Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.

12, 2017

Philippine Air Transport Safety: Analysis of Accidents and Incidents over

the Last Two Decades

Giel Sabrine P. CRUZ a, Ricardo G. SIGUA b

a,b
Institute of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of the Philippines,
Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines 1101
a
E-mail: gpcruz@up.edu.ph
b
E-mail: rdsigua@up.edu.ph

Abstract: The main objective of the study is to raise awareness on the risk susceptibility of
the general public on domestic air travel in the Philippines. Annual incident, accident and
fatality rates per million departures from 1995 to 2015 were computed and analyzed.
Philippines’ average accident rate is 3.04, relatively low compared to the global average of
3.83. The country has not had any accident since 2010 and its fatality rate has been zero since
2003. Runway excursion during landing is the most frequent incident/accident while
controlled flight into terrain during descent has the highest fatality rate. Safety cultures in
aerodromes and recommended flight safety procedures were also identified. Using IAOGP
safety assessment mechanism, the safety scores of local airlines were computed using
parameters such as management and operational environment factors. Airlines A and B scored
6.544 and 6.765, respectively. Philippines performs above average in most aviation categories
set by ICAO.

Key words: Philippine aviation, accident rate, airline safety, runway safety

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

With its archipelagic characteristics, Philippines depends highly on air transportation systems
which provide rapid and efficient connection between widely distributed areas, and thus
supporting the social and economical development of the entire nation.
Under the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) are two
agencies responsible for the aviation welfare of the country: Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB)
and Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP). CAB is tasked to regulate, promote
and develop the economic aspect of air transportation and to ensure that existing CAB
policies are adapted to the present and future air commerce of the Philippines. On the other
hand, CAAP is responsible for implementing policies on civil aviation in order to ensure safe,
economical, and efficient air travel. As an independent regulatory body with quasi-judicial
and quasi-legislative powers, CAAP is mandated to set comprehensive, clear and impartial
rules and regulations for the Philippine aviation industry.
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is a specialized agency of
the United Nations that codifies the principles and techniques of international air navigation
and fosters the planning and development of international air transport to ensure safe and
orderly growth.
At present, there are three major domestic air carriers in the country, namely Philippine
Airlines, Cebu Pacific and AirAsia Philippines.

1974
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.12, 2017

Figure 1. History of Philippine-based airlines

As illustrated in Figure 1, the longest in the industry is Philippine Airlines, formerly

known as Philippine Aerial Taxi Company, which began to operate in 1941. In 1999, PAL
management took over Air Philippines but didn’t rename it right away. In the following years,
its name was changed to PAL Express then was changed again to Airphil Express. In 2013,
the name was reverted back to PAL Express. Another major airline is Cebu Pacific which
came into existence in 1996. It acquired TigerAir Philippines in 2015 and rebranded it as its
subsidiary airline Cebgo. TigerAir Philippines used to be Southeast Asian Airline before it
was bought in 2013. AirAsia Philippines, another primary airline, commenced its operations
in 2010. In 2013, AirAsia Philippines merged with Zest Air, formerly known as Asian Spirit,
to launch its subsidiary airline AirAsia Zest.

Figure 2. Estimated annual domestic flights for 1995 to 2015

Figure 2 shows the estimated annual domestic flights for 1995 to 2015. It can be
observed that the number of flights has significantly increased starting from 2007.

1.2 Objectives

The main objective of the study is to raise awareness on the risk susceptibility of the general
public on domestic air travel in the Philippines. In doing so, one of the specific objectives is
to identify the annual incident, annual accident and annual fatality rates from 1995 to 2015.
Moreover, the study aims to establish aviation accident/incident trends with respect to the

1975
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.12, 2017

types of occurrence and phases of operation using frequency and number of fatalities/injuries
data. Another specific objective of the study is to assess local airlines’ safety using parameters
such as management and operating factors and operational environment components.

1.3 Scope and Limitations

The study only covered domestic incidents and accidents from 1995 to 2015 on scheduled
commercial passenger flights. Data are limited to what CAB and CAAP provided, and with
the available ICAO reports. For the airline safety assessment, the subsidiary airlines are
included to the parent airlines. Note also that when an airline was recently bought and
rebranded by a major airline included in the assessment, the incidents and accidents of the
previous are added to the new company. This is to recognize that the bought airline is still in
the transition stages of operating under new management.

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Information on accident and its investigation are very crucial in accident prevention for these
provide compelling and concrete evidence of hazards. The catastrophic and expensive
outcome of accident provides the more reason for allocating resources to accident prevention
(Rodrigues and Cusick, 2012).
Accidents rarely happen since most transportation systems in the developed world are
safer or even ultra-safe. The likelihood if a fatal accident happening is less than 10-7 or 1 out
of 10,000,000 chance of death, serious loss of property or environmental or economic
devastation (Amalberti, 2001).
Air travel is one of the safest modes of transportation on a distance-flown basis. But due
to the longer distances involved, it is the accident rate per flight that is of most concern. In the
case of small operators with relatively few number of flights, they may not have experienced
an accident yet but this doesn’t necessarily mean they are safer that the larger operators.
Generally, operations of well-established airlines are safer but evidence of this is still
unanalyzed. But because of their reputation in the industry, an accident may be viewed in
isolation from their proper statistical context, and may hit the headlines (IAOGP, 2009).
After the 9/11 attack, the regulatory powers of governments have significantly
influenced the air transport industry. This is evident by the many stringent requirement set by
the governments on the matter of safety and security on flight operations. Some airlines were
burdened by these requirements and could not keep up to sustain operations, leaving them to
eventually close down (Zapanta 2005). But authorities should be sensitive to the limitations of
the remedies. Accidents can never be prevented even with good management and
organizational design, these may only reduce the occurrence. The effect of unacknowledged
and invisible social forces on information, interpretation, knowledge and action are difficult to
identify and control (Vaughan 1996).

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Data Collection

Data used in the study were obtained from CAB, CAAP and online ICAO reports. Airline
data were obtained from the respective airlines who agreed to participate in the research.

1976
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.12, 2017

3.1.1 Incidents and Accidents

Figure 3. Incident and accident selection criteria

Figure 3 was used in selecting the incidents and accidents included in the study. It must have
happened in the Philippines, operated by a Philippine-based airline and flying on a scheduled
commercial passenger flight. As shown on the right side of Figure 3, to be classified as an
accident, ICAO states that it should manifest at least one of the three criteria. Otherwise, it is
categorized as an incident.

3.1.2 Country Factor

Country Factor is fundamental in computing for the Airline Safety Score. It establishes the
environment of domestic flights and presents a general background on the aviation setting in
the Philippines. The following lookup tables from the IAOGP were used in obtaining the
country’s scores on different flight parameters. These parameters have their corresponding
weighting factors, to be multiplied to the initial scores before summing them all up as the
Country Factor value, to account for the different degree of importance of each parameter.

Table 1. Regulatory score based on IASA programme findings

IASA Category Regulatory Oversight Factors
1 1.00
2 0.00
Relative weight: 1.50

Table 1 corresponds to the national regulator’s compliance with ICAO safety standards.
Category 1, which the Philippines falls into, denotes that the country complies.

Table 2. National safety influences scores

Regional Safety
Regions Accident Rate Influence Score
Europe (EASA), North America and Australasia 0.00 1.00
Eastern Europe (Non EASA), Russia,
0.10 0.80
Middle East and South Africa
Asia and Indian Ocean 0.20 0.60
Central Asia, Caucasus, Latin America and Caribbean 0.30 0.40
Africa (excluding South Africa) 0.50 0.00
Relative weight: 0.50

1977
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.12, 2017

The national safety influence scores shown in Table 2 are based on Flight Safety
Foundation’s (FSF) recent assessment on regional accident rates on different world regions
and sub-regions. IAOGP suggests that in the absence of deeper knowledge on individual
countries’ national safety scores, the values presented in Table 2 can be used as their default
values.

Table 3. Air traffic environment scores

Relative Risk from Air Traffic
Region Lack of Air Traffic Services Environment Score
Asia-Pacific 30% 1.00
Western Europe 31% 1.00
North America 94% 0.80
Eastern Europe 104% 0.80
Middle East 165% 0.60
Latin America 401% 0.00
Africa 424% 0.00
Relative weight: 1.25

Also from FSF’s analysis, Table 3 was derived taking into consideration the presence or
absence of standard terminal arrival routs, visual approach guidance systems, precision
approach radars, and the use of non-precision approaches.

Table 4. Airfield terrain scores

Relative Risk from Airfield
Region Lack of Air Traffic Services Terrain Score
Eastern Europe 14% 0.50
North America 74% 0.40
Western Europe 82% 0.40
Middle East 90% 0.40
Africa 156% 0.20
Asia-Pacific 225% 0.10
Latin America 282% 0.00
Relative weight: 1.25

FSF also studied the effects of terrain in different world regions as presented in Table 4,
with their corresponding risk probability, with Asia-Pacific and Latin America having the
highest risks.

Table 5. Airfield climate score

Type of Climate Airfield Climate Score
Moderate ranges of temperature and precipitation 0.50
Year-rounded desert or arctic, but clear weather conditions 0.25
Seasonal extremes of temperature and precipitation 0.00
Relative weight: 1.25

Although FSF was not able to study the effects of climate on aviation, IAOGP
rationalized it into three categories as shown in Table 5. Since the scoring is very limited to
only three values, the authors opted to give Philippines a score of 0.10 due to its geographic
location situated across the typhoon belt. Even though the country has only dry and rainy

1978
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.12, 2017

seasons, an average of 28 typhoons enters the Philippine Area of Responsibility every year,
with sustained winds ranging between 38 to 137 mph.

Table 6. Country security scores

Country Risk Category Country Security Score
Extreme Risk 0.00
High Risk 0.25
Medium Risk 0.50
Low Risk 0.75
Insignificant Risk 1.00
Relative weight: 0.50

Table 6 provides risk assessment with the corresponding country security scores. In this
portion, IAOGP noted that in the absence of data provided by political risk consultants, an in-
house risk assessment could be used. But since both are not available, the authors simply
selected the middle value, pertaining to medium risk, to avoid bias.

3.1.3 Airline Factor

Two out of the three major airlines in the country agreed to participate in the study.
Questionnaires were provided to them encompassing their fleet characteristics, manner of
operations and reputation in the aviation industry. Their answers were then translated into
quantifiable values using the IAOGP lookup tables presented below. Similar to the
computation of Country Factor, the initial values obtained from the lookup tables were
multiplied to their respective weighting factors to signify the different degree of importance of
each parameter and then summed up as the Airline Factor.

Table 7. Aircraft fleet age factors

Aircraft Age (years) Age Factor
≤ 10 1.00
11 0.90
12 0.80
13 0.70
14 0.60
15 0.50
16 0.40
17 0.30
18 0.20
19 0.10
≥ 20 0.00
Relative weight: 2.00

The airline’s final Age Factor was calculated by getting the mean Age Factor of each
aircraft being used. As implied by Table 7, when an aircraft is brand-new or has been flying
for less than ten years, it is deemed safer compared to a 20-year-old aircraft.

1979
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.12, 2017

Table 8. Individual aircraft type factors

Aircraft Type Factors
1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00
737-600/700/800 717-200 737-300/400/500 727-200A 707 (all)
737-900/900ER 717-400 (all) 747-300 737-200A 727-100/200
747-8 757-200/300 767-200/200ER 747-200 737-200
777-200LR/300ER 767-300/400ER A300-600/600R A300 B2/B4 747-100/SP/SR
787 (ALL) 777-200/200ER/300 A310-200/300 DC10-15/30/40 BAC 111 (all)
A318/319/320/321 Avro RJ BAE 146 Fokker F28-4000 DC8 (all)
A330 (all) IL-96M Fokker 70/100 L1011-200/500 DC9 (all)
A340 (all) MD-11 IL-86 TU-154M DC10-10/20
A350 (all) MD-90 IL-96 300-400 Yak-42/42D Fokker F28-1/3000
A380-100 TU-204 MD-80 (all) An 72/74 IL-62/62M
ATR 42-600 AN-140 An-38 BAE Jetstream 31 L1011-1/150
ATR 72-600 ATR 42-500 ATP BAE Jetstream 32 TU-134 (all)
AVIC ARJ21 ATR 72-500 ATR 42-300 Beech 1900 TU-154A/B
Bombardier C CRJ-200/440 ATR 72-200 DH Dash 7 Yak-40
CRJ-700 Domier 328 Jet BAE Jetstream 41 Domier 228 All piston types
CRJ-900 Saab 2000 CN-235 Fokker F27 All single-engine types
CRJ-1000 ERJ-135/140/145 Dash 8-100/200/300 HS 748 An 24/26
DHC Dash 8-400 TU-334 Dornier 328-100 MA 60/600 An 28/30/32
EMB 170/175 EMB-120 Brasilia Metro III/23 Beech 99
EMB 190/195 Fokker 50 Short 360 Casa/IPTN 212
Mitsubishi RJ IL-114 Yun 12 Convair 580/600
Sukhoi Superjet Saab 340A/B DH Twin Otter
Let 420 Electra
EMB-110
Fairchild F27/FH227
IL-18
Let 410
Metro II
Shorts 330
Skyvan/Skyliner
Small twin turboprops
Yun 7
Relative weight: 1.00

Aside from age, the modernity of aircraft also plays a role in the risk susceptibility of a
flight. In Table 8, those listed under 0.00 were certificated before 1970 when the design
standards were outdated compared to what are being adapted recently. Similar to the Age
Factor, the Fleet Composition Factor was computed by getting the average of each Aircraft in
service.

Table 9. Aircraft equipment factors

Equipment Type Equipment Factors
Cockpit Voice Recorder 0.05
Flight Data Recorder 0.05
Flight Management System 0.10
Flight Operations Quality Assurance 0.20
Second Generation Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System 0.35
First Generation Ground Proximity Warning System 0.20
Second Generation Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System 0.25
First Generation Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System 0.10
Maximum possible score 1.00
Relative weight: 1.50

Airlines were asked whether the devices listed in Table 9 are present in all, most, few or
none of their aircrafts. Scores were then adjusted accordingly within these four options.

1980
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.12, 2017

Table 10. Conduct of operations factors

Safety Function Maximum Operations Factor
Crew Training Procedures 0.25
Maintenance Procedures 0.20
Quality Assurance in Operations and Engineering 0.25
Safety Culture and Management 0.30
Maximum possible score 1.00
Relative weight: 3.00

For the conduct of operations shown in Table 10, airlines were asked whether the listed
safety functions are attained in excellent, good, fair or poor manner. This is entirely based on
how airlines assess their own operations. Scores were then adjusted accordingly.

Table 11. Partnership and alliance factors

Safety Function Maximum Operations Factor
Significant Code-shares 0.33
Technical Co-operation 0.33
Strategic Alliances 0.33
Maximum possible score 1.00
Relative weight: 1.00

Under partnerships and alliances, airlines were asked if they have or do not have the
safety functions listed in Table 11. Scores are either 0.33 or 0 for each item.

Table 12. Airline financial standing factors

Safety Function Maximum Financial Score
Credit Rating 0.25
Financial Strength 0.25
Insurers Assessment 0.25
Management Quality 0.25
Maximum possible score 1.00
Relative weight: 0.50

Similar to the conduct of operations, airline financial standing was derived on airline’s
discretion whether the items listed in Table 12 are attained in excellent, good, fair or poor
manner. Scores were then adjusted accordingly within these four options.

Table 13. Airline maturity scores

Airline Age (years) Airline Maturity Score
<1 0.00
1 0.10
2 0.20
3 0.30
4 0.40
5 0.50
6 0.60
7 0.70
8 0.80
9 0.90
≥ 10 1.00
Relative weight: 0.50

1981
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.12, 2017

Airlines that have been in the industry longer have greater corporate knowledge and on-
going learning process of management and operational personnel. Table 13 quantifies this
maturity.

Table 14. Airline security scores

Airline Risk Category Airline Security Score
Extreme Risk 0.00
High Risk 0.25
Medium Risk 0.50
Low Risk 0.75
Insignificant Risk 1.00
Relative weight: 0.50

Similar to the calculation of Country Factor, Airline Factor also takes into consideration
the risk susceptibility of airlines as presented in Table 14. But since assessments on this are
not available, the authors opted to use the middle value as default.

3.2 Data Analysis

Incident and accident data were graphed and analyzed to obtain the different rates and trends
on Philippine aviation. Equations and lookup tables provided by IAOGP were used in
computing for the airline safety scores.

3.2.1 Flight Statistics

Data provided by CAAP only cover flights from 2001 to 2015. In obtaining the rest of the
flight data from 1995 to 2015, linear trendline scheme in Microsoft Excel was used. Only the
data from 2001 to 2006 were used in obtaining for the trend since these values exhibit linear
increase, providing more realistic data for the previous years, unlike when considering the
data from the succeeding years where the number of flights exhibit sudden increase.

3.2.2 Trends and Rates

The trends on types of occurrence and phases of operation were simply tallied and presented
in charts using Microsoft Excel. For the trend on types of occurrence, data were grouped
under abnormal runway contact, runway incursion, controlled flight into terrain, runway
excursion, engine failure and fire. While for the phases of operation, data were categorized
under take off, climb, cruise, descent, approach and landing.
The rates were identified by grouping the data according to year, from 1995 to 2015.
The number of incidents, accidents and fatalities per year were multiplied by 1 million and
then divided by the number of departures of the same year. Incident, accident and fatality
rates were computed and graphed using Microsoft Excel.

3.2.3 Airline Safety Score

Using the IAOGP safety assessment mechanism, the airline safety score was computed using
Equation (1)

(1)

1982
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.12, 2017

where ,
AS : Airline Safety Score
SF : Safety Factor
AF : Airline Factor
CF : Country Factor

The scheme in computing for the Country and Airline Factors were presented in
sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3, respectively. The Safety Factor was computed using Equation (2),

(2)

(3)

where,
SF : Safety Factor
EIAR : Effective Incident/Accident Rate
WNIA : Weighted Number of Incidents/Accidents

The Weighted Number of Incidents/Accidents is the quantitative measurement on the

severity of incidents and accidents the airline was involved in, as shown in Equation (4),

(4)

where,
OF1 : Number of accidents with more than 20 fatalities
OF2 : Number of accidents with 10-20 fatalities
OF3 : Number of accidents with less than 10 fatalities
OF4 : Number of incidents/accidents with resulting injuries
OF5 : Number of incidents/accidents with no resulting injuries

This airline safety assessment mechanism, including the equations and lookup tables
used are all based on a study made by IAOGP, specifically their Aviation Subcommittee. The
authors used this mechanism being relatively recent and the most comprehensive based on
literature reviews. It was created through series of workshops involving members of the
IAOGP Aviation Subcommittee, representatives from airlines, independent consultants,
telecommunication industry, broadcast media and an international funding agency. Moreover,
IAOGP takes pride in having access to a wealth of technical knowledge and experience with
its members operating around the world in many different terrains. Many of their guidelines
have been recognized and used by international authorities and safety and environmental
bodies.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Analysis of Accident and Incident Trends

Incident data were graphed and analyzed in terms of occurrence type and operation phase.
Trends were identified from the number of frequency as represented by blue bar, number of

1983
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.12, 2017

fatalities as represented by red bar, and number of injuries data as represented by orange bar.

4.1.1 Types of Occurrence

Figure 4. Trend on types of occurrence

Based on the gathered data, Figure 4 shows the frequency, number of fatalities and number of
injuries of accidents and incidents with respect to types of occurrence for the period 1995 to
2015. The prevalent incident/accident is runway excursion with 16 times frequency followed
by engine failure and abnormal runway contact with 11 and 5 times frequency, respectively.
ICAO defines runway excursion as a veer off or overrun of an aircraft off the runway
surface or a situation where an aircraft makes an inappropriate entrance or exit on the runway.
It is generally recommended that airlines consider modifying their approach and landing
procedures to incorporate runway safety recommendations. Flight crew should use real-time
information to analyze how much runway is required relative to runway available. Runway
overrun event data suggest that a number of runway overruns can be avoided if the flight crew
has a more thorough understanding of the interrelationship between the landing environment
and the potential risks existing that day such as weather, winds, runway conditions, minimum
equipment list items, airplane weight, etc.
On the other hand, the accident with the most number of fatalities is controlled flight
into terrain, which has resulted to the death of everyone on board. FSF defines controlled
flight into terrain as an occurrence when an airworthy aircraft under the control of the flight
crew is flown unintentionally into terrain, obstacles or water, usually with no prior awareness
by the crew.
ICAO has been consistent in its annual safety reports, stating that runway excursion and
runway incursion are the most frequent accident worldwide. Both ICAO and Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) define a runway incursion as any occurrence at an aerodrome
involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle or person on the protected area of a
surface designated for the landing and take-off of aircraft. However, in the Philippines,
runway incursion has only happened 3 times in the last two decades, as presented in Figure 4.
CAAP has established an efficient Runway Safety Office that is responsible for the
runway safety initiatives throughout the civil aviation community. They are responsible for
improving runway safety data collection, analysis and dissemination and maintaining signage
and markings are ICAO-compliant and visible to pilots and drivers. They initiate local

1984
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.12, 2017

awareness by developing and distributing runway safety education and training material to
controllers, pilots and personnel driving vehicles on the aerodrome.
CAAP is also considering installing technological solutions like Airport Movement
Area Safety System that will give visual and aural prompts to tower controllers to respond to
situations on the airfield that potentially compromise safety and Moving Map Displays that
will show the pilot their own position on the airport surface and can greatly improve runway
safety at night and in poor visibility. Other devices being looked into are low cost surveillance
systems for small and medium sized airports, Runway Status Lights and Final Approach
Occupancy Signal.

4.1.2 Phases of Operation

Figure 5. Trend on phases of operation

Figure 5 corresponds to the frequency, number of fatalities and number of injuries on different
phases of operation for the period 1995 to 2015. The most vulnerable phase is landing with 27
times frequency followed by cruise. Out of the 27 landing incidents and accidents, 16 were
runway excursions, 5 were abnormal runway contact, 3 were engine failure, 2 were runway
incursions, and 1 fire. ICAO defines landing phase as the beginning of the landing flare until
aircraft exits the landing runway, comes to a stop on the runway, or when power is applied for
takeoff in the case of a touch-and-go landing.
On the other hand, the phase with the most number of fatalities recorded is descent with
252 deaths. These 3 accidents were all controlled flight into terrain. According to ICAO,
descent phase is when the aircraft descends from cruise to either Initial Approach Fix or
Visual Flight Rule pattern entry or when it is 1,000 feet above the runway elevation.

4.2 Analysis of Accident and Incident Rates

Data were graphed and analyzed per year in obtaining the annual accident, fatality and
incident rates per million departures from 1995 to 2015.

1985
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.12, 2017

4.2.1 Annual Accident Rate

According to ICAO Manual Annex 13, accident is an occurrence associated with the
operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with
the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked, in which:
a.) a person is fatally or seriously injured as a result of being in the aircraft, or direct
contact with any part of the aircraft, including parts which have become detached from
the aircraft, or direct exposure to jet blast, except when the injuries are from natural
causes, self inflicted or inflicted by other persons, or when the injuries are to stowaways
hiding outside the areas normally available to the passengers and crew. For statistical
uniformity only, an injury resulting in death within thirty days of the date of the
accident is classified as a fatal injury by ICAO; or
b.) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which adversely affects the
structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and would
normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component, except for
engine failure or damage, when the damage is limited to the engine, its cowlings or
accessories: or for damage limited to propellers, wing tips, antennas, tires, brakes,
fairings, small dents or puncture holes in the aircraft skin; or
c.) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible. An aircraft is considered to be
missing when the official search has been terminated and the wreckage has not been
located.

Figure 6. Annual accident rate per million departures

Figure 6 illustrates the annual accident rate, as derived from the data obtained from
CAB and CAAP. Since 1995, the highest occurred in 1998 with 25.4 accidents per million
departures. Two accidents happened in 1998, one was a controlled flight into terrain, killing
all 104 people on board and the other was runway excursion with 3 fatalities and 69 injuries.
One accident was recorded in each year of 1996, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2007, 2008, and 2009.
The drop in accident rates in 2007 to 2009 can be associated with the country’s significant
increase in the number of flight departures starting in 2007, as shown in Figure 2.
Furthermore, there were no accidents recorded in most of the other years, and the Philippines
has not had any since 2010.

1986
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.12, 2017

Table 15. Global accident rate per million departures

Global Accident Rate Global Accident Rate Global Accident Rate
Year Year Year
(per million departures) (per million departures) (per million departures)
2000 4.60 2006 3.80 2012 3.20
2001 3.90 2007 4.00 2013 2.80
2002 4.10 2008 4.50 2014 3.00
2003 4.60 2009 4.00 2015 2.80
2004 3.50 2010 4.10
Ave. 3.83
2005 4.10 2011 4.20

Comparing the values from Figure 6 and the global accident rates obtained from ICAO
safety reports as shown in Table 15, it can be observed that the Philippines has significantly
high accident rates in certain years, ranging from 6.7 to 25.4 accidents per million departures.
However, considering only the data from 2000 to 2015, the average accident rate of
Philippines is 3.04, considerably lower compared to 3.83 average rate of the world. Since the
authors were not able to get a hold of the global accident rates prior to 2000, the 1995 to 2015
average accident rate of the Philippines, which is 4.75 per million departures, cannot be
compared to that of the world, thus the shorter comparison period.

4.2.2 Annual Fatality Rate

Figure 7. Annual fatality rate per million departures

Figure 7 pertains to the annual fatality rate per million departures. The only recorded fatal
accidents in the past two decades happened in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2002. Since 1995, the
highest rate occurred in 2000 with over 1500 fatalities per million departures. It was a
controlled flight into terrain with 131 fatalities. Two accidents happened in 1998, one was a
controlled flight into terrain, killing all 104 people on board and the other was runway
excursion with 3 fatalities and 69 injuries. Similarly, all 17 people on board were killed by
controlled flight into terrain in 1999. In 2002, an engine failure has resulted in 19 fatalities
and 15 injuries. The average fatality rate from 1995 to 2015 is 161 fatalities per million
departures. Philippines has not had any fatal accident since 2003.

1987
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.12, 2017

4.2.3 Annual Incident Rate

ICAO defines incident as an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation
of an aircraft which affects or could affect the safety of operation.

Figure 8. Annual incident rates per million departures

Figure 8 shows the annual incident rate per million departures. Since 1995, the highest
rates occurred in 2008 and 2009 with more than 30 incidents per million departures. 2 runway
excursion, 1 abnormal runway contact and 1 engine failure happened in 2008. In 2009, 3
engine failure and 2 runway excursions occurred. From 1995 to 2015, none of the incidents
has resulted in any minor injury. The average rate for the past two decades is 8.86 incidents
per million departures. Since incidents are not included in the annual safety reports of ICAO,
there is no means of comparison with the global average rate.

4.3 Airline Safety Assessment

Airline safety assessment scoring of IAOGP ranges from 0 to 10. A score of 10 represents
perfect airline safety record and other positive attributes. A score of 0 represents high danger
where risk of accident approximates to less than 1 per 4000 flights.

4.3.1 Philippine-based Airlines

Table 16. Country Factor data and results

Relative Weight Initial Score Weighted Score
Regulatory Oversight 1.50 1.00 1.50
National Safety Influence 0.50 0.60 0.30
Air Traffic Environment 1.25 1.00 1.25
Airfield Environment
a. Terrain 1.25 0.10 0.13
b. Climate 1.25 0.10 0.13
Country Security 0.50 0.50 0.25
Total 3.55

1988
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.12, 2017

Country Factor was computed by summing all the parameters discussed in section 3.1.2.
Overall, Philippines obtained a Country Factor of 3.55 out of the maximum possible score of
5. Basically, Philippines’ score reflects that the country complies with ICAO safety standards,
has an average regional accident rate compared to other continents and assessed as not at risk
from lack of air traffic services. However, the terrain and storm in the country are among the
worst airfield environment in the world. For the country security, since information on this
was not available to the authors, a mid value was just assumed as default.

Table 17. Airline Factor data and results for Airlines A and B
Airline A Airline B
Relative Initial Weighted Initial Weighted
Weight Score Score Score Score
Aircraft Fleet Age 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00
Airline Fleet Composition 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.97
Aircraft Equipment 1.50 1.00 1.50 0.90 1.35
Conduct of Operations 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00
Partnerships & Alliances 1.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67
Airline Financial Standing 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50
Airline Maturity 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50
Airline Security 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.25
Total 9.40 9.23

Airline Factor is the summation of scores presented in section 3.1.2. As shown in Table
17, Airlines A and B obtained Airline Factors of 9.40 and 9.23, respectively with 10 as the
highest possible value. Airlines A and B are the same in all parameters except in airline fleet
composition and aircraft equipment. The fleet of Airline B is slightly behind in modernity,
specifically few of their aircraft models and the aircraft equipment they are using. On the
other hand, both airlines have fleets relatively new- less than 10 years in service. They both
have excellent conduct of operations which encompass crew training procedures, maintenance
procedures, quality assurance in operations and engineering and safety culture and
management. Both have significant code-shares and technical co-operation but no strategic
alliances. They have excellent credit ratings, financial strength, insurer assessment and
management quality. And both have been in the aviation industry for a long period of time-
more than 10 years. For the airline security, since information on this was not available to the
authors, a mid value was just assumed as default.

Table 18. Weighted Number of Incidents/Accidents results for Airlines A and B

Airline A Airline B
Relative Weighted Weighted
Frequency Frequency
Weight Score Score
OF1 3.00 1 3.00 1 3.00
OF2 2.50 0 0.00 0 0.00
OF3 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
OF4 1.00 3 3.00 0 000
OF5 0.25 7 1.75 7 1.75
WNIA 7.75 4.75

Table 18 corresponds to the frequency of incidents and accidents of Airlines A and B,

with their corresponding relative weights to account for the severity of each occurrence. Both
airlines suffered an accident with more than 20 fatalities and they both had 7

1989
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.12, 2017

incidents/accidents that did not result to any injury. In addition, Airline A had 3
incidents/accidents with resulting injuries. The computed Weighted Number of
Incidents/Accidents for Airlines A and B are 7.75 and 4.75, respectively.

Table 19. Safety Factor results for Airlines A and B

Airline A Airline B
Number of departures from 1995 to 2015 1,195,840* 1,087,887*
Effective Incident/Accident Rate 1.46 1.06
Safety Factor 0.758 0.794
*
Estimated data

The Effective Incident/Accident Rate and Safety Factor in Table 8 were computed using
Equations (3) and (2), respectively. Out the maximum possible score of 1.00, Airline A got a
Safety Factor of 0.758 while Airline B obtained 0.794.
Finally, the Airline Safety Score was calculated from the Country, Airline and Safety
Factors computed earlier. Using Equation (1), the Airline Safety Score of Airline A was
computed to be 6.544 while Airline B scored slightly higher with 6.765, out of the maximum
possible score of 10. Though Airline A has a higher Airline Factor, its Airline Safety Score
yielded with a lower value due to the significance of the Safety Factor.
Though there is no way of comparing these results with international airlines, IAOGP
has noted that there are some airlines achieving a zero score and it is impossible for one to get
a perfect score of 10 due to the inherent value of 1 added to Equation (3) representing a
hindsight of a serious accident. From 0 to 10, Philippine-based airlines with Airline Safety
Scores of 6.544 and 6.765 are far from being the worst or the most unsafe airlines but they
also could not be considered the best or the safest either. Philippines will never have a perfect
Country Factor of 5 due to its natural terrain and stormy weather conditions. But the Airline
Safety Scores could improve with more number of flights and less occurrence of incidents and
accidents.

4.4 International Civil Aviation Organization Safety Audit

Figure 9. ICAO’s audit ratings to the Philippines and the global average

1990
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.12, 2017

Figure 9 illustrates the effective implementation audit of ICAO to the Philippines in

2013. The blue bars pertain to the Philippines’ ratings while the red squares are the global
average. This rating is based on how satisfactory the country implements the regulations
under the eight aviation categories. Under primary aviation legislation and associated civil
aviation regulations, civil aviation organizational structure, personnel licensing activities,
aircraft operations and airworthiness of civil aircraft, the Philippines performs above average.
However, it needs improvement in the areas of accident and serious incident investigations,
air navigation services and aerodromes.

5. CONCLUSIONS

In the recent years, air travel has been significantly increasing in the Philippines, thus the risk
involve is increasing as well. Considering the data from 1995 to 2015, the average incident
rate in the country is 8.86 per million departures. This pertains to the events with no recorded
fatality or injury and the aircraft didn’t have any substantial damage or became missing or
inaccessible. Though it has a relatively high incident rate, the country’s average accident rate
from 2000 to 2015 is 3.08 accidents per million departures. The global accident rate for the
same period is 3.83 per million departures. Comparing the two values, Philippines has a
relatively lower accident rate. It can also be noted that the country has not had any accident
since 2010 and its fatality rate has been zero since 2003.
Over the last two decades, runway excursion during landing has become the most
frequent incident/accident although it has a relatively low fatality rate, with only 3 fatalities
and 125 injuries recorded in the entire 16 times it happened. On the other hand, controlled
flight into terrain has only happened thrice, specifically in the years 1998 to 2000, yet has
caused 252 fatalities or basically everyone on board, making it the most risky and least
survivable type of accident.
To minimize the occurrence of runway excursion, it is generally recommended that
airlines consider modifying their approach and landing procedures to incorporate runway
safety recommendations. Runway overrun event data suggest that a number of runway
overruns can be avoided if the flight crew has a more thorough understanding of the
interrelationship between the landing environment and the potential risks existing that day
such as weather, winds, runway conditions, minimum equipment list items, airplane weight,
etc.
According to ICAO, aside from runway excursion, another frequent accident worldwide
is runway incursion. In the Philippines, runway incursion has only happened thrice, the most
severe of which happened in 1996 resulting with 8 injuries. CAAP has established an efficient
Runway Safety Office that is responsible for the runway safety initiatives throughout the civil
aviation community. They are responsible for improving runway safety data collection,
analysis and dissemination and maintaining signage and markings are ICAO-compliant and
visible to pilots and drivers.
The Airline Safety Scores of Philippine-based airlines were computed as 6.544 and
6.765, out of 10. IAOGP has noted that it is impossible for an airline to get a perfect score of
10 and some airlines even score zero in the assessment. With this, it can be established that
the major Philippine-based airlines are far from being the worst and most unsafe but they also
could not be considered the best and safest either due to the country’s unfavorable terrain and
stormy weather conditions, which is incorporated in the scoring process.
Based on the ICAO’s safety effective implementation audit ratings in 2013, Philippines
performs above average compared to the global average ratings under primary aviation

1991
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.12, 2017

legislation and associated civil aviation regulations, civil aviation organizational structure,
personnel licensing activities, aircraft operations and airworthiness of civil aircraft but it
needs improvement in the areas of accident and serious incident investigations, air navigation
services and aerodromes.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

In order to further the study, it is recommended that future research explore deeper on the
causes of incidents and accidents and take into consideration parameters like model of
aircrafts, number of hours flown by the aircraft prior to the accident, number of consecutive
hours flown by the pilot, weather condition, etc. With this information, incidents and
accidents can be broken down and categorized into three main causes: man, machine and
environment.
While the study only covers the airline safety scores of the main air carriers in the
country, assessment on minor airlines can be included in future researches. This will provide
more extensive measurement on the overall safety of domestic scheduled flights in the
Philippines. If possible, comparison with international airlines would also be useful in the
assessment.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to express their deepest gratitude to Department of Transportation and
Communications, Civil Aeronautics Board, Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines,
Philippine Airlines, and Cebu Pacific, for their support and cooperation by providing the
authors with sufficient data needed in the study.

REFERENCES

Amalberti, R. (2001) The paradoxes of almost totally safe transportation systems. Safety
Science, 37, 109-126.
Boeing Aero Quarterly (2012) Reducing Runway Landing Overruns.
Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (2014) The Philippines' State Runway Safety
Programme. Manila.
Dekker, S. W. (2005) Ten Questions About Human Error: A New View of Human Factors
System Safety. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Department of Transportation and Communications (2006) The Master Plan Study on the
Strategy for the Improvement of National Airports in the Republic of the Philippines.
Manila.
Federal Aviation Administration (2010) Trends in Accidents and Fatalities in Large
Transport Aircraft. Washington, DC: RGW Cherry & Associates Ltd.
International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (2009) Airline Safety Assessment
Mechanism. London.
International Civil Aviation Organization (2012) Airport Operator's Perspective on Runway
Excursion Hazards. Bali.
International Civil Aviation Organization (2013) Safety Audit Information. Retrieved from
http://www.icao.int/safety/Pages/USOAP-Results.aspx

1992
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.12, 2017

International Civil Aviation Organization (2014) Safety Report 2013 Edition. Montreal.
International Civil Aviation Organization (2015) Safety Report 2014 Edition. Montreal.
Rodrigues, C. C., & Cusick, S. K. (2012) Commercial Aviation Safety. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Santos, E. B. (1981) Trails in the Philippine Skies: A History of Aviation in the Philippines
from 1909 to 1941. Manila: Philippine Airlines Publication.
Vaughan, D. (1996) The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture and
Deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zapanta, A. L. (2005) 100 Years of Philippine Aviation 1909-2009: A Focus on Airline
Management. Taytay, Rizal: ALZ Publishing.

1993