• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.311-336
• /
• 2015

This article surveys the current international law with respect to RPAS from both the public air law and private air law perspectives. It then reviews current and proposed Australian domestic RPAS regulation while emphasizing the peculiar risks in operation of RPAS; and how they affect concepts of liability, safety and privacy. While RPAS operations still constitute only a small portion of total operations within commercial aviation, international pilotless flight for commercial air transport remains a future reality. As the industry is developing so quickly the earlier the pursuit of the right policy solutions begins, the better the law will be able to cope with the technological realities when the inevitable risks manifest in accidents. The paper acknowledges that a domestic or regional approach to RPAS, typified by the legislative success of the Australian experience, is and continues to be the principal measure to deal with RPAS issues globally. Furthermore, safety remains the foremost factor in present and revised Australian RPAS regulation. This has an analogue to the international situation. Creating safety-related rules is imperative and must precede the creation or adoption of liability rules because the former mitigates the risk of accidents which trigger the application of the latter. The flipside of a lack of binding airworthiness standards for RPAS operators is potentially a strong argument that the liability regime (and particularly strict liability of operators) is unfair and unsuited to pilotless flight. The potential solutions the authors raise include the need for revised ICAO guidance and, in particular, SARPs with respect to RPAS air safety, airworthiness, and potentially liability issues for participants/passengers, and those on the ground. Such guidance could then be adapted swiftly for appropriate incorporation into domestic laws bypassing the need for or administrative burden and time it would take to activate the treaty process to deal with an arm of aviation that states know all too well is in need of safety regulation and monitoring.

• 한국공간정보시스템학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2005.05a
• /
• pp.327-331
• /
• 2005

본 연구의 목적은 공간데이터 구축시 아직까지 체계화되어 있지 않은 공간데이터의 품질 평가요소를 정립하는데 있다. 총 17개의 국내 공간데이터 품질관련 법규를 구축 공정, 작업방법, 장비, 정확도 등을 중심으로 분석하였다. 항공사진 촬영이 가능한 대규모 업체를 대상으로 작업순서, 사용장비, 작업순서 전후의 결과물의 정확도를 중심으로 조사하고 팀장급 직원들을 대상으로 현행 관련법규와 실무의 차이에 대하여 조사, 분석하였다. 조사, 분석한 내용을 기반으로 공간데이터의 구축공정을 항공사진을 이용한 수치지도 신규제작, 기존 수치지도 수정제작, 영상지도제작, 수치표고모델 구축 공정으로 구분하고, 각 공정별로 생성되는 공간데이터의 품질을 체크할 수 있는 요소들을 정립하였다.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Disaster Information Conference
• /
• 2023.11a
• /
• pp.47-48
• /
• 2023

보안검색은 항공보안에서 가장 핵심적이고 기본적인 분야이다. 9.11 테러 이후 전 세계적으로 보안검색이 강화되었으나 보안검색단계에서 위해물품을 색출하는 것에는 한계가 따른다. 최근 국내 공항의 경우 언론에 보도된 보안검색 실패사례 외에도 다수의 실패사례가 보고되고 있으며 그에 따른 원인과 대책 방안의 하나를 법규에서 찾아보고자 한다. 본 연구는 현재 시행되고 있는 관련 법규와 선행연구 분석을 통해 얻은 결론으로 보안검색요원의 교육과 법적 지위 등의 제도적 문제점을 착안하고 그에 따른 개선안을 도출하여 제시하고자 한다.

• Aerospace Industry
• /
• s.91
• /
• pp.30-33
• /
• 2006

어느 나라에서든지 항공기를 운용하려면 그 나라 항공당국의 관리와 감독을 받아야 한다. 이러한 관리와 감독은 공공의 안전을 위하여 국가기관인 항공당국에서 법적으로 위임받아 수행하는 것이다. 우리나라의 경우 건설교통부산하 항공안전본부와 지방항공청에서 그 기능을 담당한다. 이러한 관리와 감독은 주로 항공기, 항공종사자, 운항조직, 정비조직 등을 대상으로 이루어지며 등록, 제증명, 면허 등과 같은 증명활동, 감독활동, 위반 사항에 대한 법적 제재 등과 같은 수단을 통해 이루어진다. 따라서 항공기를 도입하여 운항하려는 자는 사업계획 단계에서부터 우리나라의 항공안전 관리감독과 관련된 제반 법규와 절차를 사전에 충분히 이해하고 대비하여야 시행착오를 줄이고 시간과 금전적인 손실을 예비할 수 있을 것이다. 여기에선 항공기에 국한하여 항공기 도입과 관련된 항공기 인증제도와 그에 따른 법절차에 대해 설명하고자 한다.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• v.30 no.3
• /
• pp.132-139
• /
• 2022

UAM(Urban Air Mobility)은 가까운 미래에 현실이 되는 항공교통 체계로 미래 첨단 기술의 결정체이다. 비행은 인간의 생명을 절대 보장하는 숭고한 철학에 기반한다. 성공적인 UAM 개발을 위해서는 비행안전에 기초한 개발철학이 필요하며 올바른 방향을 제시해야 한다. UAM 체계와 유사한 항공교통체계는 민간항공 운항체계이며 UAM 체계의 개발을 도모하는 효과적 비교 연구대상이다. 본 연구는 민간항공 운항체계와 민간항공 조종사의 경험을 토대로 안전한 UAM 체계 개발의 방향을 제시하는 데 있다. 그중에서도 UAM 조종사 양성과 교육훈련체계 수립을 위한 방안을 제언하였다. 현존 관련법규를 검토하여 UAM 조종사 양성기준을 제시하였으며 초기 혼란을 방지하기 위한 대안을 포함하였다. 또한 민간항공기의 접근구간 항법성능을 측정하여 UAM 운항환경을 비교 예측하였다. 이를 통해 SMS 기법에 기반하여 UAM 체계의 위해요인(hazard)을 식별하여 미연에 사고를 예방할 수 있는 안전 방법론을 제시하였으며 UAM 로드맵의 올바른 정책 수립을 돕고자 한다.

• 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.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.55-62
• /
• 2001

A safe and secure civil aviation system is a critical component of the nation's overall security, physical infrastructure, and economic foundation. Although it is not fully known at this time what actually occurred or which of the weaknesses in the nation's aviation security apparatus contributed to the terrible events of 11 September in the U.S.A., it is clear that serious weaknesses exist in our aviation security system including regulation system. Actually, defectiveness of regulations structure and contents concerned in aviation security were discussed in various studies. On this study, we have identified defectiveness in aviation security regulation system by the comparative study between 14 CFR and Korean regulations. Finally, we are to provide some suggestions and alternatives to improve aviation security regulation system in this country.

• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.93-125
• /
• 2011

The International Civil Aviation Convention (Chicago Convention) has been a backbone of international air transport system whereby air transport between States should be based on bilateral agreements, and in particular, international airfares, which are set up through IATA(International Air Transport Association) rate-fixing machinery could be approved by the governments concerned. International airfares are fares for transporting passenger and freight and their conditions between two or more countries. However, since U.S. pursued th deregulation policy in 1978 whereby routes, capacity and fares could be freely determined by airlines, many States have been following so called open-skies agreements. In many cases, aeronautical and competent authorities have been reviewing whether airlines' commercial activities including air fares could possibly conflict with free competition rules envisaged in relevant laws and regulations. As competition among airlines gets intense, airlines often resort to cooperation with other airlines in the forms such as equity exchange, M&A, code-sharing, fares consultation and resource pooling, mainly with a view to effectively use resources available and to avoid monopoly situation resulting from excessive and destructive competition among players. Whereas bearing in mind that application of competition laws is important to secure consumers' interests by preventing airlines's malpractices such as bargaining exorbitant fares, it is also important to comprehensively consider as many factors as possible, from that unilateral measure by governments may bring about retaliatory measures by the governments affected, to that airlines' cooperative practices may rather increase consumers' benefits by lowering air fares.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.61-114
• /
• 2018

Recently airspace became a hot issue considering today's international relations. However, there was no data that could be fully explained about a legal system of korean airspace, so I looked at law and practice about korean airspace together. The nation's aviation law sector is comletely separate from those related to civil and military aircraft, at least in legal terms. The Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport shall carry out his/her duties with various authority granted by the "Aviation Safety Act". The nation's aviation-related content is being regulated too much by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport's notice or regulation, and there are many things that are not well known about which clauses of the upper law are associated with. The notice should be clearly described only in detail on delegated matters. As for the airspace system, the airspace system is too complex for the public to understand, and there seems to be a gap between law and practice. Therefore, I think it would be good to reestablish a simple and practical airspace system. Airspace and aviation related tasks in the military need to be clearly understood by distinguishing between those entrusted by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and those inherent in the military. Regarding matters entrusted by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transpor, it is necessary to work closely with the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport when preparing related work guidelines, and to clarify who should prepare the guidelines. Regarding airspace control as a military operation, policies or guidelines that are faithful to military doctrine on airspace control are needed.