• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.235-268
• /
• 2019

Under the Aviation Safety Act of Korea, any person who intends to operate a drone is required to follow the operational conditions listed below, unless approved by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism; (i) Operation of drones in the daytime, (ii) Operation of drones within Visual Line of Sight, (iii) Maintenance of a certain operating distance between drones and persons or properties on the ground/ water surface, (iv) Do not operate drones over event sites where many people gather, (v) Do not transport hazardous materials such as explosives by drone, (vi) Do not drop any objects from drones. Requirements stated in "Airspace in which Flights are Prohibited" and "Operational Limitations" are not applied to flights for search and rescue operations by public organizations in case of accidents and disasters. This paper analyzes legal issues as to definition and regulations of drones in Korean Aviation Safety Act. This paper, also, offers some implications and suggestions for regulations of drones under Korean Aviation Safety Act by comparing the regulations of drones in Japanese Civil Aeronautics Act.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.31-64
• /
• 2015

The Chicago Convention and Annexes have become the basis of aviation safety regulations for every contracting state. Generally, aviation safety regulations refer to the 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. Treaties duly concluded and promulgated under the Constitution and the generally recognized rules of international law shall have the same effect as the domestic laws of the Republic of Korea. Each contracting state to the Chicago Convention should meet ICAO SARPs about AOC and FAOC. According to ICAO SARPs, Civil Aviation Authorities shall issue AOC to air carriers of the state, but don't require to issue for foreign air carrier. However some contracting states of the Chicago Convention issue FAOC and/or Operations Specifications for the foreign operators. This FAOC is being expanded from USA to the other contracting states. Foreign operators have doubly burden to implement AOC of the ICAO SARPs because FAOC is an additional requirement other than that prescribed by the ICAO SARPs In Article 33, the Chicago Convention stipulates that each contracting state shall recognize the validity of the certificates of airworthiness and licenses issued by other contracting states as long as they are equal to or above the minimum standards of the ICAO. In ICAO Annex 6, each contracting state shall recognize as valid an air operator certificate issued by another contracting state, provided that the requirements under which the certificate was issued are at least equal to the applicable Standards specified in this Annex. States shall establish a programme with procedures for the surveillance of operations in their territory by a foreign operator and for taking appropriate action when necessary to preserve safety. Consequently, it is submitted that the unilateral action of the states issuing the FAOC to the foreign air carriers of other states is against the Convention. Hence, I make some proposals on the FAOC as an example of comprehensive problem solving after comparative study with ICAO SARPs and the contracting state's regulations. Some issues must be improved and I have made amendment proposals to meet ICAO SARPs and to strengthen aviation development. Operators should be approved by FAOC at most 190 if all states require FAOC. Hence, it is highly recommended to eliminate the FAOC or reduce the restrictions it imposes. In certain compliance-related issues, delayed process shall not be permitted to flight operations. In addition, it is necessary for the ICAO to provide more unified and standardized guidelines in order to avoid confusion or bias regarding the arbitrary expansion of the FAOC. For all the issue mentioned above, I have studied the ICAO SARPs and some state's regulation regarding FAOC, and suggested some proposals on the FAOC 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.215-239
• /
• 2011

We are now entering the era of Commercial Space Transportation with the rapid commercialization of space. Commercial Space Tourism will be realized first of all in the commercial space transportation and the spacecraft is developing for it led by private enterprise such as Virgin Galatic and XCOR Aerospace. The spacecraft for space tourism is developed as Reusable Launch Vehicle(RLV). RLV Spaceship I & II manufactured by the Scaled Composites for Virgin Galatic had completed experimental flight successfully and is going to put to the operation for space travel around the year 2012. In our country, Yecheon Astro-Space Center located in Yecheon, Kyungbuk Province, signed a binding-MOU with XCOR Aerospace and going to start space travel in the year 2013 with the spacecraft LYNX MARK-II. Thus, now space travel has become a reality to us. But it is also reality that there's no study by legal basis preparing for the space tourism domestically and internationally. In this regards, this thesis dealt with legal issues related to space tourism. These are as follows : (1) the applicabe law issue that is which law between air law and space law will apply, (2) the status of space tourist issue that is space tourist can be considered as personnel of a spacecraft and/or space flight participant and has the duty to obey the order of the captain of spacecraft, (3) the responsibility of the government for the non-governmental entities such as private enterprise which involved in space tourism in case space accident occurs during the space travel, (4) license permit and supervision issue by the government (In this point, for activating the market of the space tourism, I think it is essential to guarantee the safety of the spacecraft by the government authority, though U. S. government declared that it has not certified the launch vehicle as safe for carrying crew or space flight participants), (5) registration issue, (6) space insurance issue. For all the issues mentioned above, I have studied the existing international treaties and several country's domestic law to the space by referring U.S's Commercial Space Launch Amendment Act of 2004 and New IGA of 1998 and concluded that uniform legal regime to govern these issues should be established domestically and internationally in the near future.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.225-285
• /
• 2017

In regard to the regulations related to the RPA(Remotely Piloted Aircraft), which is sometimes called in other countries as UA(Unmanned Aircraft), ICAO stipulates the regulations in the 'RPAS manual (2015)' in detail based on the 'Chicago Convention' in 1944, and enacts provisions for the Rules of UAS or RPAS. Other contries stipulates them such as the Federal Airline Rules (14 CFR), Public Law (112-95) in the United States, the Air Transport Act, Air Transport Order, Air Transport Authorization Order (through revision in "Regulations to operating Rules on unmanned aerial System") based on EASA Regulation (EC) No.216/2008 in the case of unmanned aircaft under 150kg in Germany, and Civil Aviation Act (CAA 1998), Civil Aviation Act 101 (CASR Part 101) in Australia. Commonly, these laws exclude the model aircraft for leisure purpose and require pilots on the ground, not onboard aricraft, capable of controlling RPA. The laws also require that all managements necessary to operate RPA and pilots safely and efficiently under the structure of the unmanned aircraft system within the scope of the regulations. Each country classifies the RPA as an aircraft less than 25kg. Australia and Germany further break down the RPA at a lower weight. ICAO stipulates all general aviation operations, including commercial operation, in accordance with Annex 6 of the Chicago Convention, and it also applies to RPAs operations. However, passenger transportation using RPAs is excluded. If the operational scope of the RPAs includes the airspace of another country, the special permission of the relevant country shall be required 7 days before the flight date with detail flight plan submitted. In accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation 107 in the United States, a small non-leisure RPA may be operated within line-of-sight of a responsible navigator or observer during the day in the speed range up to 161 km/hr (87 knots) and to the height up to 122 m (400 ft) from surface or water. RPA must yield flight path to other aircraft, and is prohibited to load dangerous materials or to operate more than two RPAs at the same time. In Germany, the regulations on UAS except for leisure and sports provide duty to avoidance of airborne collisions and other provisions related to ground safety and individual privacy. Although commercial UAS of 5 kg or less can be freely operated without approval by relaxing the existing regulatory requirements, all the UAS regardless of the weight must be operated below an altitude of 100 meters with continuous monitoring and pilot control. Australia was the first country to regulate unmanned aircraft in 2001, and its regulations have impacts on the unmanned aircraft laws of ICAO, FAA, and EASA. In order to improve the utiliity of unmanned aircraft which is considered to be low risk, the regulation conditions were relaxed through the revision in 2016 by adding the concept "Excluded RPA". In the case of excluded RPA, it can be operated without special permission even for commercial purpose. Furthermore, disscussions on a new standard manual is being conducted for further flexibility of the current regulations.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.145-176
• /
• 2016

Aviation safety can be secured through regulations and policies of various areas and thorough execution of them on the field. Recently, for aviation safety management Korea is making efforts to prevent aviation accidents by taking various measures: such as selecting and promoting major strategic goals for each sector; establishing National Aviation Safety Program, including the Second Basic Plan for Aviation Policy; and improving aviation related legislations. Obstacle limitation surface is to be established and publicly notified to ensure safe take-off and landing as well as aviation safety during the circling of aircraft around airports. This study intends to review current aviation obstacle management system which was designed to make sure that buildings and structures do not exceed the height of obstacle limitation surface and identify its operating problems based on my field experience. Also, in this study, I would like to propose ways to improve the system in legal and regulatory aspects. Nowadays, due to the request of residents in the vicinity of airports, discussions and studies on aviational review are being actively carried out. Also, related ordinance and specific procedures will be established soon. However, in addition to this, I would like to propose the ways to improve shortcomings of current system caused by the lack of regulations and legislations for obstacle management. In order to execute obstacle limitation surface regulation, there has to be limits on constructing new buildings, causing real restriction for the residents living in the vicinity of airports on exercising their property rights. In this sense, it is regarded as a sensitive issue since a number of related civil complaints are filed and swift but accurate decision making is required. According to Aviation Act, currently airport operators are handling this task under the cooperation with local governments. Thus, administrative activities of local governments that have the authority to give permits for installation of buildings and structures are critically important. The law requires to carry out precise surveying of vast area and to report the outcome to the government every five years. However, there can be many problems, such as changes in the number of obstacles due to the error in the survey, or failure to apply for consultation with local governments on the exercise of construction permission. However, there is neither standards for allowable errors, preventive measures, nor penalty for the violation of appropriate procedures. As such, only follow-up measures can be taken. Nevertheless, once construction of a building is completed violating the obstacle limitation surface, practically it is difficult to take any measures, including the elimination of the building, because the owner of the building would have been following legal process for the construction by getting permit from the government. In order to address this problem, I believe penalty provision for the violation of Aviation Act needs to be added. Also, it is required to apply the same standards of allowable error stipulated in Building Act to precise surveying in the aviation field. Hence, I would like to propose the ways to improve current system in an effective manner.

• The Journal of the Institute of Internet, Broadcasting and Communication
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.163-169
• /
• 2024

Anti-drone (anti-drone) is at the center of the debate over the failure to shoot down a North Korean drone that invaded the metropolitan area at the end of 2022. Anti-drone is a means of detecting and restraining drone flights in unauthorized airspace. Anti-drone technology is a key defense system for drone technology that is essential in the current illegal situation of various drones. We must be alert in the war in Ukraine, where the role of drones has increased. Drone attacks, which are not easy to defend, may determine the victory or defeat of the war. Competition for anti-drone technology development in countries around the world will rise. When new anti-drone technology emerges, drones that go beyond it will be developed. This study presented the current status of anti-drone by analyzing the defense system of domestic drones.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.3-54
• /
• 2013

Nowadays, major advanced countries in aviation technology are putting their effort to develop commercial and civil Unmanned Aircraft System(UAS) due to its highly promising market demand in the future. The market scale of commercial and civil UAS is expected to increase up to approximately 8.8 billon U.S. dollars by the year 2020. The usage of commercial and civil UAS covers various areas such as remote sensing, relaying communications, pollution monitoring, fire detection, aerial reconnaissance and photography, coastline monitoring, traffic monitoring and control, disaster control, search and rescue, etc. With the introduction of UAS, changes need to be made on current Air Traffic Management Systems which are focused mainly manned aircrafts to support the operation of UAS. Accordingly, the legislation for the UAS operation should be followed. Currently, ICAO's Unmanned Aircraft System Study Group(UASSG) is leading the standardization process of legislation for UAS operation internationally. However, some advanced countries such as United States, United Kingdom, Australia have adopted its own legislation. Among these countries, United States is most forth going with President Obama signing a bill to integrate UAS into U.S. national airspace by 2015. In case of Korea, legislation for the unmanned aircraft system is just in the beginning stage. There are no regulations regarding the operation of unmanned aircraft in Korea's domestic aviation law except some clauses regarding definition and permission of the unmanned aircraft flight. However, the unmanned aircrafts are currently being used in military and under development for commercial use. In addition, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport has a ambitious plan to develop commercial and civil UAS as Korea's most competitive area in aircraft production and export. Thus, Korea is in need of the legislation for the UAS operation domestically. In this regards, I personally think that Korea's domestic legislation for UAS operation will be enacted focusing on following 12 areas : (1)use of airspace, (2)licenses of personnel, (3)certification of airworthiness, (4)definition, (5)classification, (6)equipments and documents, (7)communication, (8)rules of air, (9)training, (10)security, (11)insurance, (12)others. Im parallel with enacting domestic legislation, korea should contribute to the development of international standards for UAS operation by actively participating ICAO's UASSG.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.119-152
• /
• 2009

Korea now has a rapidly expanding and developing space programme with exploration aspirations. The government is giving priority to the aerospace industry and, to put it on a better footing, enacted an Aerospace Industry Development Promotion Act in I987, a Space Development Promotion Act in 2005 and a Space Compensation for Damage Act in 2007. I would like to describe briefly the legislative history, main contents and comment for these three space acts including especially launch licensing, registration of space objects, use of satellite information, astronaut rescue, liability for compensation, third party liability insurance and establishment of committee and plans to assist the Korean space effort. Furthermore author proposed to legislate a new draft for the establishment of a Korean Aerospace Development Agency (KADA: tentative title) to create a similar body to Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), British National Space Centre (BNSC) of UK, French Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES), German Aerospace Center (DLR), Swedish Space Corporation (SSC), China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC), Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) as well as the Korean Space Agency (KSA: Tentative title) to create a similar body to Canadian Space Agency, European Space Agency, Russian Space Agency, Italian Space Agency, Israel Space Agency, Indian Department of Space, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) of USA, China National Space Administration in order to develope efficiently space industry. If the Korean government will be establish the Korean Space Agency as an governmental organization in future, it is necessary to revise the contents of the Government Organization Act. It is desirable and necessary for us to establish an Asian Space Agency (ASA), in order to develop our space industry and to promote research cooperation among Asian countries, based on oriental idea and creative powers.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.83-153
• /
• 2015

As our economy grows and the number of aircraft increase, the number of civil execution against aircraft cases are likely to increase as well in the future. The purpose of this article is to present the legal theory on the civil execution against aircrafts by drawing on the legal theory on the civil execution against vessels which constitute a relatively large number of cases thus observed. The provisions of the civil execution against immovables or vessel, shall basically apply mutatis mutandis to the civil execution against aircraft or light aircraft. The civil execution against ultra-light flying devices or a foreign aircraft shall be executed in conformity with the civil execution against movables. There are a compulsory auction, an auction to execute a security right to aircraft, and an auction under the right of retention, etc. in the civil execution against an aircraft. A compulsory execution against an aircraft means an execution carried out by a creditor against a debtor's aircraft to obtain satisfaction of claims for the purpose of payment of money. The court of execution of a compulsory execution against an aircraft shall be the district court having jurisdiction over the airport of stoppage or storage of such aircraft at the time of seizure. The forums of execution of a compulsory execution against an aircraft shall be exclusive forums. When a court has rendered an order on commencing an auction, it shall order an execution officer to receive a certificate of the aircraft's registration and other documents as required for its operation, and to submit them to the court. A court may revoke the procedures for a compulsory auction when an execution officer fails to obtain a transfer of the aircraft's registration certificate, etc. and the location of the aircraft is not evident, not later than an elapse of 2 months from the date on which an order on commencing an auction has been rendered. In the case where it is deemed that there exists a business-related need or other based on proper reasoning, the court may permit the aircraft's operation, upon the motion submitted by the debtor. In this case, there shall be a consent from the creditor, the highest bidder, the next highest bidder and successful bidder. A court may, upon a motion submitted by the creditor, make the dispositions required for observing and preserving the aircraft. When a debtor has submitted the documents under subparagraph 2 or 4 of the Article 49 of the Civil Execution Act, and furnished the guarantee equivalent to the claims of the execution creditors and the creditors demanding a distribution and to the costs for execution, before a declaration of bid, the court shall, upon request, revoke other procedures than those for distribution. The provisions of a obligatory auction against vessel or aircraft and an auction to execute a security right to real estate or vessel, shall apply mutatis mutandis to an auction to execute the security right to aircraft. In an auction to execute the security right to aircraft case, an executive title is not necessary. An executory exemplification is not necessary in an application for an auction to execute the security right to aircraft. A court should examine the existence of security right and claim secured. No order on commencing an auction procedure shall be issued with non-existence or invalidity of the security right and absence or extinguishment of the claim secured. Furthermore, these prohibitions are the reason of a decision on non-permit for sale, the court overlooked these prohibitions, and the decision on a permit for sale became final and conclusive, the successful bidder who paid the price and registered of ownership could not acquire ownership of the aircraft sold. A court may render a ruling to put plural aircrafts up for a blanket auction, only when they are in restraint and related matter (Supreme Court Order 2001Ma3688 dated on August 22, 2001). A righter of retention on aircraft may file a request for an auction against the aircraft. The provisions of an auction to execute a security right to aircraft shall apply mutatis mutandis to the formal auction. Airport facility fee and an aircraft are not in restraint and related matter, so an airport management corporation does not hold the right of retention on the aircraft (Supreme Court Decision 2011Da29291 decided on April 10, 2014). In an auction in accordance with the right of retention, all encumbrances (e.g., mortgages) on the sold aircraft shall be extinguished by a sale under the legal conditions for sale. Not only creditors who have claims for preferential payment but also general creditors could demand for distribution. The precedence of the claim of the right of retention on aircraft and that of general creditor's claims are equal.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.115-157
• /
• 2013

Some contracting States of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (commonly known as the Chicago Convention) issue FAOC(Foreign AOC and/or Operations Specifications) and conduct various safety audits for the foreign operators. These FAOC and safety audits on the foreign operators are being expanded to other parts of the world. While this trend is the strengthening measure of aviation safety resulting in the reduction of aircraft accident, it is the source of concern from the legal as well as economic perspectives. FAOC of the USA doubly burdens the other contracting States to the Chicago Convention because it is the requirement other than that prescribed by the Chicago Convention of which provisions are faithfully observed by almost all the contracting States. The Chicago Convention in its Article 33 stipulates that each contracting State recognize the validity of the certificates of airworthiness and licenses issued by other contracting States as long as they meet the minimum standards of the ICAO. Consequently, it is submitted that the unilateral action of the USA, China, Mongolia, Australia, and the Philippines issuing the FOAC to the aircraft of other States is against the Convention. It is worry some that this breach of international law is likely to be followed by the European Union which is believed to be in preparation for its own unilateral application. The ICAO established by the Chicago Convention to be in charge of safe and orderly development of the international civil aviation has been in hard work to both upgrade and emphasize the safe operation of aircraft. As the result of these endeavors, it prepared a new Annex 19 to the Chicago Convention with the title of "Safety Management" and with the applicable date 14 November 2013. It is this Annex and other ICAO documents relevant to the safety that the contracting States to the Chicago Convention have to observe. Otherwise, it is the economical burden due to probable delay in issuing the FOAC and bureaucracies combined with many different paperworks and regulations depending on where the aircraft is flown. It is exactly to avoid this type of confusion and waste that the Chicago Convention aimed at when it was adopted in 1944. The State of the operator shall establish a system for both the certification and the continued surveillance of the operator in accordance with ICAO SARPs to ensure that the required standards of operations are maintained. Certainly the operator shall meet and maintain the requirements established by the States in which it operate. The authority of a State stops where the authority of another State intervenes or where the former has yielded its power by an international agreement for the sake of international cooperation. Hence, it is not within the realm of the State to issue FAOC towards foreign operators for the reason that these foreign operators are flying in and out of the State. Furthermore, there are other safety audits such as ICAO USOAP, IATA IOSA, FAA IASA, and EU SAFA that assure the safe operation of the aircraft, but within the limit of their power and in compliance with the ICAO SARPs. If the safety level of any operator is not satisfactory, the operator could be banned to operate in the contracting States with watchful eyes until the ICAO SARPs are met. This time-honoured practice has been applied without any serious problems. Besides, we have the new Annex 19 to strengthen and upgrade with easy reference for contracting States. We don't have no reason to introduce additional burden to the States by unilateral actions of some States. These actions have to be corrected. On the other hand, when it comes to the carriage of the Personal or Pilot Log Book, the Korean regulation requiring it is in contrast with other relevant provisions of USA, USOAP, IOSA, and SAFA. The Chicago Convention requires in its Articles 29 and 34 only the carriage of the Journey Log Book and some other certificates, but do not mention the Personal Log Book at all. Paragraph 5.1.1.1 of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention even makes it clear that the carriage in the aircraft of the Personal Log Book is not required on international flights. The unique Korean regulation in this regards giving the unnecessary burden to the national flag air carriers has to be lifted at once.