• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.3-51
• /
• 2017

From a historical point of view, while the Warsaw Convention was passed in 1924 to regulate the unified judicial responsibility in the global air transportation industry, protection of airline consumers was somewhat lacking in protecting air carriers. In principle, the air carrier does not bear any obligation or liability when the aircraft is not operated normally due to natural disasters such as typhoon or heavy snowfall. However, in recent years, in developed countries such as the US and Europe, there has been a movement in which regulates the air carriers' obligation to protect their passengers even if there is no misconduct or negligence. Furthermore, the legislation of such advanced countries imposes an obligation on the airlines to compensate the loss separately from damages in case the abnormal operation of the aircraft is not caused by force majeure but caused by their negligence. Under this historical and international context, Korea is also modifying the system of aviation consumer protection by referring to other foreign legislation. However, when compared with foreign countries, our norm has a few drawbacks. First, the airline's protection or care obligations are mixed with the legal liability for damages in the provision, which seems to be due to the lack of understanding of the airline's passenger protection obligation. The liability for damages, which is governed by the International Convention or the Commercial Act, shall be determined by judging the cause of the airline's liability in respect of the damage of the individual passenger in the course of the air transportation. However, the duty to care and the burden for compensation shall be granted to all passengers who feel uncomfortable with the abnormal operation regardless of the cause of the accident. Also, our compensation system for denied boarding due to oversale is too low compared to the case of foreign countries, and setting the compensation amount range differently based on the time for the re-routing is somewhat unclear. Regarding checked-baggage claim, it will be necessary to refund the fee only from the fact that the baggage is delayed without asking whether there is any damage occurred from the delayed baggage. This is the content of the duty to care, which is different from the current Commercial Act or the international convention, in which responsibility is different depending on whether the airline takes all the necessary measures in order to prevent delaying of the baggage. The content of force majeure, which is a requirement for exemption from the obligation to care passengers on the airplane, shall be reconsidered. Maintenance for safe navigation is not considered to be included in force majeure, and connection to airplanes, airport conditions are disputable. According to the EC Regulation, if the cause of the abnormal operation of the airline is force majeure, the airline's compensation obligation is exempted but the duty to care of airline company is still meaningful. Furthermore, even if the main role of aviation consumer protection is on an airline, it is the responsibility of government agencies to supervise the fulfillment of such protection obligations. Therefore, it is necessary for the Korean government to actively take measures such as enforcing incentives for airlines that faithfully fulfill their obligation to care and imposed penalties on the contrary.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Geographic Information Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.41-53
• /
• 2010

Traffic safety assessment is often accomplished by analyzing the number of crashes occurring in some geographic space over certain specific time duration. In this paper, we introduce a procedure that can efficiently analyze spatial and temporal changes in traffic crashes before-and-after implementation of a certain traffic controlling measure. For the analysis, crash frequency data before-and-after closing a major highway around St. Louis in Missouri was collected through Transportation Management System(TMS) database that is maintained by Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT). In order to identify any spatial and temporal pattern in crashes, each crash is pinpointed on a map using the dynamic segmentation in GIS. Then, the identified pattern is statistically confirmed using an analysis of variance table. The advantage of this approach is to easily assess spatial and temporal trend of crashes that are not readily attainable otherwise. The results from this study can possibly be applied in enhancing the highway safety assessment procedure. This paper also makes several suggestions for future development of a comprehensive transportation data system in Korea which is similar to MoDOT's TMS database.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Geographic Information Studies
• /
• v.13 no.4
• /
• pp.91-100
• /
• 2010

Existing traffic safety studies have focused on identifying the relationship among roadway crashes, highway design and incremental weather condition such as rainy/ice weather. However, it is hard to find researches that studied the effect of sun glare on traffic safety although there are abundant evidences demonstrating that fatal traffic crashes are attributed to the sun glare. Affecting drivers'vision particularly during the morning or the evening time when the sun positions close to the horizon, sun glare directly deteriorate drivers'judgmental capability. In this paper, we numerically analyze the effect of sun glare on the drivers'vision in time and space domains. Applied to the roadways around St Louis area in the United States, the GIS based simulation analysis identifies the time of day in a year and the segments of highways that are potentially influenced by the sun glare. This study evidentially confirms the fact that roadway bounded for West and East directions have longer time influenced by sun glare particularly during Spring and Fall season than other roadways. The computational result provides risky time periods of day at intersections or pedestrian crossings where the sun glare potentially endangers traffic safety, which be utilized to reduce the crashes due to the sun glare.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.59-89
• /
• 2009

The objectives of the 1963 Tokyo Convention cover a variety of subjects, with the intention of providing safety in aircraft, protection of life and property on board, and promoting the security of civil aviation. These objectives will be treated as follows: first, the unification of rules on jurisdiction; second, the question of filling the gap in jurisdiction; third, the scheme of maintaining law and order on board aircraft; fourth, the protection of persons acting in accordance with the Convention; fifth, the protection of the interests of disembarked persons; sixth, the question of hijacking of aircraft; and finally some general remarks on the objectives of the Convention. The Tokyo Convention mainly deals with general crimes such as murder, violence, robbery on board aircraft rather than aviation terrorism. The Article 11 of the Convention deals with hijacking in a simple way. As far as aviation terrorism is concerned 1970 Hague Convention and 1971 Montreal Convention cover the hijacking and sabotage respectively. The Problem of national jurisdiction over the offence and the offender was as tangled at the Hague and Montreal Convention, as under the Tokyo Convention. Under the Tokyo Convention the prime base of jurisdiction is the law of the flag (Article 3), but concurrent jurisdiction is also allowed on grounds of: territorial principle, active nationality and passive personality principle, security of the state, breach of flight rules, and exercise of jurisdiction necessary for the performance of obligations under multilateral agreements (Article 4). No Criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law is excluded [Article 3(2)]. However, Article 4 of the Hague Convention(hereafter Hague Article 4) and Article 5 of the Montreal Convention(hereafter Montreal Article 5), dealing with jurisdiction have moved a step further, inasmuch as the opening part of both paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Hague Article 4 and the Montreal Article 5 impose an obligation on all contracting states to take measures to establish jurisdiction over the offence (i.e., to ensure that their law is such that their courts will have jurisdiction to try offender in all the circumstances covered by Hague Article 4 and Montreal Article 5). The state of registration and the state where the aircraft lands with the hijacker still on board will have the most interest, and would be in the best position to prosecute him; the paragraphs 1(a) and (b) of the Hague Article 4 and paragraphs 1(b) and (c) of the Montreal Article 5 deal with it, respectively. However, paragraph 1(b) of the Hague Article 4 and paragraph 1(c) of the Montreal Article 5 do not specify if the aircraft is still under the control of the hijacker or if the hijacker has been overpowered by the aircraft commander, or if the offence has at all occurred in the airspace of the state of landing. The language of the paragraph would probably cover all these cases. The weaknesses of Hague Article 4 and Montreal Article 5 are however, patent. The Jurisdictions of the state of registration, the state of landing, the state of the lessee and the state where the offender is present, are concurrent. No priorities have been fixed despite a proposal to this effect in the Legal Committee and the Diplomatic Conference, and despite the fact that it was pointed out that the difficulty in accepting the Tokyo Convention has been the question of multiple jurisdiction, for the reason that it would be too difficult to determine the priorities. Disputes over the exercise of jurisdiction can be endemic, more so when Article 8(4) of the Hague Convention and the Montreal Convention give every state mentioned in Hague Article 4(1) and Montreal Article 5(1) the right to seek extradition of the offender. A solution to the problem should not have been given up only because it was difficult. Hague Article 4(3) and Montreal Article 5(3) provide that they do not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law. Thus the provisions of the two Conventions create additional obligations on the state, and do not exclude those already existing under national laws. Although the two Conventions do not require a state to establish jurisdiction over, for example, hijacking or sabotage committed by its own nationals in a foreign aircraft anywhere in the world, they do not preclude any contracting state from doing so. However, it has be noted that any jurisdiction established merely under the national law would not make the offence an extraditable one under Article 8 of the Hague and Montreal Convention. As far as international aviation terrorism is concerned 1988 Montreal Protocol and 1991 Convention on Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detention are added. The former deals with airport terrorism and the latter plastic explosives. Compared to the other International Terrorism Conventions, the International Aviation Terrorism Conventions do not have clauses of the passive personality principle. If the International Aviation Terrorism Conventions need to be revised in the future, those clauses containing the passive personality principle have to be inserted for the suppression of the international aviation terrorism more effectively. Article 3 of the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents, Article 5 of the 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and Article 6 of the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation would be models that the revised International Aviation Terrorism Conventions could follow in the future.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2011

According to the Article 86 of the United Nations on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS) the provisions of high seas apply to all parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State, or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State. Article 87 also stipulates the freedom of the high seas. International laws on the flight over the high seas are found as follows; Firstly, as far as the nationality of the aircraft is concerned, its legal status is quite different from the ship where the flags of convenience can be applied practically. There is no flags of convenience of the aircraft. Secondly, according to the Article 95 of UNCLOS warships on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. We can suppose that the military(or state) aircraft over the high seas have also complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. Thirdly, according to the Article 101 of UNCLOS piracy consists of any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft. We can conclude that piracy can de done by a pirate aircraft as well as a pirate ship. Fourthly, according to the Article 111 (5) of UNCLOS the right of hot pursuit may be exercised only by warships or military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect. We can conclude that the right of hot pursuit may be exercised only military aircraft, or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect. Fifthly, according to the Article 110 of UNCLOS a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that: (a) the ship is engaged in piracy, (b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade, (c) the ship is engaged in an authorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109, (d) the ship is without nationality, or (e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship. These provisions apply mutatis mutandis to military aircraft. Sixthly, according to the Article 1 (5)(dumping), 212(pollution from or through the atmosphere), 222(enforcement with respect to pollution from or through the atmosphere) of UNCLOS aircraft as well as ship is very much related to marine pollution. Seventhly, as far as the crime on board aircraft over the high seas is concerned 1963 Convention on the Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft(Tokyo Convention) will be applied, and as for the hijacking over the high seas 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft(Hague Convention) and as for the sabotage over the high seas 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation(Montreal Convention) will be applied respectively. These three conventions recognize the flag state jurisdiction over the crimes on board aircraft over the high seas. Eightly, as far as reconnaissance by foreign aircraft in the high seas toward the coastal States is concerned it is not illegal in terms of international law because its act is done in the high seas. Ninthly as for Air Defence Identification Zone(ADIZ) there are no articles dealing with it in the 1944 Chicago Convention. The legal status of the foreign aircraft over this sea zone might be restricted to the regulations of the coastal states whether this zone is legitimate or illegal. Lastly, the Arctic Sea is the frozen ocean. So the flight over that ocean is the same over the high seas. Because of the climate change the Arctic Sea is getting melted. If the coastal states of the Arctic Sea will proclaim the Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ) as the ocean is getting melted, the freedom of flight over that ocean will also be restricted to the regulations of the coastal states.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.65-92
• /
• 2011

Die soeben entwickelten Grundgs$\ddot{a}$tze k$\ddot{o}$nnen dazu f$\ddot{u}$hren, dass es bei Fluggesellschaften zum Abschluss mehrerer Tarifvertr$\ddot{a}$ge $\ddot{u}$ber Personalvertretungen durch verschidene Gewerkschften kommt. Dies leitet schlie${\ss}$lich zu der bereits angesprochenen Problematik der Tarifkonkurrenz $\ddot{u}$ber. Tarifkonkurrenz zeichnet sich bekanntlich dadurch aus, dass f$\ddot{u}$r dasselbe Rechtsverh$\ddot{a}$ltnis dieselbe Regelungsmaterie durch mehr als einen Tarifvertrag geregelt wird. Eine solche Tarifkonkurenz kann unabh$\ddot{a}$ngig von der Frage, ob Regelungsgegenstand betriebsverfassungsrechtlicher Normen ein betriebliches Rechtsverh$\ddot{a}$ltnis ist, auch bei dieser Art von Tarifnormen auftreten. Dabei betriebsverfassungsrechtlichen Kollektivnormen gem$\ddot{a}{\ss}$ $\S$3 Abs. 2 TVG die Tarifbindung des Arbeitgebers f$\ddot{u}$r die Anwendungsbarkeit gen$\ddot{u}$gt, wird beim Vorhandensein mehrerer solcher Tarifvertr$\ddot{a}$ge h$\ddot{a}$ufig pauschal von einer in jedem Fall aufzul$\ddot{o}$senden tarifkonkurrenz gesprochen. $\ddot{U}$berschneiden sich die Geltungsbereiche mehrerer Tarifvertr$\ddot{a}$ge $\ddot{u}$ber personalvertretungsrechtliche Fragen der im Luftbetrieb t$\ddot{a}$tigen Besch$\ddot{a}$ftigten und handelt es sich nicht um textidentische Regelungen, f$\ddot{u}$hrt indes kein Weg daran vorbei, dass eine Tarifkonkurenz besteht, die einer Aufl$\ddot{o}$sung bedarf. Die Rechtsprechung hat sich zur speziellen Fragen der Aufl$\ddot{o}$sung einer Konkurrenz betriebsverfassungsrechtlicher Tarifnormen soweit ersichtlich noch nicht ge$\ddot{a}$u${\ss}$ert. Nicht zuletzt aus diesem Grund wird in der Literatur ein buntes Spektrum an L$\ddot{o}$sungen pr$\ddot{a}$sentiert, wobei sich die meisten neueren Stellungnahmen vor allem mit Organisationstarifvertr$\ddot{a}$gen im Sinne von ${\S}$3 BetrVG besch$\ddot{a}$ftigen.

• 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.30 no.2
• /
• pp.337-371
• /
• 2015

In recent years, aviation safety has been facing new hazards due to the rapidly changing environment in which aircraft operation increasingly finds. Continuously increasing air traffic volume, integration of various cultures from many States, and many other changes are the causal factors of the new risks. To identify such new hazards and risks, the government of the Republic of Korea (ROK) established aviation safety reporting systems in accordance with the international standards of the Convention on International Civil Aviation. However, there are some misunderstandings by the government in operating and by the personnel who take part in these reporting systems. Everybody should understand that aviation safety reporting system is not a punitive measure but a tool for collecting data in order to improve safety. In addition, such a system can be utilized further to promote an improved awareness on the need for a proper safety culture on the part of both the government, the industry and the personnel. This paper includes studies on international standards, relevant regulations in the United States and the United Kingdom. Moreover, this paper proposes to the government of ROK several points to improve their own system, including integration of the existing reporting systems, improvement of reporting items, implementation of safety data taxonomy and the establishment of safety data protection.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.37-72
• /
• 2016

In the aerospace field, besides special purpose airplanes, contracts for supply of various types of products such as prototypes, unmanned aerial vehicles and space launch vehicles are increasing. In the case of the contractor, it was planned to spend a large amount of money to supply the production, but if the purchase specification that presents the quality and performance standard of the product is poor or lacks the capacity to judge the performance, consuming enormous amounts of time and money. Even if the undertaker does not have the ability to supply the products with the required performance and quality to achieve the purpose of the contract, he/she must pay the cost of burial due to the incompleteness of the work and the compensation for the cancellation of the contract. In this case, the defendant ordered the plaintiff to supply the aircraft by the Happy Box method, which is capable of ILS Offset flight as specified in the Purchase Specification, but the plaintiff attempted to supply the aircraft by the RNAV method. Although the ILS ground signal can be inspected by the RNAV method, the aircraft manufactured in the manner claimed by the plaintiff does not have the ILS Offset flight function required by the purchase specification, so the defendant can not achieve the purpose required by the purchase specification. It was a question of whether a defendant's cancellation of contract was legitimate. The aircraft, which is the object of this contract, is a subordinate substitute, so the case contract is of undertaking. Therefore, in order to complete the work in this contract, the major structural parts of the aircraft must be manufactured as agreed and have the performance generally required in the social sense. However, the aircraft delivered by the plaintiff has serious defects because the defendant can not achieve the purpose required by the purchase specification due to the lack of the ILS Offset flight function required by the purchase specification. This deficiency is impossible for the plaintiff to repair, so the defendant 's cancellation of the contract is legitimate.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.9
• /
• pp.85-143
• /
• 1997

The main purpose of the investigation of an accident caused by aircraft is to be prevented the sudden and casual accidents caused by wilful misconduct and fault from pilots, air traffic controllers, hijack, trouble of engine and machinery of aircraft, turbulence during the bad weather, collision between birds and aircraft, near miss flight by aircrafts etc. It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability for offender of aircraft accidents. Accidents to aircraft, especially those involving the general public and their property, are a matter of great concern to the aviation community. The system of international regulation exists to improve safety and minimize, as far as possible, the risk of accidents but when they do occur there is a web of systems and procedures to investigate and respond to them. I would like to trace the general line of regulation from an international source in the Chicago Convention of 1944. Article 26 of the Convention lays down the basic principle for the investigation of the aircraft accident. Where there has been an accident to an aircraft of a contracting state which occurs in the territory of another contracting state and which involves death or serious injury or indicates serious technical defect in the aircraft or air navigation facilities, the state in which the accident occurs must institute an inquiry into the circumstances of the accident. That inquiry will be in accordance, in so far as its law permits, with the procedure which may be recommended from time to time by the International Civil Aviation Organization ICAO). There are very general provisions but they state two essential principles: first, in certain circumstances there must be an investigation, and second, who is to be responsible for undertaking that investigation. The latter is an important point to establish otherwise there could be at least two states claiming jurisdiction on the inquiry. The Chicago Convention also provides that the state where the aircraft is registered is to be given the opportunity to appoint observers to be present at the inquiry and the state holding the inquiry must communicate the report and findings in the matter to that other state. It is worth noting that the Chicago Convention (Article 25) also makes provision for assisting aircraft in distress. Each contracting state undertakes to provide such measures of assistance to aircraft in distress in its territory as it may find practicable and to permit (subject to control by its own authorities) the owner of the aircraft or authorities of the state in which the aircraft is registered, to provide such measures of assistance as may be necessitated by circumstances. Significantly, the undertaking can only be given by contracting state but the duty to provide assistance is not limited to aircraft registered in another contracting state, but presumably any aircraft in distress in the territory of the contracting state. Finally, the Convention envisages further regulations (normally to be produced under the auspices of ICAO). In this case the Convention provides that each contracting state, when undertaking a search for missing aircraft, will collaborate in co-ordinated measures which may be recommended from time to time pursuant to the Convention. Since 1944 further international regulations relating to safety and investigation of accidents have been made, both pursuant to Chicago Convention and, in particular, through the vehicle of the ICAO which has, for example, set up an accident and reporting system. By requiring the reporting of certain accidents and incidents it is building up an information service for the benefit of member states. However, Chicago Convention provides that each contracting state undertakes collaborate in securing the highest practicable degree of uniformity in regulations, standards, procedures and organization in relation to aircraft, personnel, airways and auxiliary services in all matters in which such uniformity will facilitate and improve air navigation. To this end, ICAO is to adopt and amend from time to time, as may be necessary, international standards and recommended practices and procedures dealing with, among other things, aircraft in distress and investigation of accidents. Standards and Recommended Practices for Aircraft Accident Injuries were first adopted by the ICAO Council on 11 April 1951 pursuant to Article 37 of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation and were designated as Annex 13 to the Convention. The Standards Recommended Practices were based on Recommendations of the Accident Investigation Division at its first Session in February 1946 which were further developed at the Second Session of the Division in February 1947. The 2nd Edition (1966), 3rd Edition, (1973), 4th Edition (1976), 5th Edition (1979), 6th Edition (1981), 7th Edition (1988), 8th Edition (1992) of the Annex 13 (Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation) of the Chicago Convention was amended eight times by the ICAO Council since 1966. Annex 13 sets out in detail the international standards and recommended practices to be adopted by contracting states in dealing with a serious accident to an aircraft of a contracting state occurring in the territory of another contracting state, known as the state of occurrence. It provides, principally, that the state in which the aircraft is registered is to be given the opportunity to appoint an accredited representative to be present at the inquiry conducted by the state in which the serious aircraft accident occurs. Article 26 of the Chicago Convention does not indicate what the accredited representative is to do but Annex 13 amplifies his rights and duties. In particular, the accredited representative participates in the inquiry by visiting the scene of the accident, examining the wreckage, questioning witnesses, having full access to all relevant evidence, receiving copies of all pertinent documents and making submissions in respect of the various elements of the inquiry. The main shortcomings of the present system for aircraft accident investigation are that some contracting sates are not applying Annex 13 within its express terms, although they are contracting states. Further, and much more important in practice, there are many countries which apply the letter of Annex 13 in such a way as to sterilise its spirit. This appears to be due to a number of causes often found in combination. Firstly, the requirements of the local law and of the local procedures are interpreted and applied so as preclude a more efficient investigation under Annex 13 in favour of a legalistic and sterile interpretation of its terms. Sometimes this results from a distrust of the motives of persons and bodies wishing to participate or from commercial or related to matters of liability and bodies. These may be political, commercial or related to matters of liability and insurance. Secondly, there is said to be a conscious desire to conduct the investigation in some contracting states in such a way as to absolve from any possibility of blame the authorities or nationals, whether manufacturers, operators or air traffic controllers, of the country in which the inquiry is held. The EEC has also had an input into accidents and investigations. In particular, a directive was issued in December 1980 encouraging the uniformity of standards within the EEC by means of joint co-operation of accident investigation. The sharing of and assisting with technical facilities and information was considered an important means of achieving these goals. It has since been proposed that a European accident investigation committee should be set up by the EEC (Council Directive 80/1266 of 1 December 1980). After I would like to introduce the summary of the legislation examples and system for aircraft accidents investigation of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, Swiss, New Zealand and Japan, and I am going to mention the present system, regulations and aviation act for the aircraft accident investigation in Korea. Furthermore I would like to point out the shortcomings of the present system and regulations and aviation act for the aircraft accident investigation and then I will suggest my personal opinion on the new and dramatic innovation on the system for aircraft accident investigation in Korea. I propose that it is necessary and desirable for us to make a new legislation or to revise the existing aviation act in order to establish the standing and independent Committee of Aircraft Accident Investigation under the Korean Government.