RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      시카고협약체계에서의 항공안전평가제도에 관한 연구 = A Study on Air Operator Certification and Safety Oversight Audit Program in light of the Convention on International Civil Aviation

      한글로보기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      Some contracting States of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (commonly known as the Chicago Convention) issue FAOC(Foreign AOC and/or Operations Specifications) and conduct various safety audits for the foreign operators. These FAOC and safety audits on the foreign operators are being expanded to other parts of the world. While this trend is the strengthening measure of aviation safety resulting in the reduction of aircraft accident, it is the source of concern from the legal as well as economic perspectives. FAOC of the USA doubly burdens the other contracting States to the Chicago Convention because it is the requirement other than that prescribed by the Chicago Convention of which provisions are faithfully observed by almost all the contracting States. The Chicago Convention in its Article 33 stipulates that each contracting State recognize the validity of the certificates of airworthiness and licenses issued by other contracting States as long as they meet the minimum standards of the ICAO. Consequently, it is submitted that the unilateral action of the USA, China, Mongolia, Australia, and the Philippines issuing the FOAC to the aircraft of other States is against the Convention. It is worry some that this breach of international law is likely to be followed by the European Union which is believed to be in preparation for its own unilateral application. The ICAO established by the Chicago Convention to be in charge of safe and orderly development of the international civil aviation has been in hard work to both upgrade and emphasize the safe operation of aircraft. As the result of these endeavors, it prepared a new Annex 19 to the Chicago Convention with the title of “Safety Management” and with the applicable date 14 November 2013. It is this Annex and other ICAO documents relevant to the safety that the contracting States to the Chicago Convention have to observe. Otherwise, it is the economical burden due to probable delay in issuing the FOAC and bureaucracies combined with many different paperworks and regulations depending on where the aircraft is flown. It is exactly to avoid this type of confusion and waste that the Chicago Convention aimed at when it was adopted in 1944. The State of the operator shall establish a system for both the certification and the continued surveillance of the operator in accordance with ICAO SARPs to ensure that the required standards of operations are maintained. Certainly the operator shall meet and maintain the requirements established by the States in which it operate. The authority of a State stops where the authority of another State intervenes or where the former has yielded its power by an international agreement for the sake of international cooperation. Hence, it is not within the realm of the State to issue FAOC towards foreign operators for the reason that these foreign operators are flying in and out of the State. Furthermore, there are other safety audits such as ICAO USOAP, IATA IOSA, FAA IASA, and EU SAFA that assure the safe operation of the aircraft, but within the limit of their power and in compliance with the ICAO SARPs. If the safety level of any operator is not satisfactory, the operator could be banned to operate in the contracting States with watchful eyes until the ICAO SARPs are met. This time-honoured practice has been applied without any serious problems. Besides, we have the new Annex 19 to strengthen and upgrade with easy reference for contracting States. We don`t have no reason to introduce additional burden to the States by unilateral actions of some States. These actions have to be corrected. On the other hand, when it comes to the carriage of the Personal or Pilot Log Book, the Korean regulation requiring it is in contrast with other relevant provisions of USA, USOAP, IOSA, and SAFA. The Chicago Convention requires in its Articles 29 and 34 only the carriage of the Journey Log Book and some other certificates, but do not mention the Personal Log Book at all. Paragraph 5.1.1.1 of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention even makes it clear that the carriage in the aircraft of the Personal Log Book is not required on international flights. The unique Korean regulation in this regards giving the unnecessary burden to the national flag air carriers has to be lifted at once.
      번역하기

      Some contracting States of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (commonly known as the Chicago Convention) issue FAOC(Foreign AOC and/or Operations Specifications) and conduct various safety audits for the foreign operators. These FAOC and s...

      Some contracting States of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (commonly known as the Chicago Convention) issue FAOC(Foreign AOC and/or Operations Specifications) and conduct various safety audits for the foreign operators. These FAOC and safety audits on the foreign operators are being expanded to other parts of the world. While this trend is the strengthening measure of aviation safety resulting in the reduction of aircraft accident, it is the source of concern from the legal as well as economic perspectives. FAOC of the USA doubly burdens the other contracting States to the Chicago Convention because it is the requirement other than that prescribed by the Chicago Convention of which provisions are faithfully observed by almost all the contracting States. The Chicago Convention in its Article 33 stipulates that each contracting State recognize the validity of the certificates of airworthiness and licenses issued by other contracting States as long as they meet the minimum standards of the ICAO. Consequently, it is submitted that the unilateral action of the USA, China, Mongolia, Australia, and the Philippines issuing the FOAC to the aircraft of other States is against the Convention. It is worry some that this breach of international law is likely to be followed by the European Union which is believed to be in preparation for its own unilateral application. The ICAO established by the Chicago Convention to be in charge of safe and orderly development of the international civil aviation has been in hard work to both upgrade and emphasize the safe operation of aircraft. As the result of these endeavors, it prepared a new Annex 19 to the Chicago Convention with the title of “Safety Management” and with the applicable date 14 November 2013. It is this Annex and other ICAO documents relevant to the safety that the contracting States to the Chicago Convention have to observe. Otherwise, it is the economical burden due to probable delay in issuing the FOAC and bureaucracies combined with many different paperworks and regulations depending on where the aircraft is flown. It is exactly to avoid this type of confusion and waste that the Chicago Convention aimed at when it was adopted in 1944. The State of the operator shall establish a system for both the certification and the continued surveillance of the operator in accordance with ICAO SARPs to ensure that the required standards of operations are maintained. Certainly the operator shall meet and maintain the requirements established by the States in which it operate. The authority of a State stops where the authority of another State intervenes or where the former has yielded its power by an international agreement for the sake of international cooperation. Hence, it is not within the realm of the State to issue FAOC towards foreign operators for the reason that these foreign operators are flying in and out of the State. Furthermore, there are other safety audits such as ICAO USOAP, IATA IOSA, FAA IASA, and EU SAFA that assure the safe operation of the aircraft, but within the limit of their power and in compliance with the ICAO SARPs. If the safety level of any operator is not satisfactory, the operator could be banned to operate in the contracting States with watchful eyes until the ICAO SARPs are met. This time-honoured practice has been applied without any serious problems. Besides, we have the new Annex 19 to strengthen and upgrade with easy reference for contracting States. We don`t have no reason to introduce additional burden to the States by unilateral actions of some States. These actions have to be corrected. On the other hand, when it comes to the carriage of the Personal or Pilot Log Book, the Korean regulation requiring it is in contrast with other relevant provisions of USA, USOAP, IOSA, and SAFA. The Chicago Convention requires in its Articles 29 and 34 only the carriage of the Journey Log Book and some other certificates, but do not mention the Personal Log Book at all. Paragraph 5.1.1.1 of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention even makes it clear that the carriage in the aircraft of the Personal Log Book is not required on international flights. The unique Korean regulation in this regards giving the unnecessary burden to the national flag air carriers has to be lifted at once.

      더보기

      참고문헌 (Reference)

      1 박원화, "항공우주법개론" 한국학술정보 2013

      2 국토교통부, "운항기술기준"

      3 김종복, "신국제항공법" 한국학술정보 2012

      4 "대한민국, 항공법, 항공법시행령, 항공법시행규칙"

      5 김두환, "국제항공법학론" 한국학술정보 2005

      6 박원화, "국제항공법" 명지출판사 2011

      7 홍순길, "국제항공기구론" 한국항공대학교출판부 2006

      8 "SAFA Ramp Inspections Guidance material Version 2.0"

      9 "SAFA Annual Report(2010)" European Commission 2012

      10 "SAFA Annual Report(2009)" European Commission 2011

      1 박원화, "항공우주법개론" 한국학술정보 2013

      2 국토교통부, "운항기술기준"

      3 김종복, "신국제항공법" 한국학술정보 2012

      4 "대한민국, 항공법, 항공법시행령, 항공법시행규칙"

      5 김두환, "국제항공법학론" 한국학술정보 2005

      6 박원화, "국제항공법" 명지출판사 2011

      7 홍순길, "국제항공기구론" 한국항공대학교출판부 2006

      8 "SAFA Ramp Inspections Guidance material Version 2.0"

      9 "SAFA Annual Report(2010)" European Commission 2012

      10 "SAFA Annual Report(2009)" European Commission 2011

      11 "Regulation(EC) No 216/2008 common rules in the field of civil aviation" 2008

      12 "IOSA Standards Manual Ed6 (ISM)"

      13 "IOSA Programme Manual Ed5 (IPM)"

      14 "IOSA"

      15 "ICAO USOAP CMA Protocol Question"

      16 "ICAO Doc 9859, Safety Management Manual (SMM)"

      17 "ICAO Doc 9735, Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme Continuous Monitoring Manual"

      18 "ICAO Doc 9734, Safety Oversight Manual"

      19 "ICAO Doc 8335, Manual of Procedures for Operations Inspection, Certification and Continued Surveillance"

      20 "ICAO Doc 7300/9, Convention on International Civil Aviation(9th)"

      21 "ICAO"

      22 "IATA Reference Manual for Audit Programs Ed3"

      23 "IATA"

      24 "IASA Model Civil Aviation Regulations, Version 2.6"

      25 "IASA Civil Aviation Safety Act, Version 2.6"

      26 "IASA Assessor's Checklist"

      27 "IASA"

      28 "FAR Part 129 Operations: Foreign Air Carriers and Foreign Operators of U.S."

      29 "FAA order 8900.1 FSIMS"

      30 "FAA Order 8900.1 FSIMS"

      31 "EASA NPA No 2011-05 Third Country Operators(TCO)"

      32 "EASA"

      33 "Continued Surveillance"

      34 "Annual Report of the Council 2011" ICAO 2013

      35 "Annex 6 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation"

      36 "Annex 19 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation"

      37 "Annex 1 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation"

      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      동일학술지 더보기

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

      학술지 이력

      학술지 이력
      연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
      2028 평가예정 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
      2022-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
      2019-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재
      2016-03-28 학술지명변경 한글명 : 한국항공우주정책?법학회지 -> 항공우주정책 ·법학회지 KCI등재
      2016-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재
      2013-02-26 학회명변경 한글명 : 한국항공우주법학회 -> 한국항공우주정책⋅법학회
      영문명 : Korean Association Of Air And Space Law -> Korea Society of Air & Space Law and Policy
      KCI등재
      2013-02-20 학술지명변경 한글명 : 한국항공우주법학회지 -> 한국항공우주정책?법학회지
      외국어명 : Korean journal of air and space law -> The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
      KCI등재
      2012-01-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
      2011-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2010-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 유지 (등재후보2차) KCI등재후보
      2009-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2008-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 유지 (등재후보2차) KCI등재후보
      2007-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2005-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
      더보기

      학술지 인용정보

      학술지 인용정보
      기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
      2016 0.68 0.68 0.65
      KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
      0.58 0.49 0.924 0.15
      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼