감항인증의 정비 조직 적용에 관한 연구 : 군 정비창을 중심으로 = A study on the application of maintenance organization for airworthiness certification

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

'Airworthiness Certification' has been used so far as ICAO was first established in 1949 under Article 33 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, and the representative agency of each country disproves that aircraft have adequate safety and reliability to prevent aircraft accidents. When an aircraft is a three-dimensional object that causes an accident, many people suffer injuries, property damage, or international problems. Therefore, activities to ensure a high level of reliability and safety are essential. Highly structured and rigorous certification is required
It is also a technology that requires stability in parallel with development in order to value all parts produced in relation to aircraft. In line with this, each country's quarantine authorities have institutionalized a legal certification system for aircraft or parts, depending on their circumstances. The development, production and operation of aircraft and components ensures safety and safety operation of aircraft and related components. It is managed at the national level. This is to ensure public safety in the development, production and operation of aircraft, and aircraft developers should demonstrate minimum safety in accordance with applicable laws, standards and guidelines.
Korean military aircraft have been using aircraft under the auspices of the United States since the 1960s, but the private aviation industry started assembling them from the 1980s and reached the stage of developing or mass producing them independently in the 1990s.
In the domestic civil sector, the airworthiness certification system has already been established. The military airworthiness certification was started in 2007 according to the request of the Turkish government as it carried out KT-1T exports between the Turkish government and companies. In 2009, a military airworthiness certification system was enacted, and based on the law, certification standard·work procedures·dedicated organizations required for airworthiness certification were institutionalized, and a censorship certification system for flight safety of military aircraft was established.
In the case of civil aircraft, BASA has recently concluded a contract with the United States to develop the aircraft, which has been developed solely for the purpose of widening the scope of its production to export.
Although the civil aviation industry is operating under the Act under the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport under the Act from the Certification of Aircraft to Maintenance continuing airworthiness certification of the military already goes beyond civilian control to almost the same level as the U.S military. Even now, there is a need to develop and manage systematic law establishment and certification items. Therefore, in this paper now proposes to establish a system of certification systems to systematically manage by introducing programs and screening systems to continuing maintain airworthiness among the private sector ahead of us.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서 론·················1
• 1. 1 연구배경·············1
• 1. 2 연구목적·············3
• 1. 3 연구방법·············4
• 제2장 감항인증의 이론과 체계·············5
• 2. 1 감항인증 이론····························5
• 2. 1. 1 감항인증의 유래···················5
• 2. 1. 2 감항인증의 정의···················6
• 2. 1. 3 감항인증의 의미···················7
• 2. 1. 4 감항인증의 대상과 종류········9
• 2. 2 민간 감항인증 체계 ···························································13
• 2. 2. 1 국제민간항공기구(ICAO)의 감항인증 및 계속 감항 체계·13
• 2. 2. 2 미연방항공청(FAA)의 감항인증 및 계속 감항 체계·········18
• 2. 2. 3 유럽항공안전기구(EASA)의 감항인증 체계 ····················22
• 2. 3 미국 및 대한민국 군 감항인증 체계 ·····································26
• 2. 3. 1 미국의 군 감항인증 체계··············································26
• 2. 3. 2 한국의 군 감항인증 체계··············································29
• 2. 3. 3 한국의 군 감항인증 종류 및 계속 감항 체계····················32
• 2. 4 국내 민간 항공기 정비업체 현황 및 계속 감항 인증 과정········36
• 제3장 정비 조직 감항인증 사례····················································39
• 3. 1 국내 정비조직인증 사례·····················································39
• 3. 1. 1 대한항공·····································································41
• 3. 1. 2 아시아나 항공·····························································42
• 3. 2 해외 정비조직인증 사례·····················································43
• 3. 2. 1 대만 EGAT(Evergreen Aviation Technology Corp) ··············47
• 3. 2. 2 홍콩 HAECO(Aviation Engineering Company Limited) ·······47
• 3. 2. 3 AMECO(A/C Maintenance and Engineering Corporation)·49
• 3. 2. 4. KLM(Engineering & Maintenance)·············50
• 제4장 군 정비창의 계속 감항성 적용방향························53
• 4. 1 정비 계속 감항성 인증 도입 및 조직 신설···············53
• 4. 1. 1 정비 계속 감항성 유지 개념····························53
• 4. 1. 2 정비 계속 감항성 유지 조직 신설·····················54
• 4. 2 정비 계속 감항성 유지 항목 및 현장심사················56
• 4. 3 민·군의 정비 계속 감항인증 협력 및 공용기준 제정·58
• 4. 3. 1 민·군 정비 계속 감항을 위한 협력····················58
• 4. 3. 2 계속 감항성의 민·군 공용 인증 기준 제정·········59
• 제5장 결 론·································································61
• 5. 1 연구 요약 및 시사점·············································61
• 5. 2 연구의 한계와 향후 연구방향································62
• 참 고 문 헌···································································64
• ABSTRACT··································································66