• 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.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.

• 한국항공운항학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2016.05a
• /
• pp.117-124
• /
• 2016

현행 국내 항공안전감독 업무 및 시스템의 인허가 AOC(Air Operator Certificate) 관련 정보 확인 기능 부재, 연 월간 감독계획 간의 연계성 취약, 점검 데이터 활용 통계 및 분석 기반 취약, 점검 및 인허가 대상별 인허가 점검 관련 데이터 관리 기반 미흡, 제한적 시스템 기능 구현에 따른 상당 업무기능의 수작업 문서처리 등의 한계점을 파악하고 이를 개선하기 위한 대안으로 위험관리(Risk Management) 기법을 활용한 항공안전감독 업무절차 및 현행 운영 시스템의 개선모형을 도출하고 이를 적용한 운영체계의 구현 방향성을 제시하고자 한다.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• pp.161-171
• /
• 2023

The traditional safety management method starts with the misconception that similar accidents will recur if the inappropriate behavior of the person who caused the accident is investigated and punishment is not judged. However, in modern safety management, incidents or situations occur when negative conditions latent in the system are mutually influenced and triggered. The precedent for revoking the disposition of suspension of first officer A of Eastar Jet, which won a legal lawsuit against the administrative regulatory authority, is a representative example that will serve as an opportunity for the administrative regulatory authority to break away from the punishment-oriented safety management method of the past. On the other hand, airmans and air carriers also need to have a clear understanding of flight regulations, and when judicial judgment is required, predictable and effective legal effects can be obtained by preparing clear standards for flight regulations. In addition, administrative regulatory authorities expect a change from the punishment-oriented safety management policy of the past to a systematic safety management policy.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.175-204
• /
• 2018

Recently, the aviation leisure business has been legislated, and related industries have become active base with increasing the light sports aircraft within the legislation system. However, in the light sports aircraft safety problem, it is often mentioned that the flight is in violation of the regulations, the lack of safety consciousness of the operator and lack of ability, and the personal operators have a risk of accident of light aircraft such as insufficient safety management and poor maintenance. At present, the maintenance of light sports aircraft is carried out by the A & P mechanic in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, but it is difficult to say that it is equipped with qualification and expertise. It is not a legal issue to undertake light sports aircraft maintenance work on the regulation system. However, the problem of reliability and appropriateness is constantly being raised because airplanes, light sports aircraft, and ultra-light vehicle are classified and serviced in a legal method. Although legal and institutional frameworks for light sports aircraft are separated, much of it is stipulated in the aviation law provisions. Light sports aircraft maintenance work also follows the current aircraft maintenance system. In the United States, Europe, and Australia where General Aviation developed, legal and institutional devices related to maintenance of light aircraft were introduced, and specialized maintenance tasks are covered in the light aircraft mechanics system. As a result of analysis of domestic and foreign laws and regulations, it is necessary to introduce the qualification system for maintenance of light aircraft. In advanced aviation countries such as the United States, Europe, and Australia, a light sports aircraft repairman system is installed to perform safety management. This is to cope with changes in the operating environment of the new light sports aircraft. This study does not suggest the need for a light aircraft repairman system. From the viewpoint of the legal system, the examination of the relevant laws and regulations revealed that the supplementary part of the system is necessary. It is also require that the necessity of introduction is raised in comparison with overseas cases. Based on these results, it is necessary to introduce the system into the light aircraft repairman system, and suggestions for how to improve it are suggested.