• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.31-64
• /
• 2015

The Chicago Convention and Annexes have become the basis of aviation safety regulations for every contracting state. Generally, aviation safety regulations refer to the 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. Treaties duly concluded and promulgated under the Constitution and the generally recognized rules of international law shall have the same effect as the domestic laws of the Republic of Korea. Each contracting state to the Chicago Convention should meet ICAO SARPs about AOC and FAOC. According to ICAO SARPs, Civil Aviation Authorities shall issue AOC to air carriers of the state, but don't require to issue for foreign air carrier. However some contracting states of the Chicago Convention issue FAOC and/or Operations Specifications for the foreign operators. This FAOC is being expanded from USA to the other contracting states. Foreign operators have doubly burden to implement AOC of the ICAO SARPs because FAOC is an additional requirement other than that prescribed by the ICAO SARPs In Article 33, the Chicago Convention stipulates that each contracting state shall recognize the validity of the certificates of airworthiness and licenses issued by other contracting states as long as they are equal to or above the minimum standards of the ICAO. In ICAO Annex 6, each contracting state shall recognize as valid an air operator certificate issued by another contracting state, provided that the requirements under which the certificate was issued are at least equal to the applicable Standards specified in this Annex. States shall establish a programme with procedures for the surveillance of operations in their territory by a foreign operator and for taking appropriate action when necessary to preserve safety. Consequently, it is submitted that the unilateral action of the states issuing the FAOC to the foreign air carriers of other states is against the Convention. Hence, I make some proposals on the FAOC as an example of comprehensive problem solving after comparative study with ICAO SARPs and the contracting state's regulations. Some issues must be improved and I have made amendment proposals to meet ICAO SARPs and to strengthen aviation development. Operators should be approved by FAOC at most 190 if all states require FAOC. Hence, it is highly recommended to eliminate the FAOC or reduce the restrictions it imposes. In certain compliance-related issues, delayed process shall not be permitted to flight operations. In addition, it is necessary for the ICAO to provide more unified and standardized guidelines in order to avoid confusion or bias regarding the arbitrary expansion of the FAOC. For all the issue mentioned above, I have studied the ICAO SARPs and some state's regulation regarding FAOC, and suggested some proposals on the FAOC 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.67-95
• /
• 2014

Some Contracting States of the Chicago Convention issue FAOC(Foreign Air Operator Certificate) and conduct various safety assessments for the safety of the foreign operators which operate to their state. 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. FAOC also burdens the other contracting States to the Chicago Convention due to additional requirements and late permission. EASA(European Aviation Safety Agency) is a body governed by European Basic Regulation. EASA was set up in 2003 and conduct specific regulatory and executive tasks in the field of civil aviation safety and environmental protection. EASA's mission is to promote the highest common standards of safety and environmental protection in civil aviation. The task of the EASA has been expanded from airworthiness to air operations and currently includes the rulemaking and standardization of airworthiness, air crew, air operations, TCO, ATM/ANS safety oversight, aerodromes, etc. According to Implementing Rule, Commission Regulation(EU) No 452/2014, EASA has the mandate to issue safety authorizations to commercial air carriers from outside the EU as from 26 May 2014. Third country operators (TCO) flying to any of the 28 EU Member States and/or to 4 EFTA States (Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein, Switzerland) must apply to EASA for a so called TCO authorization. EASA will only take over the safety-related part of foreign operator assessment. Operating permits will continue to be issued by the national authorities. A 30-month transition period ensures smooth implementation without interrupting international air operations of foreign air carriers to the EU/EASA. Operators who are currently flying to Europe can continue to do so, but must submit an application for a TCO authorization before 26 November 2014. After the transition period, which lasts until 26 November 2016, a valid TCO authorization will be a mandatory prerequisite, in the absence of which an operating permit cannot be issued by a Member State. The European TCO authorization regime does not differentiate between scheduled and non-scheduled commercial air transport operations in principle. All TCO with commercial air transport need to apply for a TCO authorization. Operators with a potential need of operating to the EU at some time in the near future are advised to apply for a TCO authorization in due course, even when the date of operations is unknown. For all the issue mentioned above, I have studied the function of EASA and EU Regulation including TCO Implementing Rule newly introduced, and suggested some proposals. I hope that this paper is 1) to help preparation of TCO authorization, 2) to help understanding about the international issue, 3) to help the improvement of korean aviation regulations and government organizations, 4) to help compliance with international standards and to contribute to the promotion of aviation safety, in addition.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.8
• /
• pp.71-84
• /
• 1996

최근 남북관계는 대북 쌀 지원 문제와 관련한 북한 측의 태도와 이후의 무장공비 남파 등으로 악화되어 있다. 북한 측을 대화창구로 유도하고 남북 경협 등을 통하여 남북한 관계를 개선하려는 우리측의 노력은 이무런 성과를 거두고 있지 못한 것 같다. 남북한 항공판계의 진전도 전반적인 남북관계에서만이 고려가 가능한 실정으로 있다. 최근 언론매체를 통하여 북한당국이 미국 항공사(델타, 노스웨스트)의 평양비행정보구역 통과 우리 영공으로의 비행을 허가하였으며, 이에 대하여 우리측은 우선 남북한 관제당국간 관제협정이 체결되고, 동 항로를 이용한 비행은 우리 항공사를 포함한 모든 항공사에 비차별적으로 적용되어야 하는 것을 전제로 운항을 허가할 수 있음을 밝혔다. 이것은 북한당국이 '95년 12월에 자국영공을 전세계에 개방하겠다고 밝힌 후 진전된 일련의 사태 발전의 일부분이다. 북한은 '95.2월 초 국제영공통과 업무협정에 가입하였다. 외국항공기에 의한 북한의 영공통과비행은 이 협정에 가입하였다고 자동적으로 허가되는 것은 아니며 사안별로 허가되어야 한다는 점에 유의할 필요가 있다. 북한이 이러한 영공개방의사를 밝힌 것은 오랫동안 진행되어 왔던 일본/중국간 직선항로 문제에 있어서, 한국과 중국간의 합의로 서울/북경간에 직선항로를 설정하게 됨으로써 사실상 문제가 해결되었고, 따라서 향후 외국항공사가 한반도의 남쪽만을 통과하여 동경/북경간을 운항하게되는 가능성에 대하여 당혹감을 가지고 있기 때문이라고 보여진다. 한편 일본/중국간 직선항로 설정문제는 이것이 운항시간과 연료를 절약하게 된다는 점에서 IATA, ICAO 등 국제기구에 의하여 1980년대 초반부터 추구되어져 왔다. 그러나 남북간의 대립 등 복잡한 한반도 정세, 남북한을 포함한 일본, 중국 등 이해관계 당사국의 ICAO에 대한 형식적이고 외교적인 태도 등으로 인하여 아무런 해결책없이 십수년이 지나가게 되었다. 심지어 ICAO는 '88년 휴전선을 통과하는 단일항로안까지 제시하였는 바 이것은 한반도 정세에 대한 뚜렷한 이해가 없었던 때문이라고 생각된다. '95.9.17. "남복간 화해, 불가침, 교류 및 협력에 관한 합의서"가 서명되었다. 동 합의서에서는 남북간 군사적 대치 상태가 해소되는 상황에 따라 김포 및 순안비행장간 직항로를 개설한다고 되어있다. 현재까지 항공부문에서는 이렇다할 교류, 협력 실적은 없었으나 향후 남북관계의 진전에 따라 이 부문에서의 협력사업은 많다고 생각된다. 우선 위에서 언급한 남북한 및 각국 항공기가 남북의 비행정보구역을 통과 비행할 수 있도록 관제협정을 체결하고 필요할 경우 기술인력을 훈련하는데 상호 협조할 수 있다. 또한 설악산과 금강산을 연결하는 관광코스를 개발하여 항공기를 운항할 수 있다. 다음 남북의 주요 지점간에 전세기를 운항하고, 수요가 성숙할 경우 주요 도시 (남: 서울, 부산, 대구, 광주, 제주 등, 북: 평양, 신의주, 청진, 원산 등)를 연결하는 정기편을 개설할 수 있을 것이다. 이밖에 항공사간 영업사항에 관한 협력을 기대해 볼 수 있다. 남북간 항공협력은 한반도의 통일을 앞당길 수 있는 좋은 수단으로 작용할 수 있다.

• 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.