• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.30 no.5 s.111
• /
• pp.421-426
• /
• 2006

Recently, with economic growth and changes of recognition, the many research into vocational disease is in the process of advancing inside and outside of the country and it follows in research and also produce satisfactory results. However, as compared to the crew s service environment, system research into the occupational illness occurring in embarkation service is not accomplished After attacking the occupational illness, only the research to the compensation is conducted Therefore, this study examines law and system of the occupational illness based on basic research into crew's occupational disease and after disease preventing and attacking of the crew, give some legal reform measures to support quick and appropriate.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• 2006.06b
• /
• pp.47-52
• /
• 2006

Recently, with economic growth and changes of recognition, the many research into vocational disease is in the process of advancing inside and outside of the country and it follows in research and also produce satisfactory results. However, as compared to the crew's service environment, system research into the occupational illness occurring in embarkation service is not accomplished. After attacking the occupational illness, only the research to the compensation is conducted. Therefore, this study examines law and system of the occupational illness based on basic research into crew's occupational disease and after disease preventing and attacking of the crew, give some legal reform measures to support quick and appropriate.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.235-251
• /
• 2005

German working hour law of 1994(Arbeitszeitgesetz) provides maximum working hour as 8 hours a day and 48 hours per week. The law provides that minimum 11 hours rest-time is required between the end of a day's work and the beginning of the next day's work. Namely, the hour that the workers are put under commanding of the user is restricted within 13 hours per day. In the meantime, article 5, 7, 14, and 15 of the law have some letting the exceptional provisions regarding the working hour and rest-time of flight crew, and 2nd administrative order for the aviation transportation business owner, which is established based on such exceptional provisions(2.DV LuftBO), provides the working hour and rest-time of flight crew quite in detail. The administrative order is detailed quite regarding block time, flight working hour, and rest-time. So, it does not need to interpret additionally. Airlines in Korea should observe the both Labor Standard Act applying to general workers and Aviation Act focused on flight crew, so it is difficult that airlines manages working hour and rest-time of the flight crew efficiently. Therefore, it is desirable that our country refers to and considers adopting this legislation method of Germany which regulates working hour and rest-time of flight crew in detail in the 2.DV LuftBO.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.137-168
• /
• 2020

Air passengers may be compensated for damages based on the above agreement when the passenger suffers an accident to the extent that they are recognized as an accident under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention in 1999. If a flight or cabin crew and passengers both undergo an accident, passengers are subjected to compensation under the Montreal Convention however flight cabin crews will be compensated by the Labor Law, which is the governing law in the labor contract with the airline. The flight or cabin crew boarding the aircraft work is on a work contract, not a passenger transport contract. Therefore, if the flight or cabin crew on the aircraft is injured due to an accident, and the air carrier is liable for default due to a labor contract, the Labor Law, workers or survivors claim damages due to illegal acts against the employer. In which case, civil law will apply. In this regard, if a Chinese cabin crew working for a Chinese airline dies due to an accident in the Republic of Korea, whether the family of the deceased claims damages against the Chinese airline or not has international court jurisdiction in the Republic of Korea, which is the place of tort. We examined whether it is the law of the Republic of Korea or whether it's the Chinese law, the law applicable to the work contract, is applied. Also, Seoul District Court 1995.5.18. The sentence 94A 14144 was found that if the injured crew during the flight work was not satisfied with the insurance compensation under the Labor Standards Act and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, he could claime to damage under the civil law against an air carrier or third parties responsible for the accident. This law case shows that you can claim a civil damage as a cause. In case of death due to an existing illness while on the way to work, the Korea Workers'Compensation and Welfare Service did not recognize the death of the deceased as an occupational accident, and the trial was canceled by the parents of the deceased for the survivor's benefit and funeral expenses. (Seoul Administrative Court 2017.8. 31. Although the sentence was judged as an occupational disaster in 2016, the 2016 8816 Decision), it was defeated in the appeals court (Seoul High Court 2018.7.19.Sentence 2017 No. 74186) and I criticized the judgment of the appeal by analyzing the deceased's disease and related the cause of it to workload. Sometimes, a flight or cabin crew is on board not for the flight duty such as transferring to another flight or returning to the home base or lay-over place after their scheduled flight, this is called "Deadheading". If the crew who is not considered the same as a passenger, but is not on duty, is injured in an accident, does the crew claim compensation for damages under the labor contract or whether the Montreal Convention is applied to the passenger. In conjunction with the discussion, there was a similar case, In re Mexico City Aircrash of October 31, 1979, 708 F.2d 400 (9th Cir. 1983), Demanes v. United Airlines, 348 F.Supp. 13 (C.D.Cal. 1972), Sulewski v. Federal Express Corp., 749 F.Supp. 506 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) and reviewed by the European Court of Justice (CJEU) at Wucher Helicopter GmbH and Euro-Aviation Versicherungs AG v. After examining several acts in several countries it's undeniably crucial to clearly understand the definition of "passenger" as stated in the Fridolin Santer case.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.199-224
• /
• 2018

Aviation's safety record continues to improve yearly, especially with respect to passenger and crew injuries and deaths. However, although the number of accidents has decreased over the decades, there are still many events, such as landings short of the runway and runway excursions, both of which pose threats to passenger and crew safety. Surviving any kind of aviation accident depends on the physiological threat and stress of the impact(s), the extent to which the physical structure surrounding the passengers and crew remains intact, and the ability of the passengers and crew to be able to escape the wreckage. The one action that both passengers and crew can carry out to help decrease the likelihood of crash-related injury or death is to assume an emergency brace position. Doing so has been demonstrated over several decades to improve survivability. While cabin crew are taught (and then might have to teach passengers in an emergency about the emergency brace position), passengers in many parts of the world never learn about the brace position unless they are involved in an emergency in which there is time to prepare for the landing. This lack of provision of information is related to the fact that most airlines do not provide information in the preflight safety briefing and some do not even provide the information in the passenger safety cards. Many countries do not require their airlines to do so, a fact, which in turn, is related to the lack of mention of the brace position in ICAO's Annex 6. Until standards and recommended practices are changed at the highest world level, passengers will continue to be deprived of this vital, life-saving information that they can use, potentially to help save their own lives.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.3-37
• /
• 2020

The aircraft crew operating on international routes performs almost identical tasks as police officials in terms of dealing with the unlawful interference in the aircraft. This means that the liability question which is related to the law enforcement by the police officer may arise regarding the crew's performance of his or her duties. With regard to the carrier's liability due to the crew's unlawful action, there are distinctive characteristics from the liability due to police officers' unlawful action. In case of the claim for damages by the crew's unlawful action, the first question should be whether such action complies with the requirements under the Tokyo Convention 1963. If such action does not conform with the Tokyo Convention 1963, we should examine that claim under the State Compensation Act, the Montreal Convention 1999, and the Civil Act of Korea. The examination under the Tokyo Convention 1963 is not so different from the Korean Court's precedents. However, the court should consider the characteristics of the environment surrounding the crew. The action which is not indemnified under the Tokyo Convention 1963 should be examined under the tort laws. Because the aircraft crew is private persons entrusted with public duties under Korean Law, the State Compensation Act may apply. However, further studies regarding the harmonious interpretation with the Montreal Convention 1999 is needed. With regard to the carrier's liability, the Montreal Convention of 1999 should be applied to the crew's unlawful actions onboard. This is because the Montreal Convention of 1999 preempts the national law for the events that occurred during transportation, and there is no provision which excludes such unlawful actions from the scope of its application. On the other hand, the national law, such as the Civil Act of Korea, applies to unlawful actions taken after transportation. This is because the interpretation that infinitely expands the scope of the Montreal Convention 1999 should not be allowed. Given the foregoing, the standard of the claim for damages due to the crew's unlawful action varies depending on the place where the specific action was taken. As a result, the type of damage recoverable and the burden of proof also varies accordingly. Carriers and crew members must perform their duties with this in mind, but in particular, they should observe the proportionality, and when interpreting the law, it is necessary for the court or lawyer to consider the special characteristics of the work environment.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.39-77
• /
• 2019

Crew members engaged in international air transportation provide work in many countries due to the nature of their work. According to the Private International Act, the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work plays an important role in the determination of the governing law of the international labor contract (Article 28, Paragraph 2) and in the decision of international jurisdiction (Article 28, Paragraphs 3 and 4). The concept of the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work was proposed by the EU to determine international jurisdiction and governing law. In international aviation law, the legislative purpose of the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work is different from that of home base, which is a concept introduced for fatigue management of the crew in order to secure the aviation safety; thus the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work and home base are not the same concept. In order to determine the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work, following matters should be considered comprehensively; (i) where the crew starts and ends work, (ii) where the aircraft the crew is performing work on is primarily parked, (iii) where the crew is informed of the instructions and organizes his/her work activities, (iv) where the crew is obliged to reside according to the labor contract, (v) where there is an office provided by the employer and available to the crew, (vi) where the crew is obliged to be when he/she is ineligible for the work or subject to discipline. However, since all of the above items are the same as the location of the home base, it is reasonable to consider the home base as the most important factor when deciding on the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work. In contrast, the state where the aircraft is registered (Article 17 of the Chicago Convention), should not be regarded as a place of where the employee habitually carries out his/her work. In this case, CJEU provided the first judging standard for the concept of the place where the employee engaged in international air transportation habitually carries out his/her work. It is the interpretation of the Brussels regulations which became a model -for the Korean Private International Act,- so it would be helpful to understand the concept of the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.15
• /
• pp.89-122
• /
• 2002

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.291-314
• /
• 2018

In recent 3 years, Korea's low-cost airlines have expanded their areas of passenger transportation not only to domestic market but also to Japan, China, Southeast Asia and US territory as a total of 6 companies (8 airlines including small air operation business carriers). Currently, three more airlines have filed for air transportation business certification as future low-cost carriers, and this expansion is expected to continue. To cope with the aggressive airline operations of domestic and foreign low-cost carriers and to enhance their competitiveness, each low-cost airline is taking a number of strategies for promoting cabin service. Therefore, the workload of the cabin crew is increased in proportion to the expansion, and the fatigue directly connected with the safety task performance is increased. It is stipulated in the Enforcement Regulations of the Korea Aviation Safety Act that at minimum, one cabin crew is required per 50 passenger seating capacity, and all low cost carriers are boarding only the minimum cabin crew. Sometimes it is impossible for them to sit in a floor level emergency exit for evacuation, which is the main task of the cabin crew, and this can cause confusion among evacuating passengers in the event of an emergency. In addition, if one of the minimum cabin crew becomes incapacitated due to an injury or the like, it will become a serious impediment in performing emergency evacuation duties. Even in the normal situation, since it will be violating the Act prescription on the minimum cabin crew complement, passengers will have to move to another available airline flights, encountering extreme inconvenience. Annex 6 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation specifies international standards for the determination of the minimum number of cabin crew shall be based only on the number of passenger seats or passengers on board for safe and expeditious emergency evacuation. Thereby in order to enhance the safety of the passengers and the crew on board, it is necessary to consider the cabin crew's fatigue that may occur in the various job characteristics (service, safety, security, first aid)and floor level emergency exit seating in calculating the minimum number of cabin crew. And it is also deemed necessary for the government's regulatory body to enhance the cabin safety for passengers and crew when determining the number of minimum cabin crew by reflecting the cabin crew's workload leading to their fatigue and unavailability to be seated in a floor level emergency exit on low cost carriers.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.32 no.10
• /
• pp.821-827
• /
• 2008

In Korea a crew employment right is only allowed to shipowners and cooperative business between ship management and crew management company is not allowed. It is anticipated that overseas ship management companies' entry into Korean ship management markets will weaken Korean ship management companies' competitiveness. Therefore, it is necessary to amend crew management regulation. The purpose of this study is to investigate the situation of Korean ship management industry and to suggest the scheme for strengthening its competitiveness. The result of this study will contribute to the growth of the Korean ship management industry and enhance their business scope internationally.