Introduction

Dispute resolution proceedings involving aviation accidents are far more complicated than general dispute
resolution proceedings because complicated relationships between numerous parties must be considered.
Due to this complex nature, the successful resolution of disputes involving aviation accidents requires
meticulous long-term efforts. Using a recent Air France crash as a guide, this article will discuss the nature
of dispute resolution proceedings in aviation accidents from the perspective of parties that may be held
liable for the accident.

I. Background of the Air France Crash

On May 31, 2009, Air France flight AF447 was on a scheduled international flight from Galeão
International Airport in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, France. The aircraft lost
contact with the air traffic control centre during the flight. Since June 6, 2009, the French and Brazilian
navies have slowly recovered the bodies of victims and wreckage from the crash. Authorities have
confirmed that 12 crew members and 216 passengers from more than 10 countries, including 9 Chinese
citizens, all died in this crash. Shortly after the accident, an investigation team led by Air France's Accident
Investigation Bureau initiated an investigation. Meanwhile, Air France and its insurer started collecting
information about the victims and their families, making advance payments, and initiating settlement
negotiations. By the end of the first half of 2011, Air France had reached settlement agreements with most
families of the victims. As part of these settlement agreements, families of the victims agreed to waive all
rights, actions and remedies against Air France or any other person or entity that may be held liable for the
accident. The investigation of the Air France crash, body identification and the return of personal
belongings have not yet been completed. In addition, there are still many disputes arising out of the Air
France crash that have not yet been resolved.

As a high-profile and complex international aviation accident, the Air France Crash fully reflects the
complexity of dispute resolution in aviation accidents. For brevity and clarity, this article will discuss the
dispute resolution of aviation accidents from the perspective of parties who may be held liable for the
aviation accident such as the airlines. ("Potentially Liable Parties in Aviation Accidents").

II. Legal Risks Faced by Potentially Liable Parties in Aviation Accidents

In summary, Potentially Liable Parties in Aviation Accidents will face two kinds of legal risks: (1)
administrative legal risks, which mainly refer to administrative punishments or orders from competent
authorities; and (2) risks of civil liability, which mainly refer to physical injury or product liability claims
raised by the families of victims against liable subjects, or recovery actions by airline companies, who have
assumed compensation liability in advance, against the other liable parties of the aviation accident.

As can be seen from the dispute resolution of the Air France crash, government authorities and airlines act
cautiously during the crash investigation. Cautious action means that determinations of liability and
judgments for compensation for the aforementioned administrative and civil lawsuits are not rushed and
not urgent risks to the liable subjects. However, the sluggish pace at which these proceedings advance is
difficult for the families of the victims, who often urgently need compensation. Therefore, some of the more
urgent risks from parties seeking compensation in aviation accidents are discussed in the following
paragraphs:

A. Families of the victims seek higher compensation through various legal actions because liability limitation
provisions in the relevant laws rarely meet their expectations.

The compensation standard of international air carriers was first set forth in the Warsaw Convention(1).
Under the provisions of the Warsaw Convention, the liability of international carriers was limited to around
8,300 USD. The Hague Protocol(2) doubled this limit to around 16,600 USD. The 1999 Montreal
Convention(3) adopted the use of SDR (Special Drawing Rights) to compensate victims of international
carrier accidents. The SDR is created by the International Monetary Fund and the convention provides for
a limitation on liability in general cases of 100,000 SDR.
The above compensation standards are only applicable to international aviation accidents. In domestic
aviation accidents, compensation standards are mainly provided by local laws and the limitations on
compensation in less-developed countries is usually lower than the standards of the conventions
described above. Consequently, to obtain higher compensation in lawsuits, lawyers direct families of
victims to involve aircraft manufacturers and components suppliers as parties to the lawsuit between the
families and the airlines. For example, in the Air France crash, which is an international aviation accident,
the families of the victims are seeking to take legal action in the United States by involving American
aircraft manufacturers and component suppliers to the lawsuit. By involving these parties, the plaintiffs
may be able to circumvent the lower limited liability provisions of less-developed countries. Even if the
case never goes to trial, the threat of a higher compensation award in the United States will put the
plaintiffs in an advantageous position in settlement negotiations.

B. Due to concerns about the statute of limitations, families of victims usually claim rights to or even file a
lawsuit against Potentially Liable Parties in Aviation Accidents as soon as possible instead of waiting for the
results of an investigation into the cause of the accident.

Investigation and identification of the causes of an aviation accident is a complex and time-consuming
process. For example, it has been more than two years since the Air France Crash, but the final
investigation results have not yet come out. However, every country has a statute of limitations for civil
actions. If a claimant files a lawsuit after the expiry of the corresponding statute of limitations, the
defendant is usually entitled to have the lawsuit dismissed. For instance, Chinese law provides that the
statute of limitations for product liability claims is two years. If a claimant files a product liability claim after
the limitation expires, the defendant will be able to have the action dismissed by the court. As such,
families of victims cannot wait for the result of an investigation before filing suit. Instead, to preserve their
right to obtain a judgment, families of victims usually follow the advice of lawyers and initiate a claim or
bring a lawsuit against liable subjects as quickly as possible.

1. Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, formulated on
October 12, 1929 in Warsaw, Poland, effective in 1933.
2. Protocol Amending the 1929 Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International
Carriage by Air.
3. Signed by the participating states of International Conference on Aviation Law convened in Montreal in
May 1999, replaced the Warsaw Convention after coming into effect, in 2003.