A Study on the careless or reckless flight in aviation

항공에서 부주의 또는 무모한 운항 형태에 관한 연구

  • 함세훈 (한국항공대학교 대학원 항공운항관리학과) ;
  • 황호원 (한국항공대학교 항공우주법학과)
  • Received : 2010.08.10
  • Accepted : 2010.09.15
  • Published : 2010.09.30

Abstract

"The prohibition of careless or reckless flight" is the regulation specified not only in the national air law but ICAO ANNEX and FAR. This article(item) has not been categorized properly unlike other items and the question such as why this is described as a fundamental and essential act can be answered only by the party subjected to administrative measures in case of Korea and this kind of violation is so rare that it is not easy to understand the legal meaning and the function of the term, "The prohibition of careless or reckless flight" In case of U.S where aviation cases are common, the distinction between the term "careless" or "reckless" operation depends on whether to recognize the given situation. Some incidents happened by failing to aware NOTAM, violating ATC, or T/W landing where a pilot did not recognize the violation itself are considered to be "Careless" flight. Others such as low altitude high speed flight, approximate flight, Rejecting ATC instruction where a pilot intends to or is remiss in safety are regarded as "Reckless" flight. For pilots who are required to take the highest level of care from preparing for flight to stopping engines or completely disembarking passengers from a plane, the clear understanding of the most basic concept of "careless" or "reckless" flight should be emphasized for the safe flight and it is the time for the authorities to set a standard for proper measures by definite legal interpretations.

Keywords

References

  1. 운항 기술 기준(FLIGHT SAFETY REGULATIONS). 국토해양부 항공안전본부. (수정 2008. 8. 14.)
  2. ICAO 부속서 ANNEX 2
  3. 미연방 항공 규정(FAR)
  4. 항공법 및 시행규칙(시행 2009.9.10)
  5. 국립 국어원 표준 국어 대사전
  6. LONGMAN 영영 사전(1998년 제 3판)
  7. 대법원 선고88도855
  8. 이용식 "과실범이론의 변화에 관하여" 서울대학교法學 제4권 제2호. 2003. p 227-256
  9. 대법원 1985.3.26. 선고 84누758 판결
  10. 항공법 시행 규칙(개정 2009.9.10)[별표 18]
  11. NTSB Bar Association."AVIATION PROFESSIONALS AND THE THREAT OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY - HOW DO WE MAXIMIZE AVIATION SAFETY? " 2002 Southern Methodist University School of Law. Journal of Air Law and Commerce. Summer. 2002. p875-p879
  12. Glannon. " The Law of Torts" ASPEN PUBLISHERS. 2005. p25
  13. Dobbis " THE LAW OF TORTS" WEST GROUP. 2000. p8,
  14. 서울중앙지법 2006.6.23. 선고 2003가합58978판결
  15. 선고 94다9085 판결
  16. 대법원 2004. 5. 14. 선고 2004도74 판결에서 미필적 고의의 요건
  17. 사법 연수원. "미국 형사법" 1999. p 49
  18. Speiser. "The American Law of TORTS volume 2A.2009. WEST THOMSON REUTERS. $\S$10:11 p27
  19. Ferguson v. NTSB, 678 F.2d 821,824(9th Cir.1982)
  20. Stephan J. Corrie "The US Aviation Safety Reporting System" 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. p2
  21. 소개된 판례는 www.ntsb.gov 의 FAA LEGAL MATTERS로부터 추출