• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.115-136
• /
• 2008

The development of the aviation technology is beyond the people's imagination. For example, with some exaggeration, If the autopilot engage upon take off, You will realize that you are on the centerline of the foggy JFK runway 13R after 15 hours with only once or twice of intervention. But the more aviation technology develops, the more responsible the pilot will be who has the final authority of the aviation safety. In the JAL 706 accident caused by unidentified reason, the pilot increased pitch abruptly and overrode the control from the autopilot. The result of this process made the death of a flight attendant and some injuries of a few passengers. The district court found the pilot not guilty at the first trial on the ground that the control override was not connected to the possibility of foresight and avoidance of the human death. The pilot was proved to be innocent through the analysis of the DFDR and ADAS that the override did not precede the unidentified pitch up motion. The judicial precedent related to aviation accidents in Korea requires pilots' absolute and extended care compared to the ordinarily prudent or reasonably careful behaviors in the vehicle and medical accidents. Although there is some controversy about the standard care, the care required in the actual operation of high tech aircraft by a pilot should include objective and standard care and be judged by analysis of the scientific data. Although the pilot maintained the unusual hi speed that doesn't have safety margin and descended under turbulence in case of the JAL 706 accident, the court negatived its relation to the cause of pitch up. Also, the override of the control after initial pitch up might have caused the possibility of the death and injury, but the court denied it. Because of this complex cause of the aviation accidents, it is important for a court to figure out the core reason of the event and casual relationship with the pilot Now, It is required that the judgement of negligence in the aviation accidents should include an objective care with scientific data from simulated circumstances(or a simulator) as the Japanese court not from the theory of vehicle's negligence.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.235-268
• /
• 2019

Under the Aviation Safety Act of Korea, any person who intends to operate a drone is required to follow the operational conditions listed below, unless approved by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism; (i) Operation of drones in the daytime, (ii) Operation of drones within Visual Line of Sight, (iii) Maintenance of a certain operating distance between drones and persons or properties on the ground/ water surface, (iv) Do not operate drones over event sites where many people gather, (v) Do not transport hazardous materials such as explosives by drone, (vi) Do not drop any objects from drones. Requirements stated in "Airspace in which Flights are Prohibited" and "Operational Limitations" are not applied to flights for search and rescue operations by public organizations in case of accidents and disasters. This paper analyzes legal issues as to definition and regulations of drones in Korean Aviation Safety Act. This paper, also, offers some implications and suggestions for regulations of drones under Korean Aviation Safety Act by comparing the regulations of drones in Japanese Civil Aeronautics Act.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.17
• /
• pp.55-89
• /
• 2003

What are the international aviation regimes? It is said that they are sets of principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures of international aviation around which aviation actors' (states-actors, intergovernmental aviation organization, international aviation conventions, airlines and their organizations etc.) expectations converge in a given aviation issue-area for the purposes of the human welfare and the operations of the stable civil aviation. In this regards, the purposes of this study are focused on the aviation actors' shifts. Chronologically, international aviation regimes have been developed by some stages as followings; The 1st stage is the period from 1944 Chicago Convention to 1978 US Deregulation Act, when the aviation regulations and rules within the international aviation relations were implemented by Chicago-Bermuda regimes as Christer Jonsson pointed out. In this first stage, the sovereignty for the airspace over their countries is absolute. The second stage is the period from 1978 to '1992 Open Skies Agreement' between US and Netherlands. In this regime, airlines' activities as well as state-actors' have been actuated. The third stage is the period from 1992 to the contemporary. In this stage, airlines' activities for the consumers such as 'Open Skies Agreements', 'e-commerce business', 'airspace open policy within EU area', 'service open policy of WTO', and 'airlines' strategic alliance' are the central focal points in the world aviation relationship. In the conclusion, this phenomenon of the core actors in the international aviation rules has been shifted from the states-actors to the non-states actors especially, operating airlines, or consuming customers. Finally, I' d like to suggest that international aviation regimes should be developed to promote and facilitate the globalized level for the people's movements among the global aviation society. That is the way to proceed to the welfare and peace for all human beings of the World.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2016

The United States Constitution gives power to the federal district courts to hear admiralty cases. 28 U.S.C. §.133, which states that "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the Courts of the States, of any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction." However, the determination of whether a case is about admiralty or maritime so that triggers admiralty jurisdiction was not a simple question. Through numerous legal precedents, the courts have drawn a line to clarify the boundary of admiralty cases. This unique jurisdiction is not determined by the mere involvement of a vessel in the case or even by the occurrence of an event on a waterway. As a general rule, a case is within admiralty jurisdiction if it arises from an accident on the navigable waters of the United States (locus test) and involves some aspect of maritime commerce (nexus test). With regarding to the maritime nexus requirement, the US Supreme Court case, Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, held that federal courts lacked admiralty jurisdiction over an aviation tort claim where a plane during a flight wholly within the US crashed in Lake Erie. Although maritime locus was present, the Court excluded admiralty jurisdiction because the incident was "only fortuitously and incidentally connected to navigable waters" and bore "no relationship to traditional maritime activity." However, this historical case left a milestone question: whether an aircraft disaster occurred on navigable water triggers the admiralty jurisdiction, only for the reason that it was for international transportation? This article is to explore the meaning of admiralty jurisdiction over aviation accidents at US courts. Given that the aircraft engaged in transportation of passenger and goods as the vessels did in the past, the aviation has been linked closely with the traditional maritime activities. From this view, this article reviews a decision delivered by the Seventh Circuit regarding the aviation accident occurred on July 6, 2013 at San Francisco International Airport.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.29-65
• /
• 2012

Der neue strukturelle Ansatz der Kommbination eines Rahmen$\ddot{u}$bereinkommens und eines ausr$\ddot{u}$stungsspezifischen Sonderprotokolls bedingt einen neuen organisatorischen Anstz f$\ddot{u}$r die Zusammenarbeit zwischen internationalen Organisationen bei der Schaffung von internationalem Einheitsprivatrecht. So haben hier zwei internationale Organisationen gemeinsam die Verantwortung f$\ddot{u}$r einmultilaterales $\ddot{U}$bereinkommen $\ddot{u}$bernommen: auf der einen Seite UNIDROIT als die internationale Organisation, die generell f$\ddot{u}$r die Vereinheitlichung des Privatrechts kompetent ist; auf der anderen Seite ICAO als die f$\ddot{u}$r die private Luftfahrt zust$\ddot{a}$ndige internationale Organisation. Dieses neue, f$\ddot{u}$r die Luftfahrzeugausr$\ddot{u}$stung praktizierte organisatorische Modell eines joint venture zweier internationaler Organisation bei der Einheitsrechtsetzung, namlich die Betreuung eines allgemeinen privatrechtsvereinheitlichenden Rahmens$\ddot{u}$bereinkommens durch UNIDROIT und die Wahrnehmung der sektorspezifischen Belange in einem ausr$\ddot{u}$stungsspesifischen Sonderprotokoll durch die jeweils zust$\ddot{a}$ndige internationale Spezialorganisation, hat bereits f$\ddot{u}$r die Sektoren der Eisenbahn- und Weltraumausrustung Schule gemacht. Das in Kapstadt beschlossene v$\ddot{o}$lkervertragliche Regelungswerk hat erstmals ein einheitsrechtliches - grunds$\ddot{a}$atzlich weltweite Geltung anstrebendes - Sicherungsrecht geschafen. Dies kann f$\ddot{u}$r die Sachenrechtsintergration einen $\ddot{a}$hnlichen Durchbruch bedeuten, wis das Wiener UN-kaufrechts$\ddot{u}$bereinkommen von 1980 f$\ddot{u}$r das Schuldvertragsrecht. Voraussetzung daf$\ddot{u}$r ist allerdings die juristische Qualit$\ddot{a}$t und Praxisgerechtigkeit des Regelungswerkes und - insbesondere - das Funktionieren des Registersystems. Von wesentlicher Bedeutung f$\ddot{u}$r den Erfolg des $\ddot{U}$bereinkkommens wird auchsein, ob es Rechtssicherheit zu gew$\ddot{a}$hrleisten vermag.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.9
• /
• pp.327-349
• /
• 1997

Luftfrachtersatzverkehr ist der Transport von Luftfrachtgut von Flughafen zu Flughafen unter einem Luftfrachtbrief im $Oberfl{\ddot{a}}chentransport$ urn die erste und/oder letzte Teilstrecke einer als Gesamtstrecke vereinbarten $Luftfrachtbef{\ddot{o}}rderung$. These Strecken $f{\ddot{u}}hren$ von nationalen oder intemationalen $Flugh{\tilde{a}}fen$ zurn Zentralflughafen ($_"Hub"$) der Luftverkehrsgesellschaft bzw. in urngekehrter Richtung vom Zentralflughafen hin zu den einzelnen nationalen oder intemationalen $Flugh{\ddot{a}}fen$. Die Vorteile des Luftfrachtersatzverkehrs sind offenkundig, daher auch sein $st{\ddot{a}}ndiges$ Anwachsen. Allerdings bestand bei den Luftverkehrsgesellschaften jahrelang eine $gro{\ss}e$ Unsicherheit, wie dieser Luftverkehr, der eben nicht in der Luft $durchgef{\ddot{u}}hrt$ wird, rechtlich zu qualifizieren sei. Stellte die $Bef{\ddot{o}}rderung$ von $Luftfrachtg{\ddot{u}}tem$ auf der $Stra{\ss}e$ einen Bruch des $Luftbef{\ddot{o}}rderungsvertrages$ dar, so wie im Schadensfall die $Gesch{\ddot{a}digten$, Absender oder $Empf{\ddot{a}}nger$ des betreffenden Gutes, der Luftverkehrgesllschft auf Art. 18 Abs. 3 oder Art. 31 Warschauer Abkommen(WA) berufen? Folge dieser Unsicherheit war, $da{\ss}$ ${\ddot{u}}ber$ lange Jahre hinweg die Luftverkehrsgesellschaften sich scheuten, diese Frage einer gerichtlichen $Kl{\ddot{a}}rung$ $zuzuf{\ddot{u}}hren$, Eher war man geneigt, sich mit dem Anspruchsgegner $au{\ss}ergerichtlich$ zu vergleichen, selbst wenn dies bedeutete, $da{\ss}$ man sich nicht auf die $Haftungsbeschr{\ddot{a}}nkungen$ des Art. 22 WA berufen konnte, als ein Urteil zu erstreiten, welcher $m{\ddot{o}}glicherweise$ der Praxis der $Luftfrachtersatzbef{\ddot{o}}rderung$ einen - rechtlichen - Riegel vorgeschoben $h{\ddot{a}}tte$. Diese Unsicherheit ist jedoch durch die Entscheidung die erste und wohl auch bislang einzige $h{\ddot{o}}chstrichterliche$ Entscheidung zur $Luftfrachtersatzbef{\ddot{o}}rderung$ nicht nur in Deutschland, sondem soger in Europa. Die Luftverkehrsgesellschaften $k{\ddot{o}}nnen$ mit dieser Entscheidung gut leben. Bei emer $vertragsgem{\ddot{a}}{\ss}en$ $Luftfrachtersatzbef{\ddot{o}}rderung$ haftet der $Luftfrachtf{\ddot{u}}hrer$ $f{\ddot{u}}r$ $Sch{\ddot{a}}den$ $anl{\ddot{a}}{\ss}lich$ der mit dem Luftfahrzeug $ausgef{\ddot{u}}hrten$ Teilstrecke nach den Vorsschriften des Warschauer Abkommens und $f{\ddot{u}}r$ $Sch{\ddot{a}}den$ $anl{\ddot{a}}{\ss}lich$ der mit einem $Oberfl{\ddot{a}}chenbef{\ddot{o}}rderungsmittel$ $ausgef{\ddot{u}}hrten$ Teilstrecke nach den Vorschriften, welche $f{\ddot{u}}r$ das $tats{\ddot{a}}chlich$ eingesetzte ransportmittel $einschl{\ddot{a}}gig$ sind. Bei unbekanntem Schadensort haftet der $Luftfrachtf{\ddot{u}}hrer$ nach dem jeweils $sch{\ddot{a}}rfsten$ der in Betracht kommenden Rechte. Bei emer vertragwidrigen $Luftfrachtersatzbef{\ddot{o}}rderung$ haftet der $Luftfrachtf{\ddot{u}}hrer$ nach dem Recht des vereinbarten $Bef{\ddot{o}}rderungsmittels$, da sich auf dieses Recht der Vertragspartner des $Luftfrrachtf{\ddot{u}}hrers$ eingerichtet hatte. Der $Luftfrachtf{\ddot{u}}frer$ haftet aber auch nach dem Recht des $tats{\ddot{a}}chlich$ eingesetzten $Bef{\ddot{o}}rderungsmittels$, da er sich in dessen Haftungsordnung durch die einseitige Wahl des $Bef{\ddot{o}}rderungsmittels$ selbst hineingestellt hat. Bei unbekanntem Schadensort haftet der $Luftfrachtf{\ddot{u}}hrer$ nach dem jeweils $sch{\ddot{a}}rfsten$ der in Betracht kommenden Rechte.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.3-43
• /
• 2018

Auf die ganze Welt macht unbemannte $Flugger{\ddot{a}}te$(sog.Drohnen) in vielen Bereichen rasch Fortschritte und Anwendungen gezeigt. Nachdem ferngesteuerte Drohnen $urspr{\ddot{u}}nglich$ $prim{\ddot{a}}r$ $f{\ddot{u}}r$ $milit{\ddot{a}}rische$ Zwecke entwickelt wurden, $erh{\ddot{o}}cht$ sich derzeit ihre zivile Nutzung sowohl im Freizeit- als auch im Dienstleistungsbereich(Paketdrohnen, Drohnen-taxi) stetig. Mit der vermehrten Drohnennutzung steigen allerdings auch die damit verbundenen Risiken und Herausforderungen. In Zusammenhang damit stellt sich dann die Frage, ob $gegenw{\ddot{a}}rtige$ Vorschriften im Bereich von Luftrecht zurecht gekommen sind. Es sieht sich gerade der zwei Schwerpunkt $gegen{\ddot{u}}ber$. Erstens kann $Passagierebef{\ddot{o}}rderung$ mit unbemanntem Luftfahrzeug(mehr als 150kg) im $gegenw{\ddot{a}}ritigen$ Luftrecht keine Anwendung finden. Denn das kor. Luftsicherheitsgesetz und sein Durchsetzungsverordnung definieren die Terminologie von unbemannten Luftfahrzeugen und unbemannten $Flugger{\ddot{a}}te$ als "wenn eine Person nicht an Bord geht und ferngesteuert wird". Also soll Drohne nach dieser gesetzlichen Definition nur "ohne Person" geflogen werden. Das besagt ohne Piloten und ohne Passagiere. Zweitens ist unbemannte $Flugger{\ddot{a}}te$(weniger als 150kg) nicht auf Handelsgesetz anzuwenden, auf das ${\ddot{u}}ber$ Anspruchsgrundlage und Zurechnungsnorm des gewerblichen Luftverkehr geregelt ist. Der unbemannte Luftfahrzeuglieferdienst bringt nicht nur die Gefahr einer $Besch{\ddot{a}}digung$ des Frachtguts mit sich, sondern auch die Gefahr von $Bodensch{\ddot{a}}den$ durch Dritte. Gemäß ${\S}$ 896 des Handelsgesetzes ist aber die Anwendung von unbemannte $Flugger{\ddot{a}}te$(weniger als 150kg) $hierf{\ddot{u}}r$ begrenzt, weil unbemannt $Flugger{\ddot{a}}te$ $einschl{\ddot{a}}gig$ in Ultralight $Flugger{\ddot{a}}t$ ist, die im Handelsgesetz ausschließlich besteht. Technische Fortschritt und die dadurch $erm{\ddot{o}}glichten$ kommerziellen Anwendungen werden die Nachfrage nach unbemannter $Flugger{\ddot{a}}te$ wecken. Die Umsetzung der $bez{\ddot{u}}glichen$ Vorschriften sollte auch diese Entwicklung aktiv begleitet und $fr{\ddot{u}}hzeitig$ kommuniziert und erarbeitet werden, damit Hersteller und Nutzer $fr{\ddot{u}}hzeitig$ Planungssicherheit haben.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.201-248
• /
• 2015

In Korea the number of unlawful interference act on board aircrafts has been increased continuously according to the growth of aviation demand, and there were 55 incidents in 2000, followed by 354 incidents in 2014, and an average of 211 incidents a year over the past five years. In 1963, a number of states adopted the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (the Tokyo Convention 1963) as the first worldwide international legal instrument on aviation security. The Tokyo Convention took effect in 1969 and, shortly afterward, in 1970 the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft(the Hague Convention 1970) was adopted, and the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation(the Montreal Convention 1971) was adopted in 1971. After 9/11 incidents in 2001, to amend and supplement the Montreal Convention 1971, the Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Relating to International Civil Aviation(the Beijing Convention 2010) was adopted in 2010, and to supplement the Hague Convention 1970, the Protocol Supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft(the Beijing Protocol 2010) was adopted in 2010. Since then, in response to increased cases of unruly behavior on board aircrafts which escalated in both severity and frequency,, the Montreal Protocol which is seen as an amendment to the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft(the Tokyo Convention 1963) was adopted in 2014. Korea ratified the Tokyo Convention 1963, the Hague Convention 1970, the Montreal Convention 1971, the Montreal Supplementary Protocol 1988, and the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosive 1991 which have proven to be effective. Under the Tokyo Convention ratified in 1970, Korea further enacted the Aircraft Navigation Safety Act in 1974, as well as the Aviation Safety and Security Act that replaced the Aircraft Navigation Safety Act in August 2002. Meanwhile, the title of the Aviation Safety and Security Act was changed to the Aviation Security Act in April 2014. The Aviation Security Act is essentially an implementing legislation of the Tokyo Convention and Hague Convention. Also the language of the Aviation Security Act is generally broader than the unruly and disruptive behavior in Sections 1-3 of the model legislation in ICAO Circular 288. The Aviation Security Act has reflected the considerable parts of the implementation of national legislation under the Beijing Convention and Beijing Protocol 2010, and the Montreal Protocol 2014 that are the modernized international conventions relating to aviation security. However, in future, when these international conventions would come into effect and Korea would ratify them, the national legislation that should be amended or provided newly in the Aviation Security Act are as followings : The jurisdiction, the definition of 'in flight', the immunity from the actions against the aircraft commander, etc., the compulsory delivery of the offender by the aircraft commander, etc., the strengthening of penalty on the person breaking the law, the enlargement of application to the accomplice, and the observance of international convention. Among them, particularly the Korean legislation is silent on the scope of the jurisdiction. Therefore, in order for jurisdiction to be extended to the extra-territorial cases of unruly and disruptive offences, it is desirable that either the Aviation Security Act or the general Crime Codes should be revised. In conclusion, in order to meet the intelligent and diverse aviation threats, the Korean government should review closely the contents of international conventions relating to aviation security and the current ratification status of international conventions by each state, and make effort to improve the legislation relating to aviation security and the aviation security system for the ratification of international conventions and the implementation of national legislation under international conventions.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.145-176
• /
• 2016

Aviation safety can be secured through regulations and policies of various areas and thorough execution of them on the field. Recently, for aviation safety management Korea is making efforts to prevent aviation accidents by taking various measures: such as selecting and promoting major strategic goals for each sector; establishing National Aviation Safety Program, including the Second Basic Plan for Aviation Policy; and improving aviation related legislations. Obstacle limitation surface is to be established and publicly notified to ensure safe take-off and landing as well as aviation safety during the circling of aircraft around airports. This study intends to review current aviation obstacle management system which was designed to make sure that buildings and structures do not exceed the height of obstacle limitation surface and identify its operating problems based on my field experience. Also, in this study, I would like to propose ways to improve the system in legal and regulatory aspects. Nowadays, due to the request of residents in the vicinity of airports, discussions and studies on aviational review are being actively carried out. Also, related ordinance and specific procedures will be established soon. However, in addition to this, I would like to propose the ways to improve shortcomings of current system caused by the lack of regulations and legislations for obstacle management. In order to execute obstacle limitation surface regulation, there has to be limits on constructing new buildings, causing real restriction for the residents living in the vicinity of airports on exercising their property rights. In this sense, it is regarded as a sensitive issue since a number of related civil complaints are filed and swift but accurate decision making is required. According to Aviation Act, currently airport operators are handling this task under the cooperation with local governments. Thus, administrative activities of local governments that have the authority to give permits for installation of buildings and structures are critically important. The law requires to carry out precise surveying of vast area and to report the outcome to the government every five years. However, there can be many problems, such as changes in the number of obstacles due to the error in the survey, or failure to apply for consultation with local governments on the exercise of construction permission. However, there is neither standards for allowable errors, preventive measures, nor penalty for the violation of appropriate procedures. As such, only follow-up measures can be taken. Nevertheless, once construction of a building is completed violating the obstacle limitation surface, practically it is difficult to take any measures, including the elimination of the building, because the owner of the building would have been following legal process for the construction by getting permit from the government. In order to address this problem, I believe penalty provision for the violation of Aviation Act needs to be added. Also, it is required to apply the same standards of allowable error stipulated in Building Act to precise surveying in the aviation field. Hence, I would like to propose the ways to improve current system in an effective manner.

• Bulletin of the Korean Chemical Society
• /
• v.17 no.9
• /
• pp.794-798
• /
• 1996

Solid solutions of the nonstoichiometric Dy1-xSrxCoO3-y system with the compositions of x=0.00, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, and 1.00 have been synthesized by the solid state reaction at 1000 ℃ under atmospheric air pressure. The crystallographic structures of the solid solutions are analyzed by the powder X-ray diffraction patterns at room temperature. The analyses assign the compositions of x=0.00 and 0.25 to the orthorhombic system with space group of Pbnm/D2h16, the compositions of x=0.50 and 0.75 to the tetragonal system like a typical SrCoO2.86, and the composition of x=l.00 or SrCoO2.50 to the brownmillerite type system with space group of I**a. The reduced lattice volumes increase with x value due to the larger radius of Sr2+ ion than that of Dy3+ ion. The mole ratio of Co4+ ion to total Co ion with mixed valence state between Co3+ and Co4+ ions at B sites or τ value has been determined by an iodometric titration. All the samples except for the DyCoO3 compound show the mixed valnce state and thus the composition of x=0.50 has the maximum τ value in the system. The oxygen vacancies increasing with x value are randomly distributed over the crystal lattice except for the composition of x=l.00 which have the ordering of the oxygen vacancies. The nonstoichiometric chemical formulas of the Dy1-xSrxCo3+1-τCo4+τO3-(x-τ)/2 system are formulated from the x, τ, and y values. The electrical conductivity in the temperature range of 100 to 900 K increases with τ value linearly because of positive holes of the Co4+ ions in π* band as a conducting carrier. The activation energy of the x=0.50 as Ea=0.17 eV is minimum among other compouds. Broad and high order transition due to the overlap between σ* and π* bands broadened by the thermal activation is observed near 1000 K and shows a low temperature-semiconducting behavior. Magnetic properties following the Currie-Weiss law show the low to high spin transition in the cobaltate perovskite. Especially, the composition of x=0.75 presents weak ferromagnetic behavior due to the Co3+-O2--Co4+ indirect superexchange interaction.