• Journal of Korean Society of Transportation
• /
• v.23 no.4 s.82
• /
• pp.7-16
• /
• 2005

Rejected Takeoff Accidents are not common. but if occurred, it leads to big disaster From the year of 1959, when Jet Transport service opened, to the year of 2000, Rejected Takeoff accidents/incidents occurred total of 94 cases. All cases led to overrun, and major cause is to initiate stopping maneuvers over $V_1$, takeoff decision speed, according to National Transport Safety Board of America. Similar results are represented in Aviation Safety Reporting System of National Aeronautics and Space Administration. So I believe that it is worth studying if Airplane Flight Manual, which is the reference Performance criteria, is appropriate to operations of line pilots. The definition of $V_1$ has been revised a couple of times and Rejected Takeoff Certification Standards for Transport Airplanes was changed in 1998. It shows that up to now there are some portions unreasonable. This study focused on gathering the pilot's tendency for current Rejected Takeoff Procedures of K airlines and analyze the factors they concern. I chose B777 airplane and actually measured the recognition and reaction time of the rejected takeoff transitions through Simulators. And compared the results with the data of flight test and Airplane Flight Manual.

• Korean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer
• /
• v.45 no.6
• /
• pp.1143-1152
• /
• 2012

We established a top-down methodology to estimate carbon footprint as national mean value (reference) with the statistical data on agri-livestock incomes in 2007. We also established LCI (life cycle inventory) DB by a bottom-up methodology with the data obtained from interview with farmers from 4 large-scale farms at Gunsan, Jeollabuk-do province to estimate carbon footprint in 2011. This study was carried out to compare top-down methodology and bottom-up methodology in performing LCA (life cycle assessment) to analyze the difference in GHGs (greenhouse gases) emission and carbon footprint under conventional rice cultivation system. Results of LCI analysis showed that most of $CO_2$ was emitted during fertilizer production and rice cultivation, whereas $CH_4$ and $N_2O$ were mostly emitted during rice cultivation. The carbon footprints on conventional rice production system were 2.39E+00 kg $CO_2$-eq. $kg^{-1}$ by top-down methodology, whereas 1.04E+00 kg $CO_2$-eq. $kg^{-1}$ by bottom-up methodology. The amount of agro-materials input during the entire rice cultivation for the two methodologies was similar. The amount of agro-materials input for the bottom-up methodology was sometimes greater than that for top-down methodology. While carbon footprint by the bottom-up methodology was smaller than that by the top-down methodology due to higher yield per cropping season by the bottom-up methodology. Under the conventional rice production system, fertilizer production showed the highest contribution to the environmental impacts on most categories except GWP (global warming potential) category. Rice cultivation was the highest contribution to the environmental impacts on GWP category under the conventional rice production system. The main factors of carbon footprints under the conventional rice production system were $CH_4$ emission from rice paddy field, the amount of fertilizer input and rice yield. Results of this study will be used for establishing baseline data for estimating carbon footprint from 'low carbon certification pilot project' as well as for developing farming methods of reducing $CO_2$ emission from rice paddy fields.

• 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.