• 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 Financial Management
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.51-84
• /
• 2008

We investigate the signaling effect of repurchase preceding new equity issue using Korean data. In a short time span, firms announce stock repurchases and equity offerings. The proximity of two events in Korean firms indicates that those are not independent of each other. In this paper, we test the signaling effect of repurchase on equity offerings on the two measures. One is announcement effect, which is measured as CAR(0, +2). The other is the effectiveness which is measured as CAR(0, +30) because the price movement during this window influences on the price of new issues. Previous studies that stock repurchase convey positive signal to equity offerings-Billet and Xue(2004) and Jung(2004)-construct sample without the limit of time interval between two events. This causes the unclear relation between those because of the long time interval. In this study we consider only samples of being within one year each other to reduce this problem and clarify the signal of repurchase on equity offerings. Korean firms are allowed to repurchase own shares with two different method. One is direct repurchase as same as open market repurchase. The other is stock stabilization fund and stock trust fund which trust company or bank buy and sell their shares on the behalf of firms. Generally, the striking different characteristic between direct repurchase and indirect repurchase is following. Direct repurchase is applied by more strict regulation than indirect repurchase. Therefore, the direct repurchase is more informative signal to the equity offering than the indirect repurchase. We construct two sample firms- firms with direct repurchase preceding-equity offerings and indirect repurchase-preceding equity offering, and one control firms-equity offerings only firms-to investigate the announcement effect and the effectiveness of repurchases. Our findings are as follows. Direct repurchase favorably affect the price of new issues favorably. CAR(0, +2) of firms with direct repurchase is not different from that of equity offerings only firms but CAR(0, +30) is higher than that of equity offerings only firms. For firms with indirect repurchase and equity offerings, Both the announcement effect and the effectiveness does not exist. Jung(2004) suggest the possibilities of how indirect stock repurchase can be regarded as one of unfair trading practices on based on the survey results that financial managers of some of KSE listed firms have been asked of their opinion on the likelihood of the stock repurchase being used in unfair trading. This is not objective empirical evidence but opinion of financial managers. To investigate whether firms announce false signal before equity offerings to boost the price of new issues, we calculate the long-run performance following equity offerings. If firms have announced repurchase to boost the price of new issues intentionally, they would undergo the severe underperformance. The empirical results do not show the severer underperformance of both sample firms than equity offerings only firms. The suggestion of false signaling of repurchase preceding equity offerings is not supported by our evidence.

• Analytical Science and Technology
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.1-14
• /
• 2010

It is of importance that all countries in worldwide, including EU and China, have adopted the Restrictions on the use of certain Hazardous Substances (RoHS) for all electronics. IEC62321 document, which was published by the International Electronics Committee (IEC) can have conflicts with the standards in the market. On the contrary Publicly Accessible Specification (PAS) for sampling published by IEC TC111 can be adopted for complementary application. In this work, we tried to find a route to disassemble and disjoint cellular phone sample, based on PAS and compare the screening methods available in the market. For this work, the cellular phone produced in 2001, before the regulation was born, was chosen for better detection. Although X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) showed excellent performance for screening, fast and easy handling, it can give information on the surface, not the bulk, and have some limitations due to significant matrix interference and lack of variety of standards for quantification. It means that screening with XRF sometimes requires supplementary tool. There are several techniques available in the market of analytical instruments. Laser ablation (LA) ICP-MS, energy dispersive (ED) XRF and scanning electron microscope (SEM)-energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) were demonstrated for screening a cellular phone. For quantitative determination, graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry (GF-AAS) was employed. Experimental results for Pb in a battery showed large difference in analytical results in between XRF and GF-AAS, i.e., 0.92% and 5.67%, respectively. In addition, the standard deviation of XRF was extremely large in the range of 23-168%, compared with that in the range of 1.9-92.3% for LA-ICP-MS. In conclusion, GF-AAS was required for quantitative analysis although EDX was used for screening. In this work, it was proved that LA-ICP-MS can be used as a screening method for fast analysis to determine hazardous elements in electrical products.