• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.45-79
• /
• 2018

An increase of airplanes and military aircraft operation lead to significant demanding of residential claims by people who live in nearby airports and military bases due to noise, vibration and residential damages caused by aircraft operations. In recent years, a plaintiff has filed a lawsuit against the defendant, claiming the prohibition of using claimant's possessed land as a helicopter landing route, and the Daejeon High Court was in favour of the plaintiff. Although the Supreme Court later dismissed the Appeal Court decision, it is necessary to discuss the case of setting flight prohibited zone. In Japan, the airport noise lawsuits have been filed for a long time, mainly by environmental groups. Unlike the case that admitted residential damages caused by noise, the Yokohama District Court for the first time sentenced a judgment of the prohibition of the flight. This ruling was partially changed in the appellate court and some of the plaintiffs' claims were adopted. However, the Supreme Court of Japan finally rejected such decision from appeal and district courts. Atsugi Base is an army camp jointly used by the United States and Japan, and residents, live nearby, claim that they are suffering from mental damage such as physical abnormal, insomnia, and life disturbance because of the noise from airplane taking off and landing in the base. An administrative lawsuit was therefore preceded in the Yokohama District Court. The plaintiff requested the Japan Self-Defense Forces(hereinafter 'JSDF') and US military aircraft to be prohibited operating. The court firstly held the limitation of the flight operation from 10pm to 6am, except unavoidable circumstance. The case was appealed. The Supreme Court of Japan dismissed the original judgment on the flight claim of the JSDF aircraft, canceled the first judgment, and rejected the claims of the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court ruled that the exercise of the authority of the Minister of Defense is reasonable since the JSDF aircraft is operating public flight high zone. The court agreed that noise pollution is such an issue for the residents but there are countermeasures which can be taken by concerned parties. In Korea, the residents can sue against the United States or the Republic of Korea or the Ministry of National Defense for the prohibition of the aircraft operation. However, if they claim against US government regarding to the US military flight operation, the Korean court must issue a dismissal order as its jurisdiction exemption. According to the current case law, the Korean courts do not allow a claimant to appeal for the performance of obligation or an anonymous appeal against the Minister of National Defense for prohibiting flight of military aircraft. However, if the Administrative Appeals Act is amended and obligatory performance litigation is introduced, the claim to the Minister of National Defense can be permitted. In order to judge administrative case of the military aircraft operation, trade-off between interests of the residents and difficulties of the third parties should be measured in the court, if the Act is changed and such claims are granted. In this connection, the Minister of National Defense ought to prove and illuminate the profit from the military aircraft operation and it should be significantly greater than the benefits which neighboring residents will get from the prohibiting flight of military aircraft.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.403-425
• /
• 2015

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.