Crisis Management and Emergency Response Planning in Aviation

Assignment Brief

Crisis Management & Emergency Response Planning

Assignment:   

Word Count: 2500 (within 10 days)

Criteria for Assessment

The following criteria will be applied in assessing

• Evidence of understanding of the concepts, theories and ideas

• Ability to apply these concepts to situations from your own experience

• Capability to structure an assignment logically and limit it to the length required

TOPIC for Assignment

Critically evaluate below referenced case studies how Emergency Response planning implementation may impact airlines reputation and legitimacy following an aviation accident.

1. Air Asiana AS 214  accident  dated  July 6, 2013,  Boeing 777

2. Emirates flight EK 521  accident dated  3 August 2016

3. Southwest Airlines Flight 1380  accident dated April 17, 2018

4. Spanair Flight 5022 (JK5022)  accident dated 20 August 2008

(All four incidents must be included)

Justification      

Critical Analysis / Evaluation 

Review of Supporting Evidence

Discussion and Conclusion

Effective Communication

Sample Answer

Crisis Management and Emergency Response Planning in Aviation

Introduction

Aviation remains one of the most regulated and safety-focused industries in the world. Yet, despite technological sophistication and rigorous safety protocols, accidents still occur with far-reaching consequences. In such events, the quality of an airline’s Emergency Response Plan (ERP) becomes a defining factor in shaping public perception, maintaining legitimacy, and preserving long-term organisational reputation. Effective crisis management and emergency response planning do not merely mitigate operational chaos; they determine whether an airline is perceived as competent, transparent, and ethical, or negligent and disorganised.

This report critically evaluates how emergency response planning impacts airline reputation and legitimacy following aviation accidents. Drawing upon crisis management theories such as Coombs’ Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT, 2007) and Benoit’s Image Restoration Theory (1997), this analysis compares four major incidents: Asiana Airlines Flight 214 (2013), Emirates Flight EK521 (2016), Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 (2018), and Spanair Flight 5022 (2008). The discussion focuses on how each airline’s response influenced public confidence, regulatory trust, and corporate legitimacy.

Understanding Emergency Response Planning in Aviation

An Emergency Response Plan (ERP) is a structured framework outlining procedures for managing crises such as accidents, system failures, or other disruptions. According to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO, 2018), ERPs serve four primary purposes: safeguarding life, ensuring regulatory compliance, protecting reputation, and facilitating rapid recovery.

Effective ERPs combine operational procedures with crisis communication strategies, media handling protocols, and post-crisis rehabilitation plans. Their importance extends beyond immediate response; as Mitroff (2005) notes, the way an organisation prepares for and manages crises strongly influences stakeholder trust. In aviation, this is particularly crucial, as public legitimacy is rooted in perceived safety and transparency.

Case Study 1: Asiana Airlines Flight 214 (San Francisco, 2013)

On 6 July 2013, Asiana Airlines Flight 214, a Boeing 777 from Seoul to San Francisco, crash-landed during final approach, resulting in three fatalities and 187 injuries. The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB, 2014) attributed the accident primarily to pilot error and inadequate monitoring of airspeed.

Crisis Management and Emergency Response

Asiana’s initial response faced widespread criticism. Communication with passengers’ families was delayed, and inconsistent statements were issued to the media. The airline was slow to express empathy, initially focusing on technical causes rather than human impact.

Applying Coombs’ SCCT, Asiana’s approach reflects a “rebuild” crisis type, where the organisation bears responsibility and must respond with strong corrective and accommodative actions. However, Asiana’s initial defensive communication contradicted this strategy, undermining stakeholder trust (Coombs, 2007).

Impact on Reputation and Legitimacy

The slow and impersonal response damaged Asiana’s reputation internationally. Media coverage emphasised organisational incompetence rather than sympathy or accountability. While the airline improved its safety and training protocols post-crisis, public perception lagged behind. According to a 2014 Brand Finance report, Asiana’s brand value declined by 17% in the year following the crash.

This case highlights how inadequate communication within an otherwise robust ERP can intensify reputational damage. As Heide and Simonsson (2015) argue, procedural preparedness without relational responsiveness fails to preserve legitimacy during crises.

Continued...