• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.137-168
• /
• 2020

Air passengers may be compensated for damages based on the above agreement when the passenger suffers an accident to the extent that they are recognized as an accident under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention in 1999. If a flight or cabin crew and passengers both undergo an accident, passengers are subjected to compensation under the Montreal Convention however flight cabin crews will be compensated by the Labor Law, which is the governing law in the labor contract with the airline. The flight or cabin crew boarding the aircraft work is on a work contract, not a passenger transport contract. Therefore, if the flight or cabin crew on the aircraft is injured due to an accident, and the air carrier is liable for default due to a labor contract, the Labor Law, workers or survivors claim damages due to illegal acts against the employer. In which case, civil law will apply. In this regard, if a Chinese cabin crew working for a Chinese airline dies due to an accident in the Republic of Korea, whether the family of the deceased claims damages against the Chinese airline or not has international court jurisdiction in the Republic of Korea, which is the place of tort. We examined whether it is the law of the Republic of Korea or whether it's the Chinese law, the law applicable to the work contract, is applied. Also, Seoul District Court 1995.5.18. The sentence 94A 14144 was found that if the injured crew during the flight work was not satisfied with the insurance compensation under the Labor Standards Act and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, he could claime to damage under the civil law against an air carrier or third parties responsible for the accident. This law case shows that you can claim a civil damage as a cause. In case of death due to an existing illness while on the way to work, the Korea Workers'Compensation and Welfare Service did not recognize the death of the deceased as an occupational accident, and the trial was canceled by the parents of the deceased for the survivor's benefit and funeral expenses. (Seoul Administrative Court 2017.8. 31. Although the sentence was judged as an occupational disaster in 2016, the 2016 8816 Decision), it was defeated in the appeals court (Seoul High Court 2018.7.19.Sentence 2017 No. 74186) and I criticized the judgment of the appeal by analyzing the deceased's disease and related the cause of it to workload. Sometimes, a flight or cabin crew is on board not for the flight duty such as transferring to another flight or returning to the home base or lay-over place after their scheduled flight, this is called "Deadheading". If the crew who is not considered the same as a passenger, but is not on duty, is injured in an accident, does the crew claim compensation for damages under the labor contract or whether the Montreal Convention is applied to the passenger. In conjunction with the discussion, there was a similar case, In re Mexico City Aircrash of October 31, 1979, 708 F.2d 400 (9th Cir. 1983), Demanes v. United Airlines, 348 F.Supp. 13 (C.D.Cal. 1972), Sulewski v. Federal Express Corp., 749 F.Supp. 506 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) and reviewed by the European Court of Justice (CJEU) at Wucher Helicopter GmbH and Euro-Aviation Versicherungs AG v. After examining several acts in several countries it's undeniably crucial to clearly understand the definition of "passenger" as stated in the Fridolin Santer case.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.235-251
• /
• 2005

German working hour law of 1994(Arbeitszeitgesetz) provides maximum working hour as 8 hours a day and 48 hours per week. The law provides that minimum 11 hours rest-time is required between the end of a day's work and the beginning of the next day's work. Namely, the hour that the workers are put under commanding of the user is restricted within 13 hours per day. In the meantime, article 5, 7, 14, and 15 of the law have some letting the exceptional provisions regarding the working hour and rest-time of flight crew, and 2nd administrative order for the aviation transportation business owner, which is established based on such exceptional provisions(2.DV LuftBO), provides the working hour and rest-time of flight crew quite in detail. The administrative order is detailed quite regarding block time, flight working hour, and rest-time. So, it does not need to interpret additionally. Airlines in Korea should observe the both Labor Standard Act applying to general workers and Aviation Act focused on flight crew, so it is difficult that airlines manages working hour and rest-time of the flight crew efficiently. Therefore, it is desirable that our country refers to and considers adopting this legislation method of Germany which regulates working hour and rest-time of flight crew in detail in the 2.DV LuftBO.

• 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 Advanced Navigation Technology
• /
• v.24 no.6
• /
• pp.491-499
• /
• 2020

There are policies that foster the drone industry, which either put a legal precedent on drones through the "Drone Act" or grant a delay or exemption in applying the safety measures of "the Aviation Safety Act". Yet, the definition of a drone is unclear, requiring further discussion on commercial usage. Therefore, we have studied cases domestically and abroad, and also analyzed issues with the current aviation legislation. It was found that a drone is defined as "an unmanned aircraft where a pilot is not on board, and its net weight is 150 kg or less". However, there are several issues, such as that a drone taxi requires a pilot on board, and its weight is 150 kg or more. Thus, we propose to define a drone as "an unmanned aerial vehicle (provided, that its own net weight should be 300 kg or under, or not be limited to weight) under Article 2 (3) of the "Aviation Security Act" as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport, which operates either by remote, automatically, or autonomously; or an unmanned aircraft under Article 2 (6) of the "Aviation Security Act".

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aeronautical & Space Sciences
• /
• v.50 no.9
• /
• pp.647-655
• /
• 2022

The Russian government is expanding strategic cooperation with foreign countries, including production partnerships, in order to secure civil aircraft manufacturing technology and advanced materials, with the aim of becoming the world's third-largest civil aircraft producer. In addition, the Russian government supports the development of the aircraft manufacturing industry and reorganizes the aircraft certification organization to pursue systematic aviation safety and make great efforts in international cooperation and certification activities for the export of aviation products. Establishing a cooperative system for safety and certification of civil aircraft between countries requires a process of mutual understanding and trust in the overall certification system. Therefore in this study, we wanted to analyze Russia's aircraft certification organization, law system, certification procedures to help Russia understand its aircraft certification system.

• Journal of Advanced Navigation Technology
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.37-43
• /
• 2024

National aircraft are subject to exceptions under the International Civil Aviation Convention. Each country must ensure the safety of civil aircraft through reasonable consideration (due regard). Accordingly, the Aviation Safety Act of Korea also includes an exception for national aircraft. However, Korea Coast Guard aircraft are legislated to be subject to the law on five provisions. As Korea Coast Guard aircraft operate under the application of these provisions of international and domestic laws, they will be required to control flight procedures from China's civil air traffic control when flying over provisional action zone, which is international waters in the West Sea. China's demand is a major limiting factor in protecting the safety of the people of Korea, which is the original mission of Korea Coast Guard aircraft, and through this study, countermeasures to solving these problems at the national level were suggested.

• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.105-137
• /
• 2009

International Civil Aviation Convention contracted in 1944 adopted International Standards and Recommended Practices(SARPs) as Annexes to Convention for safety and order of International Air Transport and each contracting State shall establish and amend the law on the basis of the SAPRs. However, Any State which find it impracticable to comply in all respects with any such SARPs, or which deems it necessary to adopt regulations or practices differing in any particular respect from those established by SARPs shall give immediate notification to the ICAO of the differences between its own practice and that established by the SARPs and ICAO publish these difference notices as a supplement to annexes. Korea and neighboring countries contracting States with International Civil Aviation Convention are accomplishing standardization of regulation on the basis of SARPs in each State. Air Law of each State need to study on the trait and differences for safety of frequent air transport services around the Korean Peninsula, However, because Korea and Neighboring countries have differences of Air Law by reason of cultural differences and circumstance of each State. Korea and Neighboring countries mean Republic of Korea, The People's Republic of China, Japan and The Domestic People's Republic of Korea and study on Air Law of each state in this study. One of purposes of this study is to analyze the history and organization of each state and then to review how establishing own air law affect air law of each state. Another purpose is to make comparative study on differences between own regulation in Korea and neighboring countries and SARPs and then to review how the differences notice of each state affect air law of each state.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.115-136
• /
• 2008

The development of the aviation technology is beyond the people's imagination. For example, with some exaggeration, If the autopilot engage upon take off, You will realize that you are on the centerline of the foggy JFK runway 13R after 15 hours with only once or twice of intervention. But the more aviation technology develops, the more responsible the pilot will be who has the final authority of the aviation safety. In the JAL 706 accident caused by unidentified reason, the pilot increased pitch abruptly and overrode the control from the autopilot. The result of this process made the death of a flight attendant and some injuries of a few passengers. The district court found the pilot not guilty at the first trial on the ground that the control override was not connected to the possibility of foresight and avoidance of the human death. The pilot was proved to be innocent through the analysis of the DFDR and ADAS that the override did not precede the unidentified pitch up motion. The judicial precedent related to aviation accidents in Korea requires pilots' absolute and extended care compared to the ordinarily prudent or reasonably careful behaviors in the vehicle and medical accidents. Although there is some controversy about the standard care, the care required in the actual operation of high tech aircraft by a pilot should include objective and standard care and be judged by analysis of the scientific data. Although the pilot maintained the unusual hi speed that doesn't have safety margin and descended under turbulence in case of the JAL 706 accident, the court negatived its relation to the cause of pitch up. Also, the override of the control after initial pitch up might have caused the possibility of the death and injury, but the court denied it. Because of this complex cause of the aviation accidents, it is important for a court to figure out the core reason of the event and casual relationship with the pilot Now, It is required that the judgement of negligence in the aviation accidents should include an objective care with scientific data from simulated circumstances(or a simulator) as the Japanese court not from the theory of vehicle's negligence.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.255-272
• /
• 2005

This study was conducted to present the adaquate guidelines necessary in decision making processes regarding air traffic management as well as airspace management in the national airspace system. It encompasses the overall advanced air traffic management initiatives, domestic air traffic congestion and resolution method as well.