A Comparative Study of Domestic and International regulation on Mixed-fleet Flying of Flight crew

운항승무원의 항공기 2개 형식 운항관련 국내외 기준 비교 연구

  • Lee, Koo-Hee (Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd., Jungseok College)
  • Received : 2015.12.06
  • Accepted : 2015.12.26
  • Published : 2015.12.30

Abstract

The Chicago Convention and Annexes have become the basis of aviation safety regulations for every contracting state. Generally, the State's aviation safety regulations refer to the Standards and Recommended Practices(SARPs) provided in the Annexes of the Chicago Convention. In order to properly reflect international aviation safety regulations, constant studies of the aviation fields are of paramount importance. This Paper is intended to identify the main differences between korean and foreign regulation and suggest a few amendment proposals on Mixed-fleet Flying(at or more two aircraft type operation) of flight crew. Comparing with these regulations, the korean regulations and implementations have some insufficiency points. I suggest some amendment proposals of korean regulations concerning Mixed-fleet Flying that flight crew operate aircraft of different types. Basically an operator shall not assign a pilot-in-command or a co-pilot to operate at the flight controls of a type of airplane during take-off and landing unless that pilot has operated the flight controls during at least three take-offs and landings within the preceding 90 days on the same type of airplane or in a flight simulator. Also, flight crew members are familiarized with the significant differences in equipment and/or procedures between concurrently operated types. An operator shall ensure that piloting technique and the ability to execute emergency procedures is checked in such a way as to demonstrate the pilot's competence on each type or variant of a type of airplane. Proficiency check shall be performed periodically. When an operator schedules flight crew on different types of airplanes with similar characteristics in terms of operating procedures, systems and handling, the State shall decide the requirements for each type of airplane can be combined. In conclusion, it is necessary for flight crew members to remain concurrently qualified to operate multiple types. The operator shall have a program to include, as a minimum, required differences training between types and qualification to maintain currency on each type. If the Operator utilizes flight crew members to concurrently operate aircraft of different types, the operator shall have qualification processes approved or accepted by the State. If applicable, the qualification curriculum as defined in the operator's Advanced Qualification Program could be applied. Flight crew members are familiarized with the significant differences in equipment and/or procedures between concurrently operated types. The difference among different types of airpcrafts decrease and standards for these airpcrafts can be applied increasingly because function and performance have been improved by aircraft manufacture company in accordance to basic aircraft system in terms of developing new aircrafts for flight standard procedure and safety of flight. Also, it becomes more necessary for flight crews to control multi aircraft types due to various aviation business and activation of leisure business. Nevertheless, in terms of flight crew training and qualification program, there are no regulations in Korea to be applied to new aircraft types differently in accordance with different levels. In addition, it has no choice different programs based on different levels because there are not provisions to restrict or limit and specific standards to operate at or more than two aircraft types for flight safety. Therefore the aviation authority introduce Flight Standardization and/or Operational Evaluation Board in order to analysis differences among aircraft types. In addition to that, the aviation authority should also improve standard flight evaluation and qualification system among different aircraft types for flight crews to apply reasonable training and qualification efficiently. For all the issue mentioned above, I have studied the ICAO SARPs and some state's regulation concerning operating aircraft of different types(Mixed-fleet flying), and suggested some proposals on the different aircraft type operation as an example of comprehensive problem solving. I hope that this paper is 1) to help understanding about the international issue, 2) to help the improvement of korean aviation regulations, 3) to help compliance with international standards and to contribute to the promotion of aviation safety, in addition.

References

  1. 국토교통부, 운항기술기준, 2014.
  2. 국토교통부, 항공기기술기준, 2013.
  3. 대한민국, 항공법, 항공법시행령, 항공법시행규칙, 2015.
  4. 김맹선, "국내항공법상 항공안전관리 제도변화에 관한 연구", 항공우주정책법학회지 제23권 제2호, 한국항공우주정책.법학회, 2008.
  5. 이구희, "국내외 항공안전관련 기준에 관한 비교 연구", 박사학위논문, 한국항공대학교, 2015.
  6. 이구희, "조종사 운항자격제도 국내외 기준 비교 연구", 항공진흥 통권63호, 한국항공진흥협회, 2015.
  7. 이구희, "시카고협약체계에서의 EU의 항공법규체계 연구", 항공우주정책법학회지 제29권 제1호, 한국항공우주정책.법학회, 2014.
  8. 이구희.박원화, "시카고협약체계에서의 항공안전평가제도에 관한 연구", 항공우주정책법학회지 제28권 제1호, 한국항공우주정책.법학회, 2013.
  9. 이구희.황호원, "항공법규에서의 승무원 피로관리기준 도입방안에 관한 연구", 항공우주정책법학회지 제27권 제1호, 한국항공우주정책.법학회, 2012.
  10. 황사식.최성호, "조종사 운항자격 심사제도 개선방안에 관한 연구", 항공운항학회지, 한국항공운항학회, 2014.
  11. EASA, AMC GM to Annex 3 Part ORO _ consolidated version AMC/GM, EASA, 2015.
  12. EASA, AMC GM to Part Flight Crew Licence, EASA, 2011-2015.
  13. EASA, AMC GM to Part 21.
  14. EASA, Certification Specification(CS) and Acceptable Means of Compliance for Large Aeroplanes, CS 25, EASA, 2015.
  15. EASA, Operational Evaluation Board Report, Boeing 747-400 / -400F / -8 / -8F Flight Crew Qualifications, EASA, 2013.
  16. EC/EU, Basic Regulation _ consolidated version regulation (No 216/2008, 690/2009, 1108/2009, 6/2013), EU, 2013.
  17. EU, Commission Regulation(EU) Air operations Part ORO _ consolidated version regulation(No 965/2012, ...), EU, 2015
  18. EU, Commission Regulation(EU) Aircrew _ consolidated version regulation (No1178/2011, 290/2012, ...), EU, 2015.
  19. EU, Commission Regulation(EU) Initial Airworthiness(No748/2012), EU, 2012.
  20. FAA, AC 120-53B Guidance for Conducting and Use of Flight Standardization Board Evaluations, 2013.
  21. FAA, FAR Part 121 Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental operations. FAA, 2015.
  22. FAA, FAR Part 25 Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes, FAA, 2015.
  23. FAA, Flight Standardization Board Report : Boeing B-747-100, -200, SP, -400LCF and 8) Revision 3, 2011
  24. FAA, InFO 11016 Common Pilot Type Rating between the B-777 and B-787, 2011.
  25. FAA, Order 8110.4C Type Certification
  26. FAA, Order 8900.1 Flight Standards Information Management System (FSIMS), FAA, 2015.
  27. ICAO, Annex 1 / Annex 6 / Annex 8 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, ICAO, 2015.
  28. ICAO, Doc 7300/9, Convention on International Civil Aviation(9th), ICAO, 2006.
  29. ICAO, Doc 8335, Manual of Procedures for Operations Inspection, Certification and Continued Surveillance(5th), ICAO, 2010.
  30. ICAO, Doc 9379, Manual of Procedures for Establishment and Management of a State's Personnel Licensing System, ICAO, 1983.
  31. ICAO, Doc 9735, Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme Continuous Monitoring Manual(4th), ICAO, 2014.
  32. SAFA Ramp Inspections Guidance material Version 2.0, EASA, 2012.