• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.37-81
• /
• 2015

AirAsia QZ8501 Jet departed from Juanda International Airport in, Surabaya, Indonesia at 05:35 on Dec. 28, 2014 and was scheduled to arrive at Changi International Airport in Singapore at 08:30 the same day. The aircraft, an Airbus A320-200 crashed into the Java Sea on Dec. 28, 2014 carrying 162 passengers and crew off the coast of Indonesia's second largest city Surabaya on its way to Singapore. Indonesia's AirAsia jet carrying 162 people lost contact with ground control on Dec. 28, 2014. The aircraft's debris was found about 66 miles from the plane's last detected position. The 155 passengers and seven crew members aboard Flight QZ 8501, which vanished from radar 42 minutes after having departed Indonesia's second largest city of Surabaya bound for Singapore early Dec. 28, 2014. AirAsia QZ8501 had on board 137 adult passengers, 17 children and one infant, along with two pilots and five crew members in the aircraft, a majority of them Indonesian nationals. On board Flight QZ8501 were 155 Indonesian, three South Koreans, and one person each from Singapore, Malaysia and the UK. The Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 departed from Kuala Lumpur International Airport on March 8, 2014 at 00:41 local time and was scheduled to land at Beijing's Capital International Airport at 06:30 local time. Malaysia Airlines also marketed as China Southern Airlines Flight 748 (CZ748) through a code-share agreement, was a scheduled international passenger flight that disappeared on 8 March 2014 en route from Kuala Lumpur International Airport to Beijing's Capital International Airport (a distance of 2,743 miles: 4,414 km). The aircraft, a Boeing 777-200ER, last made contact with air traffic control less than an hour after takeoff. Operated by Malaysia Airlines (MAS), the aircraft carried 12 crew members and 227 passengers from 15 nations. There were 227 passengers, including 153 Chinese and 38 Malaysians, according to records. Nearly two-thirds of the passengers on Flight 370 were from China. On April 5, 2014 what could be the wreckage of the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines was found. What appeared to be the remnants of flight MH370 have been spotted drifting in a remote section of the Indian Ocean. Compensation for loss of life is vastly different between US. passengers and non-U.S. passengers. "If the claim is brought in the US. court, it's of significantly more value than if it's brought into any other court." Some victims and survivors of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case would like to sue the lawsuit to the United States court in order to receive a larger compensation package for damage caused by an accident that occurred in the sea of Java sea and the Indian ocean and rather than taking it to the Indonesian or Malaysian court. Though each victim and survivor of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case will receive an unconditional 113,100 Unit of Account (SDR) as an amount of compensation for damage from Indonesia's AirAsia and Malaysia Airlines in accordance with Article 21, 1 (absolute, strict, no-fault liability system) of the 1999 Montreal Convention. But if Indonesia AirAsia airlines and Malaysia Airlines cannot prove as to the following two points without fault based on Article 21, 2 (presumed faulty system) of the 1999 Montreal Convention, AirAsia of Indonesiaand Malaysia Airlines will be burdened the unlimited liability to the each victim and survivor of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case such as (1) such damage was not due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the air carrier or its servants or agents, or (2) such damage was solely due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of a third party. In this researcher's view for the aforementioned reasons, and under the laws of China, Indonesia, Malaysia and Korea the Chinese, Indonesian, Malaysia and Korean, some victims and survivors of the crash of the two flights are entitled to receive possibly from more than 113,100 SDR to 5 million US$ from the two airlines or from the Aviation Insurance Company based on decision of the American court. It could also be argued that it is reasonable and necessary to revise the clause referring to bodily injury to a clause mentioning personal injury based on Article 17 of the 1999 Montreal Convention so as to be included the mental injury and condolence in the near future.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.87-107
• /
• 2005

Land Remote Sensing' is defined as the science (and to some extent, art) of acquiring information about the Earth's surface without actually being in contact with it. Narrowly speaking, this is done by sensing and recording reflected or emitted energy and processing, analyzing, and applying that information. Remote sensing technology was initially developed with certain purposes in mind ie. military and environmental observation. However, after 1970s, as these high-technologies were taught to private industries, remote sensing began to be more commercialized. Recently, we are witnessing a 0.61-meter high-resolution satellite image on a free market. While privatization of land remote sensing has enabled one to use this information for disaster prevention, map creation, resource exploration and more, it can also create serious threat to a sensed nation's national security, if such high resolution images fall into a hostile group ie. terrorists. The United States, a leading nation for land remote sensing technology, has been preparing and developing legislative control measures against the remote sensing industry, and has successfully created various policies to do so. Through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's authority under the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act, the US can restrict sensing and recording of resolution of 0.5 meter or better, and prohibit distributing/circulating any images for the first 24 hours. In 1994, Presidential Decision Directive 23 ordered a 'Shutter Control' policy that details heightened level of restriction from sensing to commercializing such sensitive data. The Directive 23 was even more strengthened in 2003 when the Congress passed US Commercial Remote Sensing Policy. These policies allow Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State to set up guidelines in authorizing land remote sensing, and to limit sensing and distributing satellite images in the name of the national security - US government can use the civilian remote sensing systems when needed for the national security purpose. The fact that the world's leading aerospace technology country acknowledged the magnitude of land remote sensing in the context of national security, and it has made and is making much effort to create necessary legislative measures to control the powerful technology gives much suggestions to our divided Korean peninsula. We, too, must continue working on the Korea National Space Development Act and laws to develop the necessary policies to ensure not only the development of space industry, but also to ensure the national security.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.267-290
• /
• 2018

This paper reviews and criticizes the EU Case of C-452/13, Germanwings GmbH v. Ronny Henning. Under this case, Ronny Henning later sued Lufthansa's budget carrier Germanwings after it refused to pay him 250 euros compensation for a delay he said totalled more than three hours. Germanwings, however, maintained his flight had arrived only two hours and 58 minutes behind schedule. In those circumstances, the following question to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling: What time is relevant for the term time of arrival used in Articles 2, 5 and 7 of Regulation [No 261/2004]: (a) the time that the aircraft lands on the runway (touchdown); (b) the time that the aircraft reaches its parking position and the parking brakes are engaged or the chocks have been applied (in-block time); (c) the time that the aircraft door is opened; (d) a time defined by the parties in the context of party autonomy? ECJ says that the situation of passengers on a flight does not change substantially when their aircraft touches down on the runway at the destination airport, when that aircraft reaches its parking position and the parking brakes are engaged or when the chocks are applied, as the passengers continue to be subject, in the enclosed space in which they are sitting, to various constraints. Therefore, it is only when the passengers are permitted to leave the aircraft and the order is given to that effect to open the doors of the aircraft that the passengers may in principle resume their normal activities without being subject to those constraints. ECJ rules that it is apparent that Articles 2, 5 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of 'arrival time', which is used to determine the length of the delay to which passengers on a flight have been subject, corresponds to the time at which at least one of the doors of the aircraft is opened, the assumption being that, at that moment, the passengers are permitted to leave the aircraft.

• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.55-71
• /
• 2013

By aircraft from Aviation regulations and institutional regulatory framework for ensuring the safety is secured. State-of-the-art aircraft, according to the type of development and diversification, modernization and new types of aircraft are operated. In particular, light aircraft and ultralight flying device such as the gyro-plane and unmanned flying devices is introduced a new device, and the device operates at these flight in accordance with the standards of the Aviation Act regulations may not occur often. Variety of light aircraft and ultra-light aircraft assembly, can be adapted for a person engaged in the business of aviation safety management and to perform the legal basis was established. Depending on the classification of newly introduced aircraft, the biggest change is the introduction of the concept of the LSA. In Korea, the various light aircraft are operating, but these aircraft range not clearly Aviation Regulations had difficulty in ensuring safety. This study examined the differences between international rules and regulations of Korea about the classification of aircraft. The LSA are included in aircraft categories internationally, but LSA will not be included in the aircraft categories, which is one of a range of powered flight device exists in Korea Aviation Act. Limit for maximum continuous power speed in a LSA, it is a limit on the right of the people who want using the high-performance plane. Also it is an international trend does not fit in, and is consistent with the intent of LSA manufacturer. Delete the content from a range of future aviation law revisions and light aircraft-related provisions to limit the maximum continuous power speed is considered to be suitable for the purpose of introducing the light aircraft industry. The laws and regulations set up in order to ensure the safety of ultralight aircraft categories existing in ultralight aircraft that exceeds the purpose of the introduction of LSA technology development at home and abroad, and is intended to reflect. These standards complement of aircraft operation is not appropriate for the situation unless the country is difficult to ensure the safety of operations. Also developed in other countries, the introduction of aircraft operating in the country, so many problems occur early revision is required.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.33-66
• /
• 2014

While the numbers of overseas travelers has been increased rapidly each year, the numbers of passengers in the aircraft also has continued to be increased gradually. In the mist of these increasing numbers, such accidents as threatening an aircraft safety like riot, aircraft hijacking and terrorism have happened constantly. In these circumstances, South Korean government has prescribed "Aviation on Security Act" in accordance with the Convention on International Civil Aviation and other international agreements. This act aims to prevent illegal activities and illegal items on the aircraft to ensure the safety and security of civil aviation. However, this act is not sufficiently regulating all the illegal crimes and illegal items on the flight. For the worse, there is a lack of effective supervisory capacity. Likewise, the inherent problems of the current laws relating to the prevention of the illegal items on the aircraft are appearing on the surface continually. Above all, illegal items on the aircraft are directly connected to the issue of aviation safety and security as well as a safe utilization of the flight service. Thus, when there occurs a serious accident on board, it surely would be led to a huge economic loss not mentioning the loss of lives following the accident. Therefore safety of the flight passengers cannot be guaranteed without ensuring the safety of aircraft facilities and good supervisory mechanism of illegal items on the aircraft. Accordingly, establishing a safe operation order tends to influence economy and tourism of a country in no small measure. Therefore, it is an urgent issue to settle down a reasonable and adequate supervisory regulations regarding the prevention of the illegal items on the aircraft. Consequently, in this article, I studied on a reasonal and effective mechanism to control the prevention of the illegal items and illegal acts on the aircraft in order to ensure a safety and security of civil aircraft.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.205-226
• /
• 2018

For sustainable development of air transport, the establishment and application of international standards of environmental protection area is significant. The development and use of alternative fire extinguishing agent to Halon, which is used for the fire extinguishing systems of engine nacelles/APU and cargo compartments, has been requested in order to protect the ozone layer. The ICAO has been active in preparing international standards and recommended practices (SARPs); however, certification of alternative fire extinguishing agents has been postponed due to technical readiness problem.. Consequently, the implementation of SARPs has also been postponed by two years from the end of 2016. to the end of 2018. As such consequences have caused confusion among Member States regarding its implementation, it is necessary to discuss and pay more attention to this issue. ICAO Council and Air Navigation Commission should consider between setting the implementation time frame earlier or giving enough time for mature readiness and preparedness. Also in order to minimize the unnecessary discharge of Halon owned by Member States, it is necessary to consider efficient management methodologies; for example, requesting fire extinguisher manufacturers to recharge in professional ways. For the successful implementation of the SARPs, ICAO developed an implementation task list as including notification of differences, establishment of a national implementation plan, drafting of the modification to the national regulations and means of compliance, adoption of the national regulations and means of compliance. Member States can develop their own rule making process in reference with the ICAO implementation task list. This issue was presented and discussed during the 54th Conference of Directors General of civil aviation, Asia and Pacific Regions which was held in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia in 2017 with significant attention among participated Contacting States. In this regards, ICAO Council and Air Navigation Commission should consult with Legal Bureau lawyers regarding SARPs preparing process to eliminate difficulties and confusions for proper implementation within effective date.

• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.63-96
• /
• 2013

Recently, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) expanded the "Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections" on August 23, 2011 and October 24, 2011. The Rule regulates tarmac delays, denied boarding compensation, customer service plans, and fare advertising. The adopted rule is to protect passengers by improving passenger service requirements on U.S. national or domestic carriers and foreign air carriers as well. The major issues are as follows: First, regarding to so called Tarmac Delay, carriers must establish a Tarmac Delay Contingency Plan setting forth the number of hours the carrier will permit an aircraft to remain on the tarmac at U.S. airports before allowing passengers to deplane. Carriers also must provide passengers with food and water in the event the aircraft remains on the tarmac for two or more hours and must provide operable lavatories and medical attention while the aircraft remains on the tarmac, irrespective of the length of the delay. Carriers also must create and retain records regarding tarmac delays lasting more than three hours. Also they need to update passengers every 30 minutes during a tarmac delay of the status of the flight and the reason for the delay, allow passengers to deplane if the aircraft is at the gate or another disembarkation area with the door open. Second, carriers now must adopt a "Customer Service Plan" that addresses offering customers the lowest fares available, notifying customers about delays, cancellations, and diversions; timely delivery of baggage; accommodating passengers' needs during tarmac delays and in "bumping cases"; and ensuring quality customer service. Third, the new regulations also increase minimum denied boarding compensation limits to $650 / $1,300 or 200% / 400% of the fare, whichever is less. Last, the DOT also has modified its policies related to enforcement of Rules pertaining to full fare advertising. The Rule states that the advertised price for air transportation must be the entire price to be paid by the customer. Similarly, Korea revised the passenger protection clauses within Aviation Act. However, it seems to be required to include various more issues such as Tarmac Delay, oversales of air tickets, involuntary denied boarding passengers, advertisements, etc.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2010

The European Union(EU) has recently introduced its Directive 2008/101/EC to include aviation in the EU ETS(emissions trading system). As an amendment to Directive 2003/87/EC that regulates reduction of the green house gas(GHG) emissions in Europe in preparation for the Kyoto Protocol, 1997, it obliges both EU and non-EU airline operators to reduce the emission of the carbon dioxide(CO2) significantly in the year 2012 and thereafter from the level they made in 2004 to 2006. Emission allowances allowed free of charge for each airline operator is 97% in the first year 2012 and 95% from 2013 and thereafter from the average annual emissions during historical years 2004 to 2006. Taking into account the rapid growth of air traffic, i.e. 5% in recent years, airlines operating to EU have to reduce their emissions by about 30% in order to meet the requirements of the EU Directive, if not buy the emissions right in the emissions trading market. However, buying quantity is limited to 15% in the year 2012 subject to possible increase from the year 2013. Apart from the hard burden of the airline operators, in particular of those from non-European countries, which is not concern of this paper, the EU Directive has certain legal problems. First, while the Kyoto Protocol of universal application is binding on the Annex I countries of the Climate Change Convention, i.e. developed countries including all Member States of the European Union to reduce GHG at least by 5% in the implementation period from 2008 to 2012 over the 1990 level, non-Annex I countries which are not bound by the Kyoto Protocol see their airlines subjected to aircraft emissions reductions scheme of EU when operating to EU. This is against the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol dealing with the emissions of GHG including CO2, target of the EU Directive. While the Kyoto Protocol mandates ICAO to set up a worldwide scheme for aircraft emissions to contribute to stabilizing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, the EU ETS was drawn up outside the framework of the international Civil Aviation Organization(ICAO). Second, EU Directive 2008/101 defines 'aviation activities' as covering 'flights which depart from or arrive in the territory of a Member State to which the [EU] Treaty applies'. While the EU airlines are certainly subject to the EU regulations, obliging non-EU airlines to reduce their emissions even if the emissions are produced during the flight over the high seas and the airspace of the third countries is problematic. The point is whether the EU Directive can be legally applied to extra-territorial behavior of non-EU entities. Third, the EU Directive prescribes 2012 as the first year for implementation. However, the year 2012 is the last year of implementation of the Kyoto Protocol for Annex I countries including members of EU to reduce GHG including the emissions of CO2 coming out from domestic airlines operation. Consequently, EU airlines were already on the reduction scheme of CO2 emissions as long as their domestic operations are concerned from 2008 until the year 2012. But with the implementation of Directive 2008/101 from 2012 for all the airlines, regardless of the status of the country Annex I or not where they are registered, the EU airlines are no longer at the disadvantage compared with the airlines of non-Annex I countries. This unexpected premium for the EU airlines may result in a derogation of the Kyoto Protocol at least for the year 2012. Lastly, as a conclusion, the author shed light briefly on how the Korean aviation authorities are dealing with the EU restrictive measures.