• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• 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
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aeronautical & Space Sciences
• /
• v.46 no.8
• /
• pp.694-701
• /
• 2018

Civil aircraft noise certification standard is based on the ICAO Annex 16 Vol. 1. And, the standard uses A-Weighted SPL, EPNL and SEL method depending on the aircraft category. Korean noise standards, KAS 36 and other nation's CS 36 and FAR 36 noise standards were developed and revised according to the international noise standards, ICAO Annex 16. And, the national noise requirements are equivalent each other. The small airplane noise certification requires only take-off noise level with A-Weighted SPL in dB(A) unit. The first Korean aircraft noise certification was performed for the KC-100 certification in August 2012 with Korean authority and U.S. FAA. The noise certification requires much knowledge and experience in flight tests and noise data processing. In this study, the noise test requirements, test conditions and data correcting methods are shown with the test examples.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.29-73
• /
• 2012

Aviation safety is the State and industry's top priority and more scientific approaches for fatigue management should be needed. There are lately various studies and regulation changes for crew fatigue management with ICAO, FAA and EASA. ICAO issued the provisions of fatigue management for flight crew since 1st edition, 1969, of Annex 6 operation of aircraft as a Standards and Recommended practice(SARPs). Unfortunately, there have been few changes and improvement to fatigue management provisions since the time they were first introduced. However the SARPs have been big changed lately. ICAO published guidance materials for development of prescriptive fatigue regulations through amendment 33A of Annex 6 Part 1 as applicable November 19th 2009. And then ICAO introduced additional amendment for using Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS) with $35^{th}$ amendment in 2011. According to the Annex 6, the State of the operator shall establish a) regulations for flight time, flight duty period, duty period and rest period limitations and b) FRMS regulations. The Operator shall implement one of following 3 provisions a) flight time, flight duty period, duty period and rest period limitations within the prescriptive fatigue management regulations established by the State of the Operator; or b) a FRMS; or c) a combination of a) and b). U.S. FAA recently published several kinds of Advisory Circular about flightcrew fatigue. U.S. passed "Airline Safety and FAA Extension Act of 2010" into law on August 1st, 2010. This mandates all commercial air carriers to develop a FAA-acceptable Fatigue Risk Management Plan(FRMP) by October 31st, 2010. Also, on May 16, 2012, the FAA published a final rule(correction) entitled 'Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements; correction to amend its existing prescriptive regulations. The new requirements are required to implement same regulations for domestic, flag and supplemental operations from January 4, 2014. EASA introduced a Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2010-14 entitled "Draft opinion of the European Aviation Safety Agency for a Commission Regulation establishing the implementing rules on Flight and Duty Time Limitations and Rest Requirements for Commercial Air Transport with aeroplanes" on December 10, 2010. The purpose of this NPA is to develop and implement fatigue management for commercial air transport operations. Comparing with Korean and foreign regulations regarding fatigue management, the provisions of ICAO, FAA, EASA are more considering various fatigue factors and conditions. Korea regulations should be needed for some development of insufficiency points. In this thesis, I present the results of the comparative study between domestic and foreign regulations in respect of fatigue management crew member. Also, I suggest legal proposals for amendment of Korea Aviation act and Enforcement Regulations concerning fatigue management for crew members. I hope that this paper is helpful to change korea fatigue regulations, to enhance aviation safety, and to reduce the number of accidents relating to fatigue. Fatigue should be managed at all level such as regulators, experts, operators and pilots. Authority should change surveillance mind-set from regulatory auditor to expert adviser. Operators should identify various fatigue factors and consider to crew scheduling them. Crews should strongly manage both individual and duty-oriented fatigue issues.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.31-63
• /
• 2011

Since Korea has invested only on developing an aircraft, it is true that Korea has neglected detailed standards and procedures about certification activities including essential safety procedures. Most developed countries have implemented mandatory airworthiness system by legislating it for operational safety of aircraft based on ICAO Annex 8, and the U.S. Department of Defense and the FAA's Airworthiness system have been adapted it to the realities of their circumstance. Therefore, Airworthiness system that can guarantee the safety of the aircraft at international level is necessary to enhance flight safety and to create export opportunities of an aircraft as a country which can develop an aircraft by itself To achieve this, a study on the improvement of aircraft airworthiness was carried out by analyzing the problem of domestic airworthiness system and by reflecting international best practices on the establishment of a system for improved Airworthiness.

• Journal of KSNVE
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.36-40
• /
• 1998

공항주변지역의 항공기 소음영향은 항공기 1대에 의한 소음크기나 시끄러움보다는 항공기가 계속하여 반복 운항하는데 더욱 큰 영향이 있다.그래서 ICAO가 1971년에 공포한 Annex 16 Aircraft Noise중에서 다수의 항공기에 의해 장기간 연속폭로 된 소음척도로서 EPNL에 항공기 운항회수와 운항시간대등을 고려한 WECPNL(가중 등가속 감각 소음 레벨 : Weighted Equivalent Continuous Perceived Noise Level)이 제안되었다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.31-44
• /
• 2001

This paper addresses legislation status of air route design standard of Korea. Korea Ministry of Construction and Transportation's Order Number 300 (March 28, 2001) prescribes that firstly, the design of air routes in Korea should be in accord with International Civil Aviation Organization(ICAO)'s recommendations published in Annex 11: Air Traffic Service and Procedures for Air Navigation Services: Aircraft Operations (ICAO Doc 8168-OPS, 1986), and secondly, United States Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)'s Terminal Instrument Procedures (FAA, 1976). An investigation on the current air route specifications of Korea reveals that they are in accord with neither ICAO's recommendations nor FAA's standards in that the width of Korea's air routes are narrower that the international recommendations and standards. As a member state of ICAO, it is imperative for Korea to follow the international standards. In that purposes, Korea should legislate and regulate the detail standard for air route design. For the legislation, FAA regulations are to be followed because FAA rules contains more detail specifications while ICAO recommendations includes allows a range of policy decisions, which may result in a confusion in practice.

• 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.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.