• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• 제30권1호
• /
• pp.207-244
• /
• 2015

Aviation safety is the stage in which the risk of harm to persons or of property damage is reduced to, and maintained at or below, an acceptable level through a continuing process of hazard identification and risk management. Many accidents and incidents have been taking place since 2014, while there had been relatively safer skies before 2014. International civil aviation community has been exerting great efforts to deal with these emerging issues, thus enhancing and ensuring safety throughout the world over the years. The Preamble of the Chicago Convention emphasizes safety and order of international air transport, and so many Articles in the Convention are related to the safety. Furthermore, most of the Annexes to the Convention are International Standards and Recommended Practices pertaining to the safety. In particular, Annex 19, which was promulgated in Nov. 2013, dealing with safety management system. ICAO, as law-making body, has Air Navigation Commission, Council, Assembly to deliberate and make decisions regarding safety issues. It is also implementing USOAP and USAP to supervise safety functions of member States. After MH 370 disappeared in 2014, ICAO is developing Global Tracking System whereby there should be no loophole in tracking the location of aircraft anywhere in world with the information provided by many stakeholders concerned. MH 17 accident drove ICAO to install web-based repository where information relating to the operation in conflict zones is provided and shared. In addition, ICAO has been initiating various solutions to emerging issues such as ebola outbreak and operation under extreme meteorological conditions. Considering the necessity of protection and sharing of safety data and information to enhance safety level, ICAO is now suggesting enhanced provisions to do so, and getting feedback from member States. It has been observed that ICAO has been approaching issues towards problem-solving from four different dimensions. First regarding time, it analyses past experiences and best practices, and make solutions in short, mid and long terms. Second, from space perspective, ICAO covers States, region and the world as a whole. Third, regarding stakeholders it consults with and hear from as many entities as it could, including airlines, airports, community, consumers, manufacturers, air traffic control centers, air navigation service providers, industry and insurers. Last not but least, in terms of regulatory changes, it identifies best practices, guidance materials and provisions which could become standards and recommended practices.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• 제32권1호
• /
• pp.10-18
• /
• 2024

Domestic aviation law stipulates methods and matters for safe and efficient navigation in accordance with the International Civil Aviation Convention. Following the International Civil Aviation Convention is very important for aviation safety because it not only presents domestic standards but also ensures that the safety standards presented by ICAO are implemented. If the above criteria are not met, it is a very important regulation as well as domestic legal effect as other member countries can be directly or indirectly affected by intensive monitoring by ICAO even without direct legal sanctions. Domestic aviation safety management conducts safety management evaluation according to USOAP and is considered to have the highest implementation rate among countries that have received USOAP so far. In this paper, we would like to ways to improve by comparing and analyzing how domestic aircraft reflect the contents of Annex 1 based on ICAO Annex 1: Personnel Licensing among the annexes of the ICAO.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• 제30권1호
• /
• 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
• /
• 제35권2호
• /
• 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
• /
• 제34권1호
• /
• pp.159-201
• /
• 2019

Along with Annex 14 Volume I establishment in 1951 and the set-up of restriction surface around the runway, aeronautical technique and navigation performance achieved dazzling growth, and the safety and precision of navigation greatly improved. However, restrictions on surrounding obstacles are still valid for safe operation of an aircraft. Standards and criteria for securing safety of aircraft operating around and on airport is stated in Annex 11 Air Traffic Services and Annex 14 Aerodrome etc. In particular, Annex 14 Volume I presents the criteria for limiting obstacles around an airport, such as natural obstacles such as trees, mountains and hills to prevent collisions between aircraft and ground obstacles, and artificial obstacles such as buildings and structures. On the other hand, Annex 14 Volume I, in the application of the obstacles limitation surfaces, apply the exception criteria, as it may not be possible to remove obstacles that violate the criteria if the aeronautical study determines that they do not impair the safety and regularity of aircraft operation. Aeronautical study has been applied and implemented in various countries including United States, Canada and Europe etc. accordingly, Korea established and amended some provisions of the Enforcement rules of the Aviation Act and established the Aeronautical study guidelines to approve exceptions. However, because ICAO does not provide specific guidelines on procedures and methods of Aeronautical study, countries conducting aeronautical study have established and applied their own procedures and methods. Reflecting this realistic situation, at the 12th World Navigation Conference and at the 38th General Assembly, the contracting States demanded a reexamination of the criteria for current obstacle limitation surfaces and methods of aeronautical study, and the ICAO dedicated a team of experts to prepare new standard. This study, in line with the movement of international change in obstacle limitation surface and aeronautical study, aims to compare and analyze current domestic and external standards on obstacle limitation and height limits, while looking at methods, procedure and systems for aeronautical study. In addition, expecting that aeronautical study will be used realistically and universally in assessing the impact of obstacles, we would recommend the institutional improvement of the aeronautical study along with the development of quantitative analysis methods using the navigation data in the current aeronautical study.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• 제28권2호
• /
• pp.97-115
• /
• 2013

The world-wide principal criteria of aircraft operations is ICAO Annex 6. Operations of Aircraft. Among ICAO Annex 6, Part I is for International Commercial Air Transport - Aeroplanes and it assumes major part of civil aviation. ICAO has been providing Contracting States with SARPs(Standards and Recommended Practices) and monitor each State's reflection degree into their domestic air law, so-called USOAP(Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program). Current ICAO USOAP is Snap-shot method, but it will be changed to USOAP-CMA method from the year of 2013. ICAO USOAP results have overall effects on national aviation industry such as routes, insurance, airlines cooperation and so forth. Low grades of results attract international attention and that leads to flag carrier's operation stoppage, route restriction, airlines cooperation restriction, insurance increase directly or indirectly. Thus it is important to get excellent grades in ICAO USOAP and to maintain confidence. Our government ranked top to get 98.89 grades in 2008 ICAO USOAP but after 2008 the revised provisions have not been reflected sufficiently into our air law. So I would like to grip reflection ratio of ICAO Annex 6 Part I into our domestic air law by using the most updated revised edition on this paper. Together I would like to suggest alternatives for the non-reflected and partially reflected.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.7-17
• /
• 2008

LOSA는 Line Operations Safety Audit(항공사 운항안전 감사)의 약자이며 기존의 적발 위주의 기존 Line Audit제도와 달리 조종사의 자발적 참여와 철저한 비밀을 유지하며, 처벌 금지 약속을 통하여 참여자가 평소 습관대로 비행할 수 있게 한다. 훈련된 감사관이 이를 소정의 절차서에 의거 조종석에서 관찰하여 실제의 안전취약 및 위협요소, Error를 포착해서 수집하고 텍사스대학 인적요인 연구소에서 분석하여 최종보고서를 작성하여 제도를 개선하는 안전프로그램이다. 제도와 방안을 개선하는 신개념의 선진 운항감사제도로서 안전관리시스템의 대표적인 비행안전 프로그램으로 통상 3${\sim}$4년을 주기로 실시한다. ICAO, IATA, FAA 및 IFALPA 실행 권고사항으로 현재 약30여개의 항공사가 실시하였다. LOSA는 2009년1월부터 ICAO부속서 6에 의거하여 항공사에서 실행해야 되는 SMS(안전관리 시스템)의 가장 효율적인 Hazard 식별 및 위험 관리도구 중의 하나이다. 본 논문에서는 안전관리시스템의 효과적 도구인 LOSA를 설명하고 항공사내 실행방법을 소개하는데 있다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• 제28권1호
• /
• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• 제32권1호
• /
• 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
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• 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.