DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

국내외 항공 안전계획 및 안전성과지표 동향 및 사례분석

A Study on Aviation Safety Plan and Safety Performance Indicator of the Domestic and International Case Studies

  • 이지선 (한국과학기술원 건설 및 환경공학과) ;
  • 이동훈 (한국과학기술원 건설 및 환경공학과) ;
  • 윤윤진 (한국과학기술원 건설 및 환경공학과)
  • Lee, Ji Seon (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, KAIST) ;
  • Lee, Dong Houn (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, KAIST) ;
  • Yoon, Yoon Jin (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, KAIST)
  • 투고 : 2014.05.22
  • 심사 : 2014.08.09
  • 발행 : 2014.10.31

초록

ICAO에서 제시한 국가항공프로그램(State Safety Program, SSP)에 따르면, 국가의 항공안전 목표 달성을 위해 안전성과 측정 및 평가에 활용되는 안전성과지표(SPI)의 설정과 관리가 필수적이다. 이에 따라, 세계 여러 국가들은 자국의 실정에 맞는 SPI 수립을 연구개발하고 있다. 그에 반해, 우리나라는 2008년 국가항공안전프로그램이 제정된 이후로 지금까지 동일한 지표를 사용해왔으며, SPI 수립체계에 대한 체계적인 정책 사업 및 관련 연구가 미비한 실정이다. 따라서, 본 연구는 국내 SPI체계 개발의 일환으로 항공선진국인 유럽과 미국의 SPI 개발계획에 대한 동향 조사를 하고자 한다. 이를 위해 EU의 유럽항공안전국 (EASA), 영국의 민간항공국 (CAA), 핀란드의 교통안전국(FTSA) 및 미국의 연방항공청 (FAA) 사례를 분석했다. 도출 결과를 기반으로 국내외 SPI 개발계획 및 수립체계의 차이점을 밝혔다. 본 연구를 통하여 도출된 분석 결과들은 향후 국내 SPI 수립체계의 발전방향 제시하기 위한 기틀을 마련할 수 있을 것이다.

According to the State Safety Program (SSP) of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), it is essential to establish and manage Safety Performance Indicators (SPIs) which are used for monitoring the safety performance to achieve the national aviation safety goal. There have been enormous efforts to develop the framework of SPIs by considering the current status for each country. In case of Republic of Korea, however, there has been limited research and policy projects related to the framework for SPIs. Furthermore, Korea has used identical SPIs since the SSP was legislated in 2008. With this background, this research is, as part of strategy for the state level of SPI development, the study cases of advanced aviation countries for SPI development plans, such as the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) of the EU, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) of the UK, the Finish Transport Safety Agency (FTSA) of the Finland and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the U.S. The comparison between the foreign and domestic policies for SPI development strategies are provided in the conclusion of this study. The results and analyses of the case studies performed in this research will be helpful to provide some valuable development strategies for further SPI research in Korea.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Chang Y. H., Yeh C. H. (2004), A new airline safety index, Transportation Research Part B 38, 369-383. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-2615(03)00047-X
  2. Civil Aviation Authority UK (2009), CAP 784 State Safety Programme for the United Kingdom, Attachment 2, 3.
  3. Civil Aviation Authority UK (2011), Safety Plan 2011 to 2013.
  4. Civil Aviation Authority UK (2014), Safety Plan 2014-16, 6-34, 55-77.
  5. Enoma A., Allen S. (2007), Developing key performance indicators for airport safety and security, Facilities, 25, 296-315. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632770710753334
  6. European Aviation Safety Agency (2012), European Aviation Safety Plan 2012-2015.
  7. European Aviation Safety Agency (2013), European Aviation Safety Plan 2013-2016.
  8. European Aviation Safety Agency (2014), European Aviation Safety Plan 2014-2017.
  9. Federal Aviation Administration (2007), FAA Flight Plan 2007-2011.
  10. Federal Aviation Administration (2008), FAA Flight Plan 2008-2012.
  11. Federal Aviation Administration (2009), FAA Flight Plan 2009-2013.
  12. Federal Aviation Administration (2011), Destination 2025.
  13. Federal Aviation Administration (2011), FAA Order 8000.368A, Flight Standards Service Oversight.
  14. Federal Aviation Administration (2012), FY 2012 Portfolio of Goals.
  15. Federal Aviation Administration (2013), FY 2013 4th Performance Measure Scorecard.
  16. Finnish Transport Safety Agency (2014), Finnish Aviation Safety programme, Annex 2 Finland's Safety Objectives and Safety performance Indicators.
  17. International Civil Aviation Organization (2013), Annex 19, Safety Management.
  18. International Civil Aviation Organization (2013), Safety Management Manual (SMM) 3rd edition.
  19. Korea Airports Corporation (2014), SMS Safety Bulletin.
  20. Korea Transportation Safety Authority (2011), A Study on the Development of Korea Aviation State Program(SSP) 한국형 국가항공안전프로그램(SSP) 개발 연구.
  21. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transportation (2006), Transportation Safety Master Plan 2007- 2011, 129.
  22. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transportation (2008, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2014), Korea Aviation Safety program.
  23. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transportation (2009), Press Release(Aviation).
  24. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transportation (2011), SMS Coordination Committee Operational Regulation.
  25. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transportation (2011), Transportation Safety Master Plan 2012-2016, 32, 216.
  26. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transportation (2013), Press Release(Aviation).
  27. Network of Analysts Safety Performance Indicator Sub Group (2012), EASA Member Sates Common Safety performance Indicator.
  28. Network of Analysts Safety Performance Indicator Sub Group (2012), Summary of Safety performance Indicator Survey of the Network of Analysts, 1-4.
  29. The Korea Transportation Institute (2007), A Study for master plan Establishment of Air Transport Safety, p1-47, 66-69, 123-128.
  30. The Korea Transportation Institute (2007), A Study on the Development and Estimation of performance indicators for Air Transportation, 34-53, 67-76.