• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.18
• /
• pp.363-384
• /
• 2003

The Military Airbase Law has designated imaginary surface, restricting the height of structure above the imaginary surface. The purpose of establishment of imaginary surface is to promote safety of aircraft operation. However, given the fact that the land is limited, the Military Airbase Law does not set up outer horizontal surface such that the reduced imaginary surface would undermine the safety of aircraft operations with respect to IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) procedures. The fact that some areas which IFR procedures require are not designated as imaginary surface results in no imposition of height restriction on such area. With regard to aviation safety, this article deals with issue of height restriction on area which is beyond the imaginary surface area. This article also examines the establishment of the imaginary surface in the Military Airbase Law, and conducts case study of imaginary surface systems in other country. Based upon this discussion, the current problems posed in the Military Airbase Law will be discussed. To resolve these problems, it is necessary to establish height restriction zone beyond the current imaginary surface area. The provisions of ICAO, FAA and other counties in relation with this issue are referred as well. As a result, many different proposals are suggested, and it is concluded as the most effective proposal that, in certain zone beyond the imaginary surface area, an aeronautic study should be required for the purpose of ensuring aviation safety before a permit of construction higher than prescribed height is issued.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.79-107
• /
• 2004

Shielding theory is to allow the construction of a structure that would be shielded by existing permanent structures even thought such structure extends above the height limits prescribed for such zones. This theory is mentioned as recommended practices in ICAO Annex, and is adopted, with modification, in the current Military Airbase Law, amended in August 26th 2002. However, the Military Airbase Law adopts shielding standard allowing 45 meters uniformly, which is a unique standard compared to other countries shielding guideline. The basic principle in applying the shielding theory is, after considering the circumstances of location of shielded structure, whether such structure has physical effect on aeronautical operations. Based upon the basic principle of shielding theory, the uniform application of shielding standard in the Military Airbase Law would undermine the safety of aeronautical operations. This article is to review subsection 2 of section 8 of the Military Airbase Law, which adopts modified shielding theory, and is to suggest better guideline. From a comparative analysis perspective, shielding guidelines of ICAO and other countries will be discussed. Based upon this discussion, the general problems of shielding theory and the specific problems in the Military Airbase Law will be examined. Finally, this article suggests the case-by-case application of shielding theory, considering circumstances of location, for the purpose of ensuring aviation safety.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• 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.