• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.225-246
• /
• 2020

More than technical or academic matter, mitigation of height restriction around airports is about up-dating out-dated policies that have not kept up with rapidly developing aircraft and air traffic control technologies. Above all, instead of calling out 'flight safety' that the public do not comprehend, it is important to examine and carry out measures that can protect people's right of property. MOLIT(Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport) after reviewing ICAO's Obstacle Limitation Surface TF, made an announcement to provide further plans that would apply to contracting states from 2026. However, residents of redevelopment areas near Kimpo international airport asserted that MOLIT's policy overlooks the reality of the redevelopment zone. ICAO, UN's specialized agency for civilian aviation, recommends in Annex 14, 4.2.4 that contracting states conduct an aeronautical study to determine the flight safety of horizontal surface(45m), excluding approach surface, and to mitigate height restrictions if no threat is found. Numerous countries including the United States have been following this recommendation and have been able to effectively protect people's right of property, whereas the South Korean government have not following it so far. The number of height restriction mitigation cases in the recent three months (2019. 7. 15~10. 14.) FAA of the United States have allowed after conducting an aeronautical study reaches 14,706. Japan and Taiwan also reconstruct airspace around airports in metropolitan areas in order to protect people's right of property. Just as the United States is following, MLIT should follow ICAO's recommendation in Annex 14. 4.2.4(Vol. 1. Airport Construction / Operation) and protect people's right of property by first applying aeronautical studies to the horizontal surface(45m) of flight safety zones until the specifics of ICAO's 2026 TF materialize.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.159-201
• /
• 2019

Along with Annex 14 Volume I establishment in 1951 and the set-up of restriction surface around the runway, aeronautical technique and navigation performance achieved dazzling growth, and the safety and precision of navigation greatly improved. However, restrictions on surrounding obstacles are still valid for safe operation of an aircraft. Standards and criteria for securing safety of aircraft operating around and on airport is stated in Annex 11 Air Traffic Services and Annex 14 Aerodrome etc. In particular, Annex 14 Volume I presents the criteria for limiting obstacles around an airport, such as natural obstacles such as trees, mountains and hills to prevent collisions between aircraft and ground obstacles, and artificial obstacles such as buildings and structures. On the other hand, Annex 14 Volume I, in the application of the obstacles limitation surfaces, apply the exception criteria, as it may not be possible to remove obstacles that violate the criteria if the aeronautical study determines that they do not impair the safety and regularity of aircraft operation. Aeronautical study has been applied and implemented in various countries including United States, Canada and Europe etc. accordingly, Korea established and amended some provisions of the Enforcement rules of the Aviation Act and established the Aeronautical study guidelines to approve exceptions. However, because ICAO does not provide specific guidelines on procedures and methods of Aeronautical study, countries conducting aeronautical study have established and applied their own procedures and methods. Reflecting this realistic situation, at the 12th World Navigation Conference and at the 38th General Assembly, the contracting States demanded a reexamination of the criteria for current obstacle limitation surfaces and methods of aeronautical study, and the ICAO dedicated a team of experts to prepare new standard. This study, in line with the movement of international change in obstacle limitation surface and aeronautical study, aims to compare and analyze current domestic and external standards on obstacle limitation and height limits, while looking at methods, procedure and systems for aeronautical study. In addition, expecting that aeronautical study will be used realistically and universally in assessing the impact of obstacles, we would recommend the institutional improvement of the aeronautical study along with the development of quantitative analysis methods using the navigation data in the current aeronautical study.

• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.225-285
• /
• 2017

In regard to the regulations related to the RPA(Remotely Piloted Aircraft), which is sometimes called in other countries as UA(Unmanned Aircraft), ICAO stipulates the regulations in the 'RPAS manual (2015)' in detail based on the 'Chicago Convention' in 1944, and enacts provisions for the Rules of UAS or RPAS. Other contries stipulates them such as the Federal Airline Rules (14 CFR), Public Law (112-95) in the United States, the Air Transport Act, Air Transport Order, Air Transport Authorization Order (through revision in "Regulations to operating Rules on unmanned aerial System") based on EASA Regulation (EC) No.216/2008 in the case of unmanned aircaft under 150kg in Germany, and Civil Aviation Act (CAA 1998), Civil Aviation Act 101 (CASR Part 101) in Australia. Commonly, these laws exclude the model aircraft for leisure purpose and require pilots on the ground, not onboard aricraft, capable of controlling RPA. The laws also require that all managements necessary to operate RPA and pilots safely and efficiently under the structure of the unmanned aircraft system within the scope of the regulations. Each country classifies the RPA as an aircraft less than 25kg. Australia and Germany further break down the RPA at a lower weight. ICAO stipulates all general aviation operations, including commercial operation, in accordance with Annex 6 of the Chicago Convention, and it also applies to RPAs operations. However, passenger transportation using RPAs is excluded. If the operational scope of the RPAs includes the airspace of another country, the special permission of the relevant country shall be required 7 days before the flight date with detail flight plan submitted. In accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation 107 in the United States, a small non-leisure RPA may be operated within line-of-sight of a responsible navigator or observer during the day in the speed range up to 161 km/hr (87 knots) and to the height up to 122 m (400 ft) from surface or water. RPA must yield flight path to other aircraft, and is prohibited to load dangerous materials or to operate more than two RPAs at the same time. In Germany, the regulations on UAS except for leisure and sports provide duty to avoidance of airborne collisions and other provisions related to ground safety and individual privacy. Although commercial UAS of 5 kg or less can be freely operated without approval by relaxing the existing regulatory requirements, all the UAS regardless of the weight must be operated below an altitude of 100 meters with continuous monitoring and pilot control. Australia was the first country to regulate unmanned aircraft in 2001, and its regulations have impacts on the unmanned aircraft laws of ICAO, FAA, and EASA. In order to improve the utiliity of unmanned aircraft which is considered to be low risk, the regulation conditions were relaxed through the revision in 2016 by adding the concept "Excluded RPA". In the case of excluded RPA, it can be operated without special permission even for commercial purpose. Furthermore, disscussions on a new standard manual is being conducted for further flexibility of the current regulations.