Sivil Havacılık Kazalarında Sistem Düzeyli Risk Örüntüleri: 2006–2026 Dönemi Küresel Açık Erişim Verilerinin Literatürle Karşılaştırmalı Analizi

Öz

Sivil havacılık kazaları, neden–sonuç ilişkilerinin çok boyutlu ve etkileşim temelli yapısı nedeniyle akademik literatürde önemini korumaktadır. Bu çalışma, 2006–2026 yılları arasında meydana gelen sivil havacılık kazaları ve ciddi olayların dağılımını, geniş ölçekli ve açık erişimli küresel kaza verileri kullanarak incelemektedir. Analiz kapsamında kazaların zamansal eğilimleri, olay türleri, temel neden kategorileri ve hava aracı tiplerine göre dağılımları değerlendirilmiştir. Ayrıca havacılık emniyeti alanındaki çalışmalar sistematik biçimde gözden geçirilmiş, literatürde öne çıkan risk alanları ve kuramsal yaklaşımlar belirlenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, akademik çalışmalarda tanımlanan risk örüntüleri ile karşılaştırılmıştır. Sonuçlar, uzun vadede kaza sayılarında dalgalanmalar gözlenmekle birlikte genel olarak azalma eğilimi bulunduğunu göstermektedir. Pistten çıkma olayları, uçuş sırasında kontrol kaybı ve çevresel faktörler başlıca neden kategorileri olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Bulgular, kazaların tekil hatalardan ziyade operasyonel, teknik ve çevresel unsurların birbiriyle bağlantılı etkisi sonucu ortaya çıktığını göstermektedir. Literatürde tanımlanan risk çerçeveleri ile gerçek kaza verileri arasındaki karşılaştırma, kavramsal modeller ile ampirik bulgular arasında yüksek düzeyde uyum bulunduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Kuramsal risk yaklaşımlarının uzun dönemli küresel kaza verileriyle birlikte değerlendirilmesi, havacılık emniyetinin sistem düzeyinde ele alınmasının önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sivil havacılık kazaları
• havacılık emniyeti
• kaza analizi
• sistematik literatür incelemesi
• açık erişimli veriler

System-Level Risk Patterns in Civil Aviation Accidents: A Comparative Analysis of Literature and Global Open-Access Data (2006–2026)

Öz

Civil aviation accidents maintain their importance in academic literature due to the multifaceted and interaction-based nature of cause-and-effect relationships. This study examines the distribution of civil aviation accidents and serious incidents between 2006 and 2026 using large-scale, open-access global accident data. The analysis evaluates the temporal trends of accidents, incident types, primary cause categories, and distribution by aircraft type. Furthermore, studies in the field of aviation safety are systematically reviewed, and prominent risk areas and theoretical approaches in the literature are identified. The empirical findings are compared with risk patterns defined in academic studies. The analysis results show that while fluctuations in accident numbers are observed in the long term, there is a general downward trend. Runway excursions, loss-of-control incidents, and environmental factors stand out as the main cause categories. The findings reveal that accidents result from a combination of interconnected operational, technical, and environmental factors rather than individual errors. A comparison of risk frameworks defined in the literature with actual accident data shows a high level of agreement between conceptual models and empirical findings. By considering theoretical risk approaches together with long-term global accident data, this study emphasizes the importance of system-level assessment of aviation safety.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Civil aviation accidents
• aviation safety
• accident analysis
• systematic review
• open-access data

Kaynakça

1. Amalberti, R. (2013). Navigating safety: Necessary compromises and trade-offs-theory and practice (Vol. 132). Heidelberg: springer.
2. Aviation Safety Network. (n.d.). ASN aviation safety database. Retrieved January 15, 2026, from https://aviation-safety.net
3. Li, G., Baker, S. P., Grabowski, J. G., & Rebok, G. W. (2001). Factors associated with pilot error in aviation crashes. Aviation, space, and environmental medicine, 72(1), 52-58.
4. Bazargan, M., & Guzhva, V. S. (2011). Factors contributing to fatalities in general aviation accidents. World Review of Intermodal Transportation Research, 1(2), 170–182.
5. Booth, A., Martyn-St James, M., Clowes, M., & Sutton, A. (2021). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review.
6. Boeing Commercial Airplanes. (2022). Statistical summary of commercial jet airplane accidents: Worldwide operations 1959–2021. Boeing.
7. Boeing Commercial Airplanes. (2023). Statistical summary of commercial jet airplane accidents. Boeing.
8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

9. Chen, C.-F., Chen, S.-C., & Li, Y.-Y. (2013). The relationship between safety climate and safety performance in aviation. Journal of Air Transport Management, 28, 32–36.
10. Dekker, S. (2016). Drift into failure: From hunting broken components to understanding complex systems. CRC press.
11. Dekker, S. (2017). The field guide to understanding'human error'. CRC press.
12. Flin, R., Mearns, K., O'Connor, P., & Bryden, R. (2000). Measuring safety climate: identifying the common features. Safety science, 34(1-3), 177-192.
13. Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health information & libraries journal, 26(2), 91-108.
14. Guldenmund, F. W. (2000). The nature of safety culture: a review of theory and research. Safety science, 34(1-3), 215-257.
15. Helmreich, R. L., & Merritt, A. C. (1998). Culture at work in aviation and medicine: National, organizational, and professional influences. Ashgate.
16. Hollnagel, E. (2018). Safety-I and safety-II: the past and future of safety management. CRC press. Hollnagel, E., Woods, D. D., & Leveson, N. (Eds.). (2006). Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd..
17. International Air Transport Association. (2022). Safety report 2022. https://www.iata.org
18. International Civil Aviation Organization. (2018a). Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation: Aircraft accident and incident investigation. ICAO.
19. International Civil Aviation Organization. (2018b). Safety management manual (Doc 9859, 4th ed.). ICAO.
20. International Civil Aviation Organization. (2021). Safety report 2021.
21. https://www.icao.int/safety/Documents/ICAO_Safety_Report_2021.pdf
22. International Civil Aviation Organization. (2022). ICAO safety report 2022 edition. ICAO.
23. Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele, UK, Keele University, 33(2004), 1-26.
24. Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Keele University.
25. Leveson, N. (2004). A new accident model for engineering safer systems. Safety science, 42(4), 237- 270.
26. Leveson, N. G. (2016). Engineering a safer world: Systems thinking applied to safety. MIT press.
27. Li, G., Baker, S. P., Grabowski, J. G., & Rebok, G. W. (2008). Factors associated with pilot error in aviation crashes. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40(6), 1957–1963.
28. Li, W. C., & Harris, D. (2006). Pilot error and its relationship with higher organizational levels: HFACS analysis of 523 accidents. Aviation, space, and environmental medicine, 77(10), 1056-1061.
29. Li, W. C., Harris, D., & Yu, C. S. (2008). Routes to failure: Analysis of 41 civil aviation accidents from the Republic of China using the human factors analysis and classification system. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40(2), 426-434.
30. Maurino, D. E., Reason, J., Johnston, N., & Lee, R. B. (2017). Beyond aviation human factors: Safety in high technology systems. Routledge.
31. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097.
32. National Transportation Safety Board. (n.d.). Aviation accident database & synopses. Retrieved January 15, 2026, from https://www.ntsb.gov
33. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. John Wiley & Sons.
34. Rasmussen, J. (1997). Risk management in a dynamic society. Safety Science, 27(2–3), 183–213. Reason, J. (1997). Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Ashgate.
35. Salas, E., Wilson, K. A., Burke, C. S., & Wightman, D. C. (2006). Does crew resource management training work? Human Factors, 48(2), 392–412.
36. Shappell, S. A., & Wiegmann, D. A. (2000). The human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS). Office of Aviation Medicine.
37. Shappell, S. A., Detwiler, C., Holcomb, K., Hackworth, C., Boquet, A., & Wiegmann, D. A. (2009). Human error and commercial aviation accidents: An analysis using HFACS. Human Factors, 49(2), 227– 242.
38. Stoop, J., & Dekker, S. (2012). Are safety investigations pro-active? Safety Science, 50(6), 1422–1430. Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 45.
39. Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367.
40. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.
41. Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Managing the unexpected (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
42. Wiegmann, D. A., & Shappell, S. A. (2001). Human error perspectives in aviation. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 11(4), 341–357.
43. Wiegmann, D. A., & Shappell, S. A. (2003). A human error approach to aviation accident analysis. Ashgate.