• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.18
• /
• pp.363-384
• /
• 2003

The Military Airbase Law has designated imaginary surface, restricting the height of structure above the imaginary surface. The purpose of establishment of imaginary surface is to promote safety of aircraft operation. However, given the fact that the land is limited, the Military Airbase Law does not set up outer horizontal surface such that the reduced imaginary surface would undermine the safety of aircraft operations with respect to IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) procedures. The fact that some areas which IFR procedures require are not designated as imaginary surface results in no imposition of height restriction on such area. With regard to aviation safety, this article deals with issue of height restriction on area which is beyond the imaginary surface area. This article also examines the establishment of the imaginary surface in the Military Airbase Law, and conducts case study of imaginary surface systems in other country. Based upon this discussion, the current problems posed in the Military Airbase Law will be discussed. To resolve these problems, it is necessary to establish height restriction zone beyond the current imaginary surface area. The provisions of ICAO, FAA and other counties in relation with this issue are referred as well. As a result, many different proposals are suggested, and it is concluded as the most effective proposal that, in certain zone beyond the imaginary surface area, an aeronautic study should be required for the purpose of ensuring aviation safety before a permit of construction higher than prescribed height is issued.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.225-246
• /
• 2020

More than technical or academic matter, mitigation of height restriction around airports is about up-dating out-dated policies that have not kept up with rapidly developing aircraft and air traffic control technologies. Above all, instead of calling out 'flight safety' that the public do not comprehend, it is important to examine and carry out measures that can protect people's right of property. MOLIT(Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport) after reviewing ICAO's Obstacle Limitation Surface TF, made an announcement to provide further plans that would apply to contracting states from 2026. However, residents of redevelopment areas near Kimpo international airport asserted that MOLIT's policy overlooks the reality of the redevelopment zone. ICAO, UN's specialized agency for civilian aviation, recommends in Annex 14, 4.2.4 that contracting states conduct an aeronautical study to determine the flight safety of horizontal surface(45m), excluding approach surface, and to mitigate height restrictions if no threat is found. Numerous countries including the United States have been following this recommendation and have been able to effectively protect people's right of property, whereas the South Korean government have not following it so far. The number of height restriction mitigation cases in the recent three months (2019. 7. 15~10. 14.) FAA of the United States have allowed after conducting an aeronautical study reaches 14,706. Japan and Taiwan also reconstruct airspace around airports in metropolitan areas in order to protect people's right of property. Just as the United States is following, MLIT should follow ICAO's recommendation in Annex 14. 4.2.4(Vol. 1. Airport Construction / Operation) and protect people's right of property by first applying aeronautical studies to the horizontal surface(45m) of flight safety zones until the specifics of ICAO's 2026 TF materialize.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.63-101
• /
• 2020

'Flight safety zone' means a zone that the Minister of National Defense designates under Articles 4 and 6 of the Protection of Military Bases and Installations Act (hereinafter 'PMBIA') for the safety of flight during takeoff and landing of military aircrafts. The purpose of flight safety zone is to contribute to the national security by providing necessary measures for the protection of military bases and installations and smooth conduct of military operations. In this case, when the state set and used the flight safety zone, the landowner claimed restitution of unjust enrichment against the country. This article is an analysis based on the existing legal theory regarding the legitimacy of plaintiff's claim, and the summary of the discussion is as follows. A person who without any legal ground derives a benefit from the property or services of another and thereby causes loss to the latter shall be bound to return such benefit (Article 741 of the Civil Act). Since the subject matter is an infringing profit, the defendant must prove that he has a legitimate right to retain the profit. The State reserves the right to use over the land designated as a flight safety zone in accordance with legitimate procedures established by the PMBIA for the safe takeoff and landing of military aircrafts. Therefore, it cannot be said that the State gained an unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent over the land without legal cause. Expropriation, use or restriction of private property from public necessity and compensation therefor shall be governed by Act: provided, that in such a case, just compensation shall be paid (Article 23 (1) of the Constitution of The Republic of KOREA). Since there is not any provision in the PMBIA for loss compensation for the case where a flight safety zone is set over land as in this case, next question would be whether or not it is unconstitutional. Even if it is designated as a flight safety zone and the use and profits of the land are limited, the justification of the purpose of the flight safety zone system, the appropriateness of the means, the minimization of infringement, and the balance of legal interests are still recognized; thus just not having any loss compensation clause does not make the act unconstitutional. In conclusion, plaintiff's claim for loss compensation based on the 'Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for land, etc. for Public Works Projects', which has no provision for loss compensation due to public limits, is unjust.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.3-36
• /
• 2015

As of end of 2014, the population engaging in aviation activities for leisure has reached approximately 13 million, where approximately 356 cases involve a general aircraft, 200 cases involve light aircraft, and 636 cases involve an ULM. The industry for leisure has become a very promising industry in line with rapidly rising living standards which are expected to further increase in the future. The demand for such services is expected to increase over time. The purpose of this paper is to review the development and site selection of airfields in anticipation of these developments in the industry. While the government also has experience in the review of airfield location and candidate sites, it is not the government that carries out the actual construction. As such, the feasibility of the site needs to be verified in terms of actual construction. This study identified factors for Site Selection of factors through a review of related documents and existing research reports. A questionnaire was also used to collect the views of experts in the field, which was then analyzed. The Research model was confirmed in the layered form for an AHP analysis. The factors for Site Selection were identified as the technical / operational factors and economic / political elements for a two-stage configuration. The third step consisted of technical and operational elements. The final step is was constructed a total of 11 elements (weather, surface conditions, obstacle limitation surface, airspace conditions, operating procedures, noise problems, environmental issues, availability of facilities, construction and investment costs, contribution to the local economy, accessibility, demand / the proximity of demand). The surveys are conducted for more than 10 General and light aircraft pilots, professionals, and instructor. The analysis results showed a higher level in the technical / operating elements (73.2%) in the first step, while the next step sawa higher level of the operational elements (30.9%) than the other. The factors for Site Selection were any particular elements did not appear high, the weather conditions (17.5%), noise problems (19.8%), the proximity of demand (6%), accessibility (5.7%), environmental issues (11.1%), availability of facilities (8%), airspace conditions (7.9%), obstacle limitation surface (12%), construction and investment costs (4.2%) and to operating procedures (4.9%), contribution to the local economy (3.8%).