NationStates Jolt Archive

've made one or two changes to this since I last submitted it about a month ago; any constructive criticism will be appreciated. I plan on submitting it when another resolution reaches quorum.

REALISING that a monopoly both limits choice and leads to artificially high prices.

EMPHASISING that the right of people to choose forces corporations to improve their safety and lowers prices.

NOTING that aircraft registered in one nation may not meet the safety standards of a second nation

FURTHER NOTING that open skies, whilst a free trade proposal, would lead to an increase in employment in the air transportation industry in all United Nations member states

It is proposed that:
Section I
1. Any corporation that provides air transportation (be it in aeroplanes, helicopters, dirigible airship, non-dirigible airship, orbital craft and interplanetary craft), registered in any country may fly from any port of origin to any destination
2. All commercially registered non-military aircraft (hereafter referred to as commercial aircraft) flying internationally, or domestically within a country they are not registered in, must comply with the international air safety and security regulation in section II
3. Any country is free to impose security restrictions on aircraft en route to or departing from their country
4. No country is free to impose further restriction regarding aircraft serviceability on aircraft en route to or departing from their country
5. No country may refuse to give clearance to an aircraft because it is registered in another country, unless it fails to meet the regulations in section II, if the nations port facilities are unable to cope with the craft in question, or in the case of war, embargo, sanctions or the like.

Section II-All Aircraft must meet or exceed the following safety regulations
1. All commercial aircraft (excluding interplanetary craft) must undergo a complete service after travelling a maximum of a distance of 40,000km. Interplanetary craft must undergo a complete service after completing their journey
2. All commercial aircraft whose journey involves travelling over a body of water larger then 50 km must carry enough life jackets for all on board, plus inflatable life rafts that can carry all on board
3. All interplanetary and orbital craft must carry a fully provisioned escape pod or pods large enough to carry all on board
4. All commercial aircraft must carry a black box recorder capable of withstanding a impact of mach 1 or higher, that is able to record the speed, heading, altitude and with audio recording of the cockpit.
5. All commercial aircraft must be equipped with electronic navigation equipment, such as RADAR, with a range of at least 500 km, as well as two-way radio communication of the same range. Interplanetary aircraft must carry navigation equipment and two-way radio of a distance of 10,000 km
6. Prior to take off, commercial aircraft must have all their equipment checked
7. All commercial aircraft must display a green light on the furthest starboard extremity and a red light on the furthest port extremity
8. Dirigible airships must only use inert gasses, such as helium, to create lift
9. Pilots and captains of all commercial aircraft must not be under the influence of drink or other debilitating drugs, and must have eyesight of at least 20/20 and must not suffer from Daltonism or any syndromes that compromises eyesight
10. All pilots must file a flight plan and get both landing and take off clearance from the port of origin and destination prior to take off

This is a proposal that Darkumbria can get behind. This improves the safety of travel, across the board. The only thing I might do to this, change the name to Commericial Transport Safety, and add shipborne travel to that.

Darkumbria urges all nations to accept this proposal and enter the UN into a new, safer, era of travel and transportation.

I think there are already proposals that cover ship safety, and this proposal is not, really, about the safety aspect; rather it is to allow all commercial airline companies to fly between all airports.

OoC: It used to be the case that the only companies that could fly between London and Paris were BEA and Air France. Now, BA, Air France, Lufthansa, Ryan Air, Virgin, etc all can. That's what this is attempting to allow.

We like this. And, while we'd rather see a revival of your diplomatic immunity proposal, this is a good free trade document. Some very minor points:

1. All commercial aircraft (excluding interplanetary craft) must undergo a complete service after travelling a maximum of a distance of 40,000km. Interplanetary craft must undergo a complete service after completing their journey
In RL, the interval between mandated aircraft maintenance times is usually measured in flight hours, rather than distance travelled. Of course, NS is not RL, so you can measure it however you like.
5. All commercial aircraft must carry a black box recorder capable of withstanding a impact of mach 1 or higher, that is able to record the speed, heading, altitude and with audio recording of the cockpit.
6. All commercial aircraft must be equipped with electronic navigation equipment, such as RADAR, with a range of at least 500 km, as well as two way radio communication of the same range. Interplanetary aircraft must carry navigation equipment and two-way radio of a distance of 10,000 km
Our only concern here is that this might be an undue burden on very small commercial aircraft. For example, one to four passenger propellar aircraft that are used for cropdusting or sightseeing tours are technically commercial, but probably could not afford the expense of the black box and radar. You might want to restrict this one to aircraft designed to hold a certain number of passengers or cargo. Just a thought.

These are just minor points and would certainly not prevent Saint Uriel from supporting this proposal.

I only meant the regulations to apply to aircraft travelling between international locations; therefore domestic flights would not have to abide by these regulations.
I realise it doesn't state this, I'll see if I can fit it in...

I only meant the regulations to apply to aircraft travelling between international locations; therefore domestic flights would not have to abide by these regulations.
I realise it doesn't state this, I'll see if I can fit it in...
It's already in there, Section 1, Clause 3

3. Commercial aircraft flying domestically within the country they are registered in need not comply with international air safety standards

Duuuurrrrhhhh.... next time, the delegate from Saint Uriel promises he will THOROUGHLY read the proposal before commenting. Thank you. [/stupidity]

I’m sure it was put in there due to suggestions from other nations, but section II, article 1 – is it really necessary to distinguish between interplanetary and conventional craft? I doubt there are many interplanetary craft which travel less than 40K in one trip. A suitable entry could be made to suggest every 40K or after one trip - whichever is greater.

Secondly, you need to review your numbering sequence. Section II has no article 3 listed.

You could probably tidy up articles 2 and 4 in section II by stating aircraft should have suitable survival equipment with regards to the environment the aircraft is travelling through or above.

Finally, Is it possible to have greater than 20/20 vision?

Is it possible to have greater than 20/20 vision?
Greetings.

We understand that this is the case. 20/20 refers to the ability of the naked visual apparatus in seeing what a typical organism sees at 20 feet. In some states this is expressed as 6/6, meaning the organism sees at 6 metres what it should see at 6 metres. In other words, this is a ratio expressed as a quotient.

It is therefore possible to have 40/20 vision, or the ability to see twice the detail that a typical person can see at 20 feet. Remember however that this ratio is only that for visual acuity and does not measure other forms of visual perception.

I’m sure it was put in there due to suggestions from other nations, but section II, article 1 – is it really necessary to distinguish between interplanetary and conventional craft? I doubt there are many interplanetary craft which travel less than 40K in one trip. A suitable entry could be made to suggest every 40K or after one trip - whichever is greater.

Your standard interplanetary craft can travel the distance between Earth and Mars in less than two seconds. Keep in mind that's about 5 lightseconds, or how far light travels in a second. What you are proposing is that the craft must make several dozen complete checks during that time. And that's only travelling between Earth and Mars. Imagine how much of a hassle that is when travelling between systems.

To add on to it, typical DLE craft measure their travel rate in parsecs, not kilometers, due to parsecs being a better measurement. One parsec is equal to 3.14 lightyears, just to give you an idea of the distance, and no DLE craft has a jump distance of below 30 parsecs, while our largest ship has a jump distance of 30,000 parsecs.

Pretty much, the distinction is required.

Finally, Is it possible to have greater than 20/20 vision?

Yes. I have 15/20 myself, while I also know someone who has 15/15 and have heard of people having eyesight as good as 10/10.

Your standard interplanetary craft can travel the distance between Earth and Mars in less than two seconds. Keep in mind that's about 5 lightseconds, or how far light travels in a second.
Greetings.

Of more than nodding acquaintance with Mars himself, we act here as conduit for his disapprobation. He believes that the distance between himself and the planet which you call the Earth is currently about 57,000,000 kilometres. As the distance travelled by light is relatively constant at 300,000 km per second, this distance is equivalent to 190 light-seconds, or about three light-minutes.

Malcandra's displeasure is obvious. We advise propitiation. He is, after all, an archon whose sphere is War.

Currently checking something...

It turns out we were partially right, and partially wrong. Mars itself is of a varying orbit in relation to Earth, varying from 3 lightminutes to 5 lightminutes* away from Earth. The amount of time taken to travel between the two for a standard interplanetary craft is accurate.

The problem is that we named a moon Mars as well, though the designation may be questionable due to the moon being 5 lightminutes from the world it orbits and its extreme size. This is why recycling names and not bothering to check whether you grabbed the right piece of paper is a bad thing.

*The change is actually greater than that due to the times the two planets are not on the same side of Sol. Distance change is based on orbits. It is possible for a time to come when Mars is 13 lightminutes away from Earth.

Duuuurrrrhhhh.... next time, the delegate from Saint Uriel promises he will THOROUGHLY read the proposal before commenting. Thank you. [/stupidity]

Actually, Section 1, Clause 3 was put in AFTER you pointed it out to me!
Sorry, I should have put it in bold or something to make it obvious

Secondly, you need to review your numbering sequence. Section II has no article 3 listed.
Again? Section II of "Defining Diplomatic Immunity" had no article 3 either!
Must be some kind of subconsious aversion to the number 3....

You could probably tidy up articles 2 and 4 in section II by stating aircraft should have suitable survival equipment with regards to the environment the aircraft is travelling through or above.
Good idea

I'm just wondering, how will this: 2. All commercial aircraft whose journey involves travelling over a body of water larger then 50 km must carry enough life jackets for all on board, plus inflatable life rafts that can carry all on board help someone whose plane is about to ditch. Your average airliner travels pretty damn fast even on landing, so the odds of the plane surviving to a point where one could need rafts are pretty slim? Unless it's an airship of course, they float down, not crash. I don't thinks its a bad an idea (just on the off chance), but...

Anyway, why not have a clause encouraging airlines to have rearward facing seats only, in passenger compartments. This is how the military do it, and it's a lot safer.

Not bad, though.

Anyway, why not have a clause encouraging airlines to have rearward facing seats only, in passenger compartments. This is how the military do it, and it's a lot safer.

My main reason for not including that is that this resolution is really about opening the skies- the section I bit- as opposed to making things safer; section two only exists so that there isn't a problem with one airline saving money and lowering prices by skimping on the safety features.

This has been submitted in this form. Nothing in the actual proposal has changed, just some of the wording and the typos!
REALISING that a monopoly both limits choice and leads to artificially high prices.

EMPHASISING that the right of people to choose forces corporations to improve their safety and lowers prices.

NOTING that aircraft registered in one nation may not meet the safety standards of a second nation

FURTHER NOTING that open skies, whilst a free trade proposal, would lead to an increase in employment in the air transportation industry in all United Nations member states

It is proposed that:
Section I
1. Any corporation that provides air transportation (be it in aeroplanes, helicopters, dirigible airship, non-dirigible airship, orbital craft and interplanetary craft), registered in any country may fly from any port of origin to any destination
2. All commercially registered non-military aircraft (hereafter referred to as commercial aircraft) flying internationally, or domestically within a country they are not registered in, must comply with the international air safety and security regulation in section II
3. Any country is free to impose security restrictions on aircraft en route to or departing from their country
4. No country is free to impose further restriction regarding aircraft serviceability on aircraft en route to or departing from their country
5. No country may refuse to give clearance to an aircraft because it is registered in another country, unless it fails to meet the regulations in section II, if the nations port facilities are unable to cope with the craft in question, or in the case of war, embargo, sanctions or the like.

Section II-All Aircraft must meet or exceed the following safety regulations
1. All commercial aircraft (excluding interplanetary craft) must undergo a complete service after travelling a maximum of a distance of 40,000km. Interplanetary craft must undergo a complete service after completing their journey
2. All commercial aircraft whose journey involves travelling over a body of water larger then 50 km must carry enough life jackets for all on board, plus inflatable life rafts that can carry all on board
3. All interplanetary and orbital craft must carry a fully provisioned escape pod or pods large enough to carry all on board
4. All commercial aircraft must carry a black box recorder capable of withstanding a impact of mach 1 or higher, that is able to record the speed, heading, altitude and with audio recording of the cockpit.
5. All commercial aircraft must be equipped with electronic navigation equipment, such as RADAR, with a range of at least 500 km, as well as two-way radio communication of the same range. Interplanetary aircraft must carry navigation equipment and two-way radio of a distance of 10,000 km
6. Prior to take off, commercial aircraft must have all their equipment checked
7. All commercial aircraft must display a green light on the furthest starboard extremity and a red light on the furthest port extremity
8. Dirigible airships must only use inert gasses, such as helium, to create lift
9. Pilots and captains of all commercial aircraft must not be under the influence of drink or other debilitating drugs, and must have eyesight of at least 20/20 and must not suffer from Daltonism or any syndromes that compromises eyesight
10. All pilots must file a flight plan and get both landing and take off clearance from the port of origin and destination prior to take off

Yelda has approved. Both of them.

Thankyou.

I've notified the mods about the double post. Hopefully they'll delete the mispelled one.

Incidentally, what's the URL thingy with the search bit in it (use an example, if necessary), for when I get a TG campaign up and running?

Thankyou.

I've notified the mods about the double post. Hopefully they'll delete the mispelled one.

Incidentally, what's the URL thingy with the search bit in it (use an example, if necessary), for when I get a TG campaign up and running?
This guide might be helpful http://forums.jolt.co.uk/misc.php?do=bbcode
I'm not sure that TG's support vB code or html. I would just keep track of what page it is on and advise them of that, or suggest that they use the search function.

I'm sure you already understand vB code though or you wouldn't have those links in your sig. I'm not sure about the search bit. I know that there is a way to do it, just can't remember where I saw the info. Let me look some more.

This guide might be helpful http://forums.jolt.co.uk/misc.php?do=bbcode
I'm not sure that TG's support vB code or html. I would just keep track of what page it is on and advise them of that, or suggest that they use the search function.

It's the search function address I'm looking for; I'm not too fussed about URL tags. I know there's website address thingy which, when entered with the end bit changed to "open", automatically does the search thing for you.
Basically, when entered, it takes you directly to the proposal.

Found what I was looking for:
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=open

I'll wait for the bad version to die before TGing, as it automatically links to the first.

Found what I was looking for:
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=open

I'll wait for the bad version to die before TGing, as it automatically links to the first.
Cool. Where did you find it?

Getting back to the matter at hand though, I like this proposal. In RL something similar to this would have been in place long ago.

Part two exists in real life, although it's far more complicated. Part one exists in the EU, and everyone, bar the US and other protectionist countries, want it made world wide.

It's on the proposal list; I'm telegramming; keeping my fingers crossed.

It's a lot better than that damned dolphin proposal...

Quracklepatheo approves, on the conditions that we may shoot down any aircraft we please.

And if you do not like our conditions... we will approve this anyways.

http://forums.maxima.org/images/smilies/ohnoes.gif

Quadlia approves wholeheartedly, except in one aspect: many of our esteemed pilots have less than 20/20 vision, but wear contact lenses or glasses. It would not be right, nor practical, to exclude them from international flight. Therefore, it is humbly suggested that Section II, Subsection 9 read:

Pilots and captains of all commercial aircraft must not be under the influence of drink or other debilitating drugs, and must have eyesight correctable to at least 20/20 and must not suffer from Daltonism or any syndromes that compromises eyesight beyond medical correction.


Q

OoC: They are excluded in real life on commercial flights, and you can only fly during daytime as a private pilot. Your not even allowed to serve on the bridge of a ship if you are short sighted or colour blind. It may seem unfair, but it makes sense.

IC: What if a contact lense falls out, or your glasses break, or you suffer complications from laser surgery?

Cool. Where did you find it?

I believe (and I am eager to see if anyone can claim otherwise) I discovered it. I know I used it for my resolution to good effect, and I had not seen anyone use it before me....

If it was you, thankyou. It's very useful.
I found that somebody posted a similar link when I was telegramming for Diplomatic Immunity; that's how I found it.

Approvals: 97 (Yelda, Flibbleites, Utopian Id, Gaiah, Of Cascadia, Krioval, Republic of Freedonia, Tsukame, -Draconia-, Thermalania, Nevscrow, Leffler Idols, Spaz Land, Concert, Plutonix, Stickman Nine, Real Paradise, Hoo-Doo, Musicatopia, First Bronson, Arabia III, The Proteus Guard, Funkdunk, The Sthans, Anti Bush World States, Greater Tiki, Mommy D, Anda Carveria, Celstiere, Unknown Peoples, Finbergia, City-State, Palteau, Ackerenia, The Jameripanian Realm, Chaos Creators, Rolotoli, Eisen-Hammer, Jimoria, Beta Centaury, Pteave, PQ32, The Derrak Quadrant, Vastiva, Serene Forests, Tonizeland, Dorkium, Schwall, Ferantia, Asrania, Deadly People, Quedas, Juna Esperantisto, Constopia, Neo Mata Nui, Xarvinia-Wurtemburg, Dean The Destroyer, Fujah, Collonie, Ballyboughal, South Penetanguishene, Two Knives, Not So Bad, Einerland, Quick quack quo, The doomed world, Emerald Phoenix, Novaya Zemlaya, Meeptrinity, Crystall Tokyo, Peachydom, Demonic Kittenlovers, Tinis, Omigodtheykilledkenny, Hershelopolis, AllThatIsUnholy, CankerSore, Kanaia, LouFerringoland, Shikyrie, Domzalski, Peihoiser, Veksar, Abok, Othelma, Behinds, Crotchless Dwarves, Nijmegan, Chrononauts, Jaghur, Purpleation, Randle-El, Armija Krajowa, Windleheim, Cawiezell, Darpatia, Tamarata)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 52 more approvals)

Hmmm....borderline...