• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.101-127
• /
• 2017

Even with the most advanced aviation technology benefits, aircraft accidents are constantly occurring while air passenger transportation volume is expected to double in the next 15 years. Since it is not possible to secure aviation safety only by the post aircraft accident safety action of accident investigations, it has been recognized and consensus has been formed that proactive and predictive prevention measures are necessary. In this sense, the aviation safety management system (SMS) was introduced in 2008 and has been carried out in earnest since 2011. SMS is a proactive and predictive aircraft accident preventive measure, which is a mechanism to eliminate the fundamental risk factors by approaching organizational factors beyond technological factors and human factors related to aviation safety. The methodology is to collect hazards in all the sites required for aircraft operations, to build a database, to analyze the risks, and through managing risks, to keep the risks acceptable or below. Therefore, the improper implementation of SMS indicates that the aircraft accident prevention is insufficient and it is to be directly connected with the aircraft accident. Reports of duty performance related hazards including their own errors are essential and most important in SMS. Under the policy of just culture for voluntary reporting, the guarantee of information providers' anonymity, non-punishment and non-blame should be basically secured, but to this end, under-reporting is stagnant due to lack of trust in their own organizations. It is necessary for the accountable executive(CEO) and senior management to take a leading role to foster the safety culture initiating from just culture with the safety consciousness, balancing between safety and profit for the organization. Though a Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport's order, "Guidance on SMS Implementation" states the training required for the accountable executive(CEO) and senior management, it is not legally binding. Thus it is suggested that the SMS training completion certificates of accountable executive(CEO) and senior management be included in SMS approval application form that is legally required by "Korea Aviation Safety Program" in addition to other required documents such as a copy of SMS manual. Also, SMS related items are missing in the aircraft accident investigation, so that organizational factors in association with safety culture and risk management are not being investigated. This hinders from preventing future accidents, as the root cause cannot be identified. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Manuals issued by ICAO contain the SMS investigation wheres it is not included in the final report form of Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. In addition, the US National Transportation Safety Board(NTSB) that has been a substantial example of the aircraft accident investigation for the other accident investigation agencies worldwide does not appear to expand the scope of investigation activities further to SMS. For these reasons, it is believed that investigation agencies conducting their investigations under Annex 13 do not include SMS in the investigation items, and the aircraft accident investigators are hardly exposed to SMS investigation methods or techniques. In this respect, it is necessary to include the SMS investigation in the organization and management information of the final report format of Annex 13. In Korea as well, in the same manner, SMS item should be added to the final report format of the Operating Regulation of the Aircraft and Railway Accident Investigation Board. If such legal and institutional improvement methods are complemented, SMS will serve the purpose of aircraft accident prevention effectively and contribute to the improvement of aviation safety in the future.

• 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.