• 암석학회지
• /
• 제28권3호
• /
• pp.195-215
• /
• 2019

지질공원은 지질학적으로 중요하고 경관이 우수한 지역을 보호하고, 이들을 교육 및 관광산업에 활용하여 지역 경제 발전에 기여하고자 하는 새로운 제도이다. 국가지질공원 후보지인 화성 지질공원은 고정리 공룡알 화석산지를 중심으로 우음도, 어섬, 딱섬, 고렴, 제부도, 백미리해안, 궁평항, 입파도, 국화도 등 10곳의 지질명소로 이루어져 있으며, 국가지질공원으로의 인증을 추진하고 있다. 이번 연구에서는 화성 국가지질공원에 분포하는 지질명소, 지질유산 그리고 지오트레일에 대해 상세히 기재하고, 지질공원으로서의 가치와 의미에 대해 논의하였다. 화성 국가지질공원 후보지는 한반도의 지체구조상 경기육괴에 해당되며, 선캄브리아 시대 변성암류 및 퇴적암류, 고생대 변성암류, 중생대 화성암류 및 퇴적암류 그리고 신생대 제4기 퇴적층이 분포하여 풍부한 지질다양성을 가진다. 천연기념물로 지정된 고정리 공룡알 화석지 지질명소는 공룡알 둥지화석을 비롯하여 서관구조, 타포니, 단층과 끌림습곡, 사층리 등의 풍부한 지질유산과 함께 생태 탐방로, 방문자 센터 등 훌륭한 인프라를 구축하고 있다. 우음도 지질명소는 다양한 종류의 변성암(편마암, 편암, 천매암)과 지질구조(습곡, 단층, 절리, 암맥, 광맥)를 가지고 있어 교육적 가치가 높다. 어섬 지질명소는 변성암에서 산출되는 독특한 구상구조가 높은 학술적 가치를 가지며, 딱섬과 고렴 지질명소에는 백악기 탄도분지에 분포하는 다양한 퇴적암과 화산암류 그리고 퇴적구조를 잘 관찰할 수 있다. 서해안에 위치한 제부도, 백미리 해안, 궁평항 지질명소에서는 갯벌, 시스택(해식기둥), 사빈과 역빈, 해안사구 등의 해안지형과 함께 다양한 변성암류, 쇄설성암맥, 석영광맥 등의 지질구조도 함께 관찰할 수 있으며, 갯벌체험을 비롯한 다양한 체험프로그램들이 개발되어 있다. 도서지역인 입파도, 국화도 지질명소에서는 전형적인 대규모 습곡구조가 장관을 이루고 있는 곳이며, 독특한 해안침식지형과 함께 다양한 고생대 편암류를 관찰할 수 있다. 이와 같이 화성 지질공원은 풍부한 지질다양성과 학술적 가치를 지닌 양질의 지질명소들로 구성되어 있으며, 지질, 지형, 경관, 생태요소가 복합적으로 어우러진 지오트레일, 탐방객을 위한 기반인프라, 다양한 교육 체험프로그램들이 개발되어 있어, 서부 경기권을 대표하는 훌륭한 국가지질공원으로서의 역할을 할 것으로 기대된다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제9권
• /
• 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.