Tandem Paragliding Accidents: Liability of the Pilot, the Operator, the Travel Agency and the Insurer

If an accident occurs on a tandem paragliding flight, what is the first legal question?

In a tandem flight, a pilot and a passenger fly attached to the same aircraft. The passenger may be an inexperienced tourist; the management of the flight, as a rule, depends on the technical decisions of the authorized pilot. For this reason, taking part in the flight does not mean accepting in advance the damage resulting from the operator’s failure to take the necessary safety measures or from the pilot’s breach of the duty of care and diligence.

In the examination, it is determined at the first stage whether the flight is a commercial tandem activity for payment, training within a sports club, or a non-commercial individual activity, because the permits, qualifications and contractual relationship may differ accordingly. The accident may have occurred during the run before take-off, immediately after becoming airborne, during the flight, on landing or while packing up the paraglider; the source of danger and the liability assessment are not the same at each stage.

Natural flight risk and a preventable safety deficiency are not the same

Variable wind, thermals and turbulence are real risks of paragliding. However, the pilot’s failure to check the current weather, deciding to fly in unsuitable meteorological conditions, failing to adequately inspect the passenger’s connection or using equipment outside the manufacturer’s weight limits cannot be characterized merely as a “natural risk”. What specific measure the operator and the pilot should have taken in the face of a foreseeable danger is examined.

Does every injury on its own prove fault on the part of the operator?

No. The occurrence of an accident and a person being held legally liable are different facts. The manner in which the incident occurred, the required technical standard, the breach that took place and an adequate causal link between the breach and the damage must be established. Nevertheless, where the operator cannot explain the technical records and safety procedures under its own control, this deficiency may be significant in the assessment of the evidence.

Which legislation applies to tandem flights in Türkiye as of 2026?

In paragliding disputes, several groups of norms are examined together. The Regulation on Sporting Activities for Tourism Purposes (Turizm Amaçlı Sportif Faaliyet Yönetmeliği) governs the tourism activity permit, the qualification of the operator and the course, and the insurance and first aid conditions. The THSF’s current regulations determine pilot training, qualification and certification; the local directive and slot system of the relevant flying site determine the operational rules at that site. Consumer law and the law of obligations form the basis of private law liability towards the injured person. [K1] [K2] [K4]

Regulation on Sporting Activities for Tourism Purposes: activity permit and course

The Regulation of February 23, 2011 expressly lists paragliding among sporting activities for tourism purposes. With respect to Articles 5, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of the Regulation, it must be investigated whether the operator held the permit and qualification required for the activity, whether the permit certificate covers the relevant type of activity and the course, and what the staff and equipment certificates and accident notifications show. [K1]

A permit certificate and a pilot qualification certificate do not replace each other

The fact that the operator holds a tourism activity permit does not automatically prove that the pilot who performed the flight held a valid tandem commercial flight qualification. Conversely, the pilot’s qualification does not by itself complete the operator’s required tourism activity and course permits. The two groups of documents must be verified from their own sources.

Must the accident be reported to the relevant sports tourism board?

Article 13 of the Regulation provides that an accident occurring during the activity is to be reported immediately to the Board in the form of a report by the activity operator. This notification is an important official source for examining the operator’s records on the date of the accident, the persons responsible, the time of the incident and the first statements. [K1]

The THSF’s pilot training instruction dated April 16, 2026

The THSF’s legislation page shows the approval date of the Paragliding and Hang Gliding Sport Pilot Training Instruction (Yamaç Paraşütü ve Yelkenkanat Sporcu Pilot Eğitim Talimatı) as 16.04.2026. For incidents in 2026, by which institution and when the pilot’s qualification certificate was issued, the recognition/equivalence conditions under the new system and the pilot’s actual authorization on the day of the incident must be examined together. [K2]

The 2026 equivalence and transition arrangement

The announcement published by the Federation set out that level certificates previously issued by the THK, APPI and USHPA would be taken into equivalence assessment under certain conditions, together with the 2026 application timetable. This does not mean that every certificate obtained in the past is automatically invalid, or that every old certificate on its own proves current commercial authorization. The original certificate, its level, its date of issue, the equivalence record and the authorization on the date of the flight must be asked about separately. [K3]

The MYK decision of August 27, 2026 and the current tandem pilot standard

According to the THSF’s statement, the National Occupational Standard and National Qualification for Tandem Paragliding Pilots were updated by decision No. 2026/106 of the MYK Board of Directors dated 27.08.2026. The THSF has stated that it carries out the T1 and T2 certification processes, and that completing the Federation’s training and holding a T2 certificate are conditions for admission to the current MYK qualification examination. The MYK qualification examination requirement should not be interpreted as replacing, on its own, all the operational and local permits required for a tourist flight. [K4]

What in particular should be checked in a commercial tandem pilot’s certificate?

The pilot’s own statement or the phrase “licensed pilot” on a website is not sufficient. The current T2/commercial tandem authorization, any equivalence decision, the federation/sporting activity registration, the required health and first aid certificates, flight experience and validity status must be verified as of the date of the specific incident.

Is T1 the same as a commercial tandem authorization?

No. Even earlier THK training documents distinguish between a pilot at T1 level, who cannot make paid flights for tourism purposes, and a T2 commercial tandem pilot, who may fly paying passengers. For incidents after 2026, the equivalent of the old designations and the current THSF certificate status must be confirmed separately. [K2] [K5]

The pilot’s qualification on the day of the flight matters as much as their training

A certificate obtained years ago does not on its own resolve all questions about flight qualification on the day of the incident. The logbook, intervals of activity, training/renewal certificates, the wing used and experience at the relevant site must be examined if they are connected with the alleged cause of the accident. It should be borne in mind that a missing document and the technical conduct that caused the accident are not the same thing, and that a fault–damage connection will also be required.

Local flight rules additionally apply at Fethiye–Babadağ and similar sites

At sites where tandem flights are concentrated, governorate/district governorate decisions, flight directives, launch site rules, the slot system and site-specific meteorological assessments may be decisive. The Fethiye–Babadağ Slot Service Centre (Fethiye–Babadağ Slot Hizmet Merkezi) announces meteorological assessments in addition to registration and flight information. The fact that other pilots flew on the same day does not prove that the flight of that pilot and that passenger was necessarily safe. [K6]

What does a slot or flight record prove?

The slot card and take-off record may be evidence of the date, launch site and time of the flight and of the pilot–operator relationship. However, the allocation of a slot does not remove the pilot’s check of the wing–passenger connection and of meteorological suitability.

Flight bans, site closures and warning records

Whether the launch site was open or closed at the time of the incident, meteorological warnings, any temporary flight ban, decisions of the relevant boards and observation data at the time of the flight should be requested together. The difference between the time a decision was published and the time of the accident is important; a warning issued later must not be carried back into the past.

The pre-flight assessment of the passenger is not just a signed form

The tandem passenger’s age, physical condition, ability to perform the take-off run safely with the pilot, and whether the total pilot–passenger weight stays within the manufacturer’s limits for the wing used are important. A particular age or weight threshold should not be put forward as a single, unchangeable rule for every flying site and every piece of equipment. The specific equipment, the site rules and the regulation in force on the date of the incident must be taken as the basis.

Health declaration and fitness to fly

If there is a cardiovascular disease, a fainting/balance problem, recent surgery, a serious restriction of movement or another health condition, the effect of this information on the flight must be assessed. The passenger’s health declaration does not release the operator from its own safety duties; however, where an incorrect or incomplete declaration is causally linked to the accident, it may affect the assessment of fault.

Children and parental consent

The consent of a child’s parent does not on its own make the flight suitable in all circumstances. The child’s physical capacity, the site and equipment conditions, the applicable age-related regulations and the commercial organization’s criteria for accepting a child passenger must be investigated separately.

The safety briefing must be given in a way the passenger can understand

The pre-flight information must cover matters such as the instruction to run at take-off and not to stop, when to move into the sitting position, the position of the hands and feet, the pilot’s commands, preparation for landing, what to do in an unusual situation and the manoeuvres that may be expected during the flight, in a language the passenger actually understands or by an understandable practical method.

The need for information in English or another language

A foreign tourist signing only a Turkish form does not prove that the explanation was understood. The language the tourist knows, the demonstration given to them, any translation and the briefing video are investigated. The 2026 qualification texts separately address briefing skills in Turkish and English in commercial tandem pilot training; however, it should not be assumed that every tourist knows English. [K2]

Risk acceptance and liability waiver document

A statement such as “I accept all risks” may show that information was given about the ordinary risks of the activity that were explained in advance. The pilot neglecting the connection check, a commercial flight being made in breach of the legislation, or gross fault on the part of the operator, however, are not automatically turned into an exemption from liability merely because of a general form. The review under Articles 115–116 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) and the review of unfair contract terms in consumer contracts must be carried out on the specific document.

Meteorological conditions are at the centre of the decision to start a flight

Wind speed and gusts, changes of direction, turbulence, thermals, visibility, cloud base, vertical air currents and differences between the take-off and landing areas may affect flight safety. A sunny-weather icon in a general weather app alone is not an adequate meteorological assessment for a commercial tandem flight.

The pilot’s last check before take-off

A weather report from a few hours earlier and the conditions at the actual moment of take-off may differ. The wind observation at the site, measuring devices, warnings from the local flight centre and the pilot’s last check must be examined separately.

Thermal and turbulence risk

Thermal activity increasing at certain hours or turbulence due to the structure of the slope may increase the risk compared with earlier hours of the same day. The exact time and altitude of the flight must be linked to the actual weather data at the scene.

Decision to cancel or postpone the flight

If the weather is not suitable for flying, economic loss, the volume of bookings or the approach of the tourist’s return flight do not override the requirements of safety. Who took the decision to postpone or cancel, whether the operator put commercial pressure on the pilot, and why the situation of other flights was different must be investigated.

Who is responsible for the safety of the wing and equipment?

In tandem accidents, not only the pilot’s actions but also the wing, the lines, the risers, the carabiners, the tandem spreader connections, the passenger harness, the reserve parachute, the helmet and the manufacturer’s operating limits are examined. Without recording the make/model and serial number of the equipment, the scope of the technical examination may remain incomplete.

Wing model and total flying weight

It must be determined whether the total pilot–passenger–equipment flying weight was within the manufacturer’s certified range. Records relating to the age of the wing, its maintenance history, repairs and any porosity/line tests are examined if they are connected with the specific allegation of a defect.

Passenger harness and leg straps

One of the most critical documents is the record showing that the passenger’s connection was checked before take-off. In the decision of the 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 12. Ceza Dairesi), E.2013/15999, K.2014/7607, the start of the flight without the passenger’s leg straps being fastened, the passenger slipping out of the connection during the flight and the passenger’s death were found decisive for the pilot’s primary and full fault. [Y1]

A connection never made and a later failure are different events

The locking system not being closed from the outset, an element breaking during the flight due to a technical defect, and the passenger deliberately opening the strap are different technical and legal possibilities. The same conclusion on fault should not be reached without the original condition of the equipment, photos/videos, a technical inspection and an examination of the parts.

How can a video recording show the connection check?

A GoPro or phone recording before take-off may show the position of the connection buckles and the order of the pilot’s checks. If the video alone is not sufficient, an expert examination of the equipment is necessary. Not a file sample but, as far as possible, the original recording and its time information should be preserved.

Carabiners, connecting elements and tandem spreaders

The use of the components specified by the manufacturer, periodic checks and the correct closing of connections are important. The statement “there was nothing wrong with the equipment” must be supported by a technical inspection and maintenance documents.

Reserve parachute and helmet

Whether the reserve parachute was properly packed and inspected, the conditions for its deployment, its accessibility and whether the helmet was correctly fitted on the passenger may be disputed depending on the incident. Just as the non-deployment of the reserve parachute is not on its own proof of fault, whether appropriate use was possible and necessary at the critical moment requires a technical assessment.

Which matters are investigated in injuries occurring at take-off?

The gradient of the launch site, surface stones and obstacles, the running distance, the wind direction, whether the passenger understood the instructions, the pilot’s technique for bringing the wing overhead and the moment at which the take-off could have been aborted are important.

The passenger being unable to follow the instruction to run

Accepting a person with limited running capacity or failing to make adequate preparations at take-off may give rise to a debate on organizational fault. Conversely, if an unexpected movement of the passenger despite clear and understandable instructions affected the accident, this is also investigated.

Launch site and obstacle safety

Loose stones, holes, sharp obstacles, an inadequate take-off corridor or crowded positioning of staff are risks within the organization’s area of control. The actual powers of the launch site operator and of the flight company must be distinguished from each other.

Collision with rocks, a tree or another aircraft during the flight

In collision incidents, the actual flight path of the wing, the pilot’s control inputs, wind changes, climb/descent, visibility conditions, surrounding obstacles and the position of other aircraft must be compared.

The Court of Cassation’s approach to the decision to fly in adverse weather

In the paid paragliding flight that was the subject of the decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi) dated 25.10.2018, E.2016/14457, K.2018/6704, it was alleged that the flight took place even though the weather conditions were unsuitable and that an injury occurred due to a collision with rocks. The first-instance court made a liability assessment with respect to the pilot, the operator and the other parties; the Court of Cassation, however, instead of definitively upholding the substance of the fault, issued a decision of reversal on the grounds of an inconsistency between the operative part and the reasoning and of the principle of being bound by the claims (taleple bağlılık). This decision therefore cannot be presented as “the THK/the operator is definitively liable”; it shows the multiple-liability structure of the incident and the importance of procedural rigour in calculating compensation. [Y2]

Acrobatics or a manoeuvre the passenger did not want

Whether spirals, wingovers or highly dynamic manoeuvres were performed, whether they were explained to the passenger in advance, the suitability of the weather and altitude conditions, the pilot’s competence and the connection between the manoeuvre and the damage must be examined. It cannot be assumed that all passengers consented to special manoeuvres “for excitement”.

The pilot’s and the operator’s obligations in landing accidents

Facts such as the openness of the landing area, obstacles, the position of ground staff, the actual direction and speed of the wind, the pilot’s final approach, the passenger’s leg position and an unexpectedly hard sit-down may be decisive.

Distinguishing a hard landing from an unavoidable meteorological event

A hard landing does not in itself conclusively show fault on the part of the pilot. On the other hand, a preventable faulty approach, the choice of an unsuitable landing area or an uncontrolled landing despite an expected change of wind may affect fault.

Who is responsible for operating the landing area?

The duties of the landing area owner, the slot operator, the flight company and the pilot must be distinguished on the basis of contracts, local rules and actual control. More than one person may be at fault in the same incident; however, merely being present at the site is not sufficient for liability.

Under which conditions may the pilot, the flight company, the agency, the hotel and the booking platform be liable?

To identify the liable persons, the questions who undertook to provide the service, who collected the money, on whose behalf the pilot worked, which company managed the operation, to whom the equipment belongs and who was able to take the safety decision? must each be answered separately.

The pilot’s personal liability

Where the pilot breached the technical duty of care and this conduct caused the accident with an adequate causal link, personal liability may come into question under tort or other applicable provisions.

Liability of the company that organized the flight

If the pilot is an employee or auxiliary person of the company, Articles 66 and 116 of the TBK, Article 112 of the TBK for breach of contract and, with respect to the consumer service, Articles 13–15 of Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection may be assessed. The legal basis of liability must be determined according to the specific working relationship.

The role of the hotel and the travel agency

A hotel merely giving out the phone number of an independent business is not the same as selling the tour as its own service, collecting the price or undertaking it as part of a package tour. The travel agency’s status as organizer/intermediary and whether the service was included in the package tour contract are examined under Article 51 of the TKHK and the Regulation on Package Tour Contracts (Paket Tur Sözleşmeleri Yönetmeliği). The mere presence of a tour desk inside the hotel does not mean that the hotel is automatically liable for every accident. [K7]

The role of the online booking platform

Whether the platform is merely an advertising and payment intermediary, whether it offers the commercial flight in its own name, what statements it made and who the parties to the contract are must be determined. Liability cannot automatically be established because the platform’s name appears in the booking; likewise, a standard statement such as “we are only an intermediary” does not by itself remove all specific obligations.

Is the liability of a training or certification body automatic?

No. For the liability for compensation of the body from which the pilot received training or obtained a certificate in the past, a specific legal obligation existing on the date of the incident, a breach and a causal link must each be shown. Since the 2018 Court of Cassation decision is a procedural reversal that does not definitively resolve the substantive debate in this respect, earlier allegations cannot be generalized to the new THSF system. [Y2]

Whose damage do insurance policies cover, and up to what limit?

The Regulation on Sporting Activities for Tourism Purposes requires, within the scope of the necessary permit/qualification, the existence of accident insurance for tourists and staff and liability insurance documents. However, the mere mention of insurance does not mean that the policy covers every item of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage without limit. The policy’s insured, beneficiary, type of activity, coverage, deductible, exclusions, per-person limits and validity on the date of the incident must be checked. [K1]

Personal accident insurance and liability insurance

Personal accident insurance may provide the coverage stated in the policy for certain risks resulting from an accident. Third-party liability insurance, on the other hand, relates to the insured’s legal liability towards third persons and to the policy terms. The two are not arranged for the same legal purpose.

Exclusion of risky sports in travel health insurance

A foreign tourist’s own travel policy may contain an exclusion for paragliding or similar adventure sports. Whether the activity was brought within the coverage for an additional premium, and the emergency treatment–transport–repatriation coverage, must be examined separately.

If the insurer has paid, does the operator escape liability?

No. The insurer’s payment prevents the injured person from recovering the same damage twice; however, damage falling outside the policy or left unpaid and claims for non-pecuniary damages may continue within their own legal conditions. The subrogation/recourse relationship is assessed separately according to the insurer that made the payment and the type of policy.

Which items of pecuniary damage can an injured tourist claim?

Where bodily integrity is violated, treatment costs, temporary incapacity for work, permanent loss of working capacity, impairment of economic future and care/rehabilitation costs required by the specific case may be assessed under Article 54 of the TBK. The item of damage and causation must be proven through medical reports and economic records.

A foreign tourist’s treatment costs in Türkiye and in their home country

Ambulance, surgery, medication, physiotherapy, follow-up examinations, medical transport and post-return health costs must be examined in terms of actual invoices, physician’s reports, proof of payment, insurance payments and the connection with the accident.

Flight ticket, accommodation and companion costs

Changing the return flight, additional accommodation, companion or necessary transport costs documented as resulting from the accident may be the subject of a compensation assessment. It should not be argued that every holiday expense can automatically be charged to the liable party.

Loss of income and proof of damage in foreign currency

The tourist’s job in their home country, pay records, tax documents and a disability assessment may be required. For damage in foreign currency, the calculation date, the exchange rate and the applicable law must be determined separately; translation of documents and, where necessary, their certification become important.

Non-pecuniary damages and the rights of relatives in the event of death

Article 56 of the TBK allows appropriate non-pecuniary damages for the injured person where bodily integrity is violated. In the event of death or serious bodily harm, a claim by relatives may also be assessed. In the event of death, loss of support, funeral costs and, if the conditions are met, other pecuniary damage are calculated separately under Article 53 of the TBK.

Are non-pecuniary damages the same amount in every accident?

No. The severity of the injury, the surgery and recovery period, permanent scarring or disability, the fear and shock experienced, the degrees of fault and the particular features of the specific case are taken into account. Compensation is not a penalty or a guarantee of outcome.

Can wasted holiday time be claimed separately?

If the flight was undertaken as part of a package tour, the package tour provisions may come into play with respect to the contract not being properly performed and to wasted holiday time. However, the same damage must not be calculated twice under different names. [K7]

How is criminal liability assessed in a fatal tandem accident?

An investigation for negligent homicide under Article 85 of the Turkish Criminal Code (TCK), or, in the case of injury, for negligent injury under Article 89 of the TCK, may be opened against the pilot or other responsible persons. The elements of the offense in the criminal file are not entirely the same as liability under private law arising from the contract or a defective service.

The case of the unfastened leg straps: 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation

By its decision dated 27.03.2014, E.2013/15999, K.2014/7607, the 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation upheld the pilot’s conviction for negligent homicide in an incident in which a tandem take-off was made without the passenger’s leg connections being locked and the passenger fell during the flight and lost their life. The pre-take-off video and the local flight directive are among the important pieces of evidence in the decision. [Y1]

Does every gross neglect count as conscious negligence?

No. In the same decision, it was accepted that, despite the pilot’s primary and full fault, the conditions of conscious negligence (bilinçli taksir) were not met. Whether the danger was foreseen in the specific case and whether the person relied on the result not occurring require a separate legal assessment; the degree of fault and conscious negligence are not directly synonymous.

Which evidence should be preserved in the first hours after the accident?

Flight equipment may be changed, camera recordings may be deleted or overwritten, and meteorological conditions may change. For this reason, the following documents and records should, as far as possible, be requested and preserved at an early stage:

• Wide and close-up photos/videos of the take-off and landing areas.
• The pilot’s identity and commercial tandem T2/equivalence/qualification certificates as of the date of the incident.
• The operator’s sports tourism permit, type of activity and course qualification records.
• The slot/flight card, date–time, launch site, pilot and system records relating to the flight.
• The passenger’s booking, payment, contract, briefing and risk form records.
• Make, model, serial number, maintenance and test documents of the wing/harness/carabiners/reserve parachute.
• Originals of the video recordings from the GoPro, phone, launch site security camera, ground staff and other pilots.
• Vario, GPS, flight app and route/take-off–landing time records.
• Records of the wind, gusts, direction, visibility, local meteorological warnings and site closure at the time of the incident.
• Ambulance, hospital, first aid, incident report, rescue and criminal investigation documents.
• The identities and contact details of witnesses; any previous similar defects or complaints.

How should video and GPS data be assessed?

Although a screenshot from an app is useful, in a technical examination the original file, the device, the location, the time stamp and an uninterrupted recording are obtained where possible. In addition to images of the pilot and the passenger, lawful access and the procedure for submission to the court are observed with respect to other persons’ personal data.

Equipment being changed or repaired after the incident

It is important that the harness, buckles, carabiners and other parts suspected of being involved in the accident are not destroyed, that their serial numbers are recorded and that they are kept in a condition suitable for examination by a court-appointed expert where necessary. Withdrawing the equipment from service for safety reasons and preserving it as evidence can be planned together.

Preservation of evidence under Article 400 of the HMK

If, before an action is filed, there is a risk that the wing, the connection system, the take-off surface or other technical evidence will be lost or that its later establishment will become substantially more difficult, preservation of evidence (delil tespiti) under Article 400 et seq. of Law No. 6100, the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK), may be considered where the conditions are met. This procedure does not have the same purpose and procedure as a criminal investigation.

Specific legal principles that can be derived from Court of Cassation decisions

Case law should be used not as general slogans but in terms of its effect on resolving the incident.

The check of the personal safety connection cannot be neglected

Court of Cassation 12th Criminal Chamber, E.2013/15999, K.2014/7607, 27.03.2014: The failure to make the leg strap connection before the flight, and the establishment of this by video, are decisive in accepting the pilot’s liability for negligent homicide. This decision shows the evidentiary value of the connection, the briefing and visual records; however, it does not say that the pilot is fully at fault in every tandem accident. [Y1]

The weather conditions and the multiple-liability debate are one thing; the ground for reversal is another

Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber, E.2016/14457, K.2018/6704, 25.10.2018: On a paid flight, claims were brought against the pilot/company/insurer/certification body due to adverse weather conditions and a collision with rocks. Since the Court of Cassation’s ground for reversal was the principle of being bound by the claims and the consistency between the operative part and the reasoning, it is wrong to report the reasoning of the decision as “it definitively upheld the fault of all defendants”. [Y2]

The liability analysis must be applied to the current institutional and legislative structure

The fact that an old incident was assessed within the framework of the THK and local flight documents of the time cannot lead to the 2026 THSF authorization and equivalence regime being disregarded. Every case must be built on the authorization, validity and specific supervisory obligation on the date of the incident. [K2] [K3]

How are the competent court, the arbitration committee and mediation determined?

The purchase of a paid tourist tandem flight for personal purposes may often qualify as a consumer transaction. However, the legal status of the injured person, the contract between the parties, the position of the defendants and the legal basis of the claim must be assessed together.

The 2026 monetary threshold of the Consumer Arbitration Committee

According to the Ministry of Trade’s (Ticaret Bakanlığı) 2026 information, the route of application to the Consumer Arbitration Committee (Tüketici Hakem Heyeti) applies to consumer disputes below TL 186,000; for consumer disputes of TL 186,000 and above, the arbitration committee has no monetary jurisdiction. Multiple items of damage relating to bodily integrity, different defendants and the legal nature of the dispute must additionally be assessed when examining subject-matter jurisdiction. [K8]

Mediation as a condition precedent to litigation before the consumer court

In consumer court disputes within the scope of Article 73/A of the TKHK, pre-action mediation may apply, subject to the statutory exceptions. The jurisdiction of the arbitration committee, insurance arbitration, mandatory different application procedures and the combined assertion of more than one legal ground must additionally be reviewed in the specific case.

The statute of limitations should not be reduced to a single period

The statute of limitations may differ depending on the possibilities of a defective service, breach of contract, tort, death/bodily harm and the incident constituting a criminal offense.

Defective service

Article 16 of the TKHK, as a rule, provides for a two-year limitation period from the performance of the service with respect to a defective service; the exceptions in the law are reserved. It is not correct to automatically subject all claims based on different legal grounds arising from bodily harm only to this period.

Tort and the connection with the criminal limitation period

Article 72 of the TBK provides a framework of two years from learning of the damage and the liable person and ten years from the act; if the act constitutes an offense requiring a longer criminal limitation period, the longer period to be applied may be assessed separately.

Breach of contract

The general ten-year period in Article 146 of the TBK and any more specific periods are assessed according to the nature of the contract. Asserting different legal grounds for one claim does not mean that rights can be exercised without any time limit. Particularly for foreign tourists, a time-limit and service plan should be established before leaving Türkiye.

Can a foreign tourist pursue their rights in Türkiye after returning to their home country?

Yes, legal proceedings can be pursued in Türkiye if subject-matter jurisdiction, international jurisdiction, the applicable law, representation and the conditions of the action are satisfied in the specific case. However, the purchase of the ticket or package from a foreign country does not always mean that Turkish law will apply directly to all aspects of the dispute. The connecting rules on contracts, consumer contracts and torts in Law No. 5718 on International Private and Procedural Law (MÖHUK), and any links with foreign courts and insurance, must be addressed separately.

Health records abroad

Foreign hospital reports, disability assessments, pay documents, flight change invoices and rehabilitation costs in the home country may be submitted after being translated and, where necessary, certified in accordance with the relevant judicial procedure.

Power of attorney and communication

For representation in Türkiye, the place where the power of attorney is executed, the need for an apostille or consular certification of foreign documents, the address for service and the monitoring of time limits must be determined from the outset. It should be borne in mind that initial communication does not mean taking on the action or the monitoring of time limits.

In what order should the tourist or their relatives act after the accident?

Health and safety come first. Then the time and place of the incident, the real trade names of the pilot and the operator, the flight/insurance records, witnesses, images and equipment should be secured as quickly as possible. It is important that the injury is described correctly at the first medical visit, that written notice is given for the preservation of camera/slot records and, where necessary, that judicial preservation of evidence is obtained.

Reports of the type “I have no complaint” or “all responsibility is mine” prepared by the operator itself should not be signed without examining their content. However, a signed form is not irrevocable in every case and does not constitute conclusive proof; it is assessed together with the other evidence.

Conclusion

In tandem paragliding accidents, liability is not determined automatically by the risky nature of the sport or by the passenger’s signature on a risk form. The pilot’s commercial flight authorization on the date of the incident, the operator’s activity and course permits, the checks of the passenger connection, the meteorology, the equipment, the take-off–landing arrangements and the emergency response must be investigated together.

In 2026, in particular, the THSF’s current T1–T2/equivalence regime, the validity of old certificates on the date of the incident and the MYK occupational standard must not be disregarded. The Court of Cassation’s decisions directly concerning tandem accidents show, on the one hand, the decisive importance of the connection check and, on the other, the necessity of reading the procedural reasoning of a decision correctly in compensation proceedings.

The most critical first step in seeking redress is to correctly establish the pilot–operator–agency–insurer relationship and to preserve, in accordance with the procedure, the technical, visual and official flight records that may be lost quickly.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the pilot liable in every case in a tandem paragliding accident?

No. Whether the pilot breached their technical obligation, its causal link with the accident and the liability of other persons are assessed separately. Not every accident on its own means fault on the part of the pilot.

If the tourist signed a risk form, does the right to compensation end?

No. The form may show that the natural risks were explained; it does not automatically remove the operator’s or the pilot’s breach of mandatory safety rules or gross fault.

Why is the T2 certificate important for a commercial tandem flight?

The commercial tandem qualification is a fundamental subject of examination with respect to the authorization to fly paying passengers. For incidents after 2026, the certificate must be assessed together with the current THSF framework and the equivalence status of old certificates.

Can a pilot with an old THK certificate fly in 2026?

No automatic conclusion can be drawn from the existence of the certificate. Its date of issue, its type, the THSF equivalence/transition record and the authorization conditions on the day of the incident must be checked separately.

Should the flight have been cancelled when the wind was strong?

The actual weather and site conditions of the flight, the equipment limits, the pilot’s assessment and local warnings are examined. A single fixed wind figure valid for every site and every wing should not be put forward.

Who is liable for a tourist who falls during take-off?

The take-off instructions, the passenger’s physical fitness, the launch site conditions, the way the pilot decided to fly and the connection check are examined together. The liable person is determined according to specific fault and the legal relationship.

What happens if the passenger’s leg strap was not fastened?

This may constitute an extremely serious safety problem. In the decision of the 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 27.03.2014, such a deficiency was decisive in the upholding of the conviction for negligently causing death.

If the reserve parachute did not open, is the operator definitely at fault?

No. Whether the reserve parachute was necessary, possible and could have been used in a technically appropriate manner in the specific incident requires a specialist examination.

Can GoPro and phone videos be evidence in court?

Yes. Lawfully obtained images may be important, particularly with respect to the pre-take-off connection, the pilot’s instructions, the weather and the manner in which the incident occurred. Where possible, the original file and time information should be preserved.

Can the hotel also be liable for a flight purchased from the hotel?

It can; however, the hotel merely promoting the flight is different from selling the service in its own name or including it in a package tour. The contract, payment and organization records are decisive.

Are accident and liability insurance required for tandem flights in Türkiye?

The Regulation on Sporting Activities for Tourism Purposes requires accident and liability insurance policies within the scope of the relevant permit/qualification. The coverage and limit of the specific policy are examined separately.

Does travel insurance pay for a paragliding accident?

It depends on the policy. Exclusions for dangerous sports or air sports, additional coverage and health/transport cover must be checked.

Can relatives claim compensation in a fatal accident?

If the conditions are met, loss of support and other pecuniary damage, as well as non-pecuniary damages under Article 56 of the TBK, may be claimed. Entitlement and the calculation of damage are determined on the basis of concrete evidence.

Can a compensation action be filed before the criminal case has ended?

As a rule, yes. However, the effect of the specific findings in the criminal file on the civil action and whether a stay pending a preliminary question (bekletici mesele) is required are assessed separately.

What is the Consumer Arbitration Committee threshold for 2026?

For 2026, the arbitration committee route applies to consumer disputes below TL 186,000. Subject-matter jurisdiction and the application procedure with respect to bodily harm and different defendants must be determined according to the structure of the specific claim.

Can a foreign tourist file an action after leaving Türkiye?

Yes; after international jurisdiction, the applicable law, time limits and the conditions of representation have been assessed, proceedings in Türkiye may be possible. Preserving health, income and flight documents is important.

Did the 2018 Court of Cassation decision make the liability of all defendants final?

No. The decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 25.10.2018 is not a definitive affirmation on the merits; it is a decision of reversal due to the principle of being bound by the claims and an inconsistency between the operative part and the reasoning. [Y2]

Sources and legal bases

1. [K1] Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Culture and Tourism (T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı), Regulation on Sporting Activities for Tourism Purposes (Turizm Amaçlı Sportif Faaliyet Yönetmeliği), in particular Articles 4–5, 9–10, 12–13, Official Gazette dated 23.02.2011. teftis.ktb.gov.tr
2. [K2] Turkish Air Sports Federation (Türkiye Hava Sporları Federasyonu), Legislation page; Paragliding and Hang Gliding Sport Pilot Training Instruction (Yamaç Paraşütü ve Yelkenkanat Sporcu Pilot Eğitim Talimatı), approval date 16.04.2026. thsf.org.tr
3. [K3] Turkish Air Sports Federation, Announcement on Paragliding Pilot Level Equivalence Applications (Yamaç Paraşütü Pilot Seviye Denklik Başvuruları Duyurusu) (2026). thsf.org.tr
4. [K4] Turkish Air Sports Federation, National Occupational Standard and National Qualification for Tandem Paragliding Pilots Updated (Tandem Yamaç Paraşütü Pilotu Ulusal Meslek Standardı ve Ulusal Yeterliliği Güncellendi); statement on decision No. 2026/106 of the MYK Board of Directors dated 27.08.2026. thsf.org.tr
5. [K5] Turkish Aeronautical Association (Türk Hava Kurumu), Paragliding Training Directive (Yamaç Paraşütü Eğitim Yönergesi); historical training source on the T1–T2 distinction. thk.org.tr
6. [K6] Fethiye–Babadağ Slot Service Centre (Fethiye–Babadağ Slot Hizmet Merkezi); site, slot and meteorological information. shmfethiye.kapadokya.edu.tr
7. [K7] Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade (T.C. Ticaret Bakanlığı), Information on Package Tour Contracts (Paket Tur Sözleşmeleri Hakkında Bilgilendirme). tuketici.ticaret.gov.tr
8. [K8] Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade, Information Notice on Consumer Arbitration Committees (Tüketici Hakem Heyetlerine İlişkin Bilgilendirme Metni), 22.01.2026. ticaret.gov.tr
9. Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection (Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun); in particular Articles 5, 13–16, 51, 68, 73 and 73/A.
10. Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu); in particular Articles 49, 52–56, 66, 72, 112, 115–116, 146.
11. Law No. 6100, Code of Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu); in particular Articles 26 and 400 et seq.; Law No. 5237, Turkish Criminal Code (Türk Ceza Kanunu), Articles 85 and 89; Law No. 5718 on International Private and Procedural Law (Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun).
12. [Y1] Court of Cassation 12th Criminal Chamber (Yargıtay 12. Ceza Dairesi), E.2013/15999, K.2014/7607, dated 27.03.2014. Death resulting from the passenger’s leg straps not being locked on a tandem flight; upholding of the pilot’s conviction for negligent homicide. app.dejure.ai
13. [Y2] Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi), E.2016/14457, K.2018/6704, dated 25.10.2018. Injury on a paid flight in adverse weather conditions and allegations of multiple liability; not an affirmation on the merits, but a reversal due to the principle of being bound by the claims/an inconsistency between the operative part and the reasoning. app.dejure.ai