zero tolerance for conduct that compromises safety, personal integrity or compliance with aviation rules. [El Espectador]

Avianca Had Used The Incident To Call For Tougher Rules On Disruptive Passengers. When first announcing action against Cossio in March, Avianca renewed its call for Colombian lawmakers to advance legislation increasing penalties for disruptive airline passengers and strengthening protection for aviation personnel. [Caracol Radio]

Current Status

The Legal Dispute Between Avianca And Cossio Is Closed. Avianca says the legal action stemming from the March 11 incident concluded through the restorative-justice agreement announced August 21. [El Espectador]

Cossio Cannot Use Avianca Services Until August 21, 2027. The central consequence of the agreement is a one-year restriction on using the airline, together with apologies and commitments designed to prevent a repeat of the conduct. [EFE] [Caracol Radio]

Cossio Continues To Maintain That The Original Activation Was Accidental. Nothing in the public settlement establishes that the odor device was intentionally triggered as a social-media prank. Cossio has consistently maintained that it activated accidentally in his luggage, while the final agreement nevertheless recognizes that the presence and activation of the prohibited chemical item violated aviation rules. [Noticias RCN] [Infobae]

Relevant YouTube Videos