Aircraft Accidents in Türkiye: Liability, Investigation and Crisis Management

An aircraft accident is the critical case of aviation law: within hours, it sets in motion a number of legally independent proceedings — the safety investigation aimed at accident prevention, the criminal investigation, regulatory measures and the civil-law handling of claims with its insurance-law dimension — whose purposes, standards and time limits differ considerably. For airlines, ground-handling companies and insurers, the legal organisation of the first days determines their position in the years that follow. This article presents the Turkish accident investigation regime under ICAO Annex 13, examines the relationship between the safety investigation and criminal and civil proceedings, sets out the liability regime towards passengers and third parties, and formulates the requirements for legally secure crisis management.

Table of contents

• How is aircraft accident investigation legally regulated in Türkiye?
• What is the relationship between safety investigations, criminal proceedings and civil proceedings?
• What evidentiary effect does the UEIM investigation report have?
• How is the air carrier liable towards passengers and surviving dependants?
• How is liability towards third parties and internally allocated?
• What obligations does the aircraft operator have immediately after the event?
• What issues arise on the insurer side?
• What requirements apply to crisis management?
• Conclusion

How is aircraft accident investigation legally regulated in Türkiye?

The safety investigation of accidents and serious incidents involving civil aircraft in Turkish airspace falls within the responsibility of the Centre for Transport Safety Investigation (Ulaşım Emniyeti İnceleme Merkezi – UEIM), established under the Ministry of Transport. It is an investigation body responsible across modes of transport and institutionally separate from the Turkish civil aviation authority (SHGM).The normative framework is provided by the Regulation on the Investigation and Examination of Accidents and Serious Incidents of Civil Aircraft (HKY-13) of 2022, which transposes Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention into national law; the general notification obligation in the event of aircraft accidents is already set out in Article 10 of the Turkish Civil Aviation Law No. 2920 (TSHK). The guiding principle of the investigation is its neutrality in terms of liability: following the model of Annex 13, it serves solely to prevent future accidents and not to determine questions of fault or liability. Procedurally, the investigation follows the international standard — powers to secure the accident aircraft, flight recorders and recordings, participation of accredited representatives of the state of registry, operator, manufacturer and design together with their advisers, interim reports and a final report with safety recommendations to be published. For foreign parties involved, access through accredited representatives is of considerable practical value; operators and insurers are well advised to make structured use of this information channel, which is predetermined by international law, from the outset.

What is the relationship between safety investigations, criminal proceedings and civil proceedings?

In addition to the safety investigation, there are regularly criminal investigation proceedings — in the case of personal injury, the public prosecutor investigates ex officio, in particular for negligent homicide and negligent bodily injury under Articles 85 and 89 of the Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237 (TCK) — regulatory proceedings by the SHGM, which may range from conditions to the suspension of operating permits, and civil liability proceedings before state courts or agreed arbitral tribunals. These proceedings pursue different purposes and standards of proof, but in practice they interact: wreckage is seized under criminal procedure, witnesses are questioned more than once, and expert reports are used across proceedings. From a legal perspective, the position of the operator’s employees is particularly challenging: in the safety investigation they may be persons providing information, while in the criminal investigation they may be suspects; their statements therefore require careful legal preparation. Added to this are the internal investigations of the operator, insurers and lessors, which must be organisationally separated from the official investigation and, as far as possible, placed under the protection of legal professional confidentiality. Coordinating these parallel strands is not an administrative task, but the core of the legal management of the event.

What evidentiary effect does the UEIM investigation report have?

According to the principles adopted from Annex 13, the investigation is not aimed at assigning fault or liability, and particularly sensitive records — notably cockpit voice and flight data recordings as well as statements made to investigators — are subject to special protection against use. Turkish practice nevertheless presents a nuanced picture: the published final report is generally accessible, and civil courts as well as court-appointed experts often use its factual findings as a source of information; criminal prosecution authorities also take note of them. No legal binding effect follows from this — the findings of the report do not replace proof of fault or evidentiary presentation in civil proceedings, and its assessments are, by their purpose, not directed at the binding determination of fault or liability. For the parties to the proceedings, this results in a dual rule of conduct: the required cooperation with the investigation body, while at the same time being aware that every statement may become relevant in later criminal and civil proceedings — and the early development of an independent evidentiary basis, separate from the report, through private expert reports and procedures for securing evidence under Articles 400 et seq. of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure (HMK).

How is the air carrier liable towards passengers and surviving dependants?

For international carriage, the two-tier liability regime of Articles 17 and 21 of the Montreal Convention applies: for the death and bodily injury of passengers, the air carrier is liable up to — since the adjustment as of 28 December 2024 — 151,880 Special Drawing Rights per passenger regardless of fault; for damage exceeding that amount, it is liable without limitation as to amount unless it proves that the damage was not due to its negligence or other wrongful act or omission, or was caused solely by the conduct of a third party. Article 28 of the Convention provides for advance payments to cover the immediate economic needs of the entitled persons; these are expressly not an acknowledgement of liability. International jurisdiction is governed by Article 33 of the Convention, which in cases of personal injury also opens the jurisdiction of the passenger’s place of residence under the conditions of paragraph 2 — after major loss events, this is the practical cause of parallel proceedings in several contracting states. For domestic carriage within Türkiye, the reference in Article 106 TSHK to the conventions ratified by Türkiye leads to substantial alignment with the international regime. All claims are subject to the two-year period under Article 35 of the Convention, which according to the prevailing Turkish understanding is an exclusion period and is neither suspended nor interrupted by negotiations — the central fixed point for the claims handling strategy.

How is liability towards third parties and internally allocated?

For damage caused to persons or property outside the aircraft or outside a carriage, Article 134 TSHK provides for the operator’s strict liability; the insurance-law underpinning of this liability through the compulsory insurance under Article 138 TSHK and the MTOW-scaled minimum covers under the 2017 Regulation is presented in the article on aviation insurance. In addition to the operator, further responsible parties may come into consideration: the manufacturer under the principles of product liability, maintenance organisations and ground-handling companies on the basis of contract and tort, and — within the limits of state liability law and the administrative jurisdiction — air navigation service providers. In the external relationship, several liable parties are liable to the injured parties as joint and several debtors under general principles; in the internal relationship, allocation takes place according to the shares of causation and fault, shaped by the contractual liability and indemnity clauses of handling, maintenance and leasing contracts, whose validity reaches its general limits in cases of intent and gross negligence. This recourse dimension turns the aircraft accident into multi-party proceedings: from the outset, one’s own evidentiary strategy must be directed not only at defending against direct claims, but also at the later internal allocation.

What obligations does the aircraft operator have immediately after the event?

The first obligations are notification obligations: the accident must be notified without delay to the competent authorities under Article 10 TSHK and the provisions of HKY-13; in parallel, the insurance-contractual notification obligations — breach of which may endanger the coverage claim under Article 1446 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK) — and the information obligations towards lessors and financiers must be fulfilled in due time. This is followed by the obligation to preserve evidence: the accident aircraft, cargo and carriage documents, maintenance, duty and training records as well as electronic data must be secured and any changes documented, while control over the accident aircraft lies with the investigation body and any intervention requires its release. Support services for affected persons and their relatives must be organised and documented in accordance with international family assistance standards — including advance payments under Article 28 of the Convention. Finally, corporate communication must be committed to a single, legally reviewed line: sympathy and verified facts should be communicated; statements on causes and responsibilities are prohibited while the investigation is ongoing, not least because of their possible use in the parallel proceedings.

What issues arise on the insurer side?

On the insurer side, the event focuses on three groups of issues. The first concerns coverage: in the event of a total loss of the aircraft, a decision must be made on hull coverage, although in shoot-down, sabotage and conflict scenarios the allocation to all-risks or war-risk cover may be disputed — a distinction with considerable economic consequences that has repeatedly occupied international practice. The second group of issues concerns coordinated adjustment: between the lead insurer, reinsurers and the covers of other parties involved — ground handlers, maintenance organisations, manufacturers — early agreed protocols on joint inspection, uniform expert assessment and a coordinated strategy for advance payments and settlements have proven effective, accompanied by documented reservations of rights as long as coverage issues remain open. The third group of issues is recourse after adjustment: through the transfer of claims under Article 1472 TTK, insurers step into the claims against manufacturers, maintenance organisations, ground handlers and other responsible parties; the principles developed in the article on aviation insurance apply to the requirements, liability limitations and their breaking, including the two-year exclusion period under Article 35 of the Montreal Convention, which also disciplines recourse.

What requirements apply to crisis management?

Legally secure crisis management is established before the event. First, it requires a tested emergency plan that defines notification, family assistance, communication and legal functions, assigns responsibilities and is regularly practised — including with ground handlers and key service providers. Secondly, it requires the early establishment of an independent legal track: retaining external advisers for investigation, criminal and liability issues, the confidential structuring of internal investigations and the legal preparation of employees for questioning. Thirdly, it requires a central evidence and deadline register that continuously maps secured evidence, ongoing proceedings and all deadlines — from insurance-contractual notifications to the exclusion period under Article 35. Fourthly, the contractual arrangements in the aviation chain — handling, maintenance, leasing — must be reviewed before the critical event for the consistency of their liability, insurance and cooperation clauses. Fifthly, aftercare includes the documented implementation of the safety recommendations of the investigation report, which carries argumentative weight in subsequent regulatory proceedings as well as in later liability litigation.

Conclusion

Under Turkish law, an aircraft accident triggers an organised coexistence of independent proceedings: the liability-neutral safety investigation by the UEIM under HKY-13, criminal and regulatory proceedings, and civil liability litigation, whose international dimension is shaped by the jurisdictions under Article 33 of the Montreal Convention. The substantive liability regime is clearly structured — two-tier liability towards passengers under Articles 17 and 21 of the Convention, with the first tier increased in 2024 to 151,880 Special Drawing Rights; strict liability of the operator towards third parties under Article 134 TSHK; joint and several external liability with internal allocation shaped by contract — but its enforcement and defence depend on securing evidence and observing deadlines, above all the exclusion period under Article 35, which can neither be suspended nor interrupted.

Operators, ground handlers and insurers are therefore advised to understand the handling of the critical event as an ongoing legal task: tested emergency plans, a legal and communication track kept separate from day one, consistent evidence and deadline management, and contractual arrangements aligned with one another before the event. Those who actively organise the parallel proceedings instead of allowing them simply to unfold preserve not only their liability and coverage position, but also their reputation and operational continuity.

The aviation law team of GEMS Schindhelm supports airlines, ground-handling companies and insurers after aircraft accidents and serious incidents in Türkiye — from accompanying the investigation to defence in criminal and regulatory proceedings, through to the handling and defence of liability claims and the pursuit of recourse actions.