NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTING the possible confusion arising from a lack of harmonisation of distress signals between nations,

BELIEVING that internationally recognised signals of maritime distress would save lives,

ACKNOWLEDGING the possible safety threat a distressed vessel may pose to other vessels,

UNDERSTANDING that the circumstances under which a vessel could come under distress may preclude the use of certain distress signals,

1. DEFINES distress as a situation that poses an imminent threat to the crew and passengers travelling on a vessel,

2. MANDATES that any captain or master of a vessel within fifty nautical miles of a vessel known to be in distress attend to the incident, except when another vessel that is able to assist is known to be closer to the incident, or when the captain or master of a vessel believes that attending to the incident may endanger the safety of his own ship,

3. MANDATES that a ship carrying, or suspected of carrying, passengers or crew infected with an infectious disease which may require quarantine at their next port of call declare this to the next port of call prior to docking,

4. AUTHORISES the following as internationally recognised maritime distress signals:
a) The spoken word MAYDAY, repeated where possible, transmitted via radiotelegraphic equipment;
b) Signalling SOS (…---…) in Morse code by any method;
c) Continuous sounding of any fog-signalling apparatus;
d) Gun or other explosive devise fired at intervals of one minute;
e) Rockets or shells with red stars fired singly at short intervals;
f) Square flag with ball above or below it;
g) Flames on a vessel, including burning tar or oil barrel;
h) Rocket parachute or hand flare shewing a red light;
i) Smoke signal giving off orange smoke;
j) Raising and lowering arms outstretched to the side;
k) Radiotelegraphic alarm;
l) Dye marker;
m) Orange coloured canvas with black square and circle;
n) National flag of the nation in which the ship is registered, flown inverted;

5. AFFIRMS that distress signals sent over radiotelegraphic equipment includes the location of the ship, if known,

6. MANDATES that the location of sunken vessels be made available to all relevant oceanic mapping institutes,

7. AUTHORISES the following flag signals, flown from the bow jack mast, as internationally recognised signals of quarantine status:
a) All clear: plain yellow flag;
b) Suspected case or cases of infection requiring quarantine: Yellow flag with a black ball in the centre;
c) Confirmed case or cases of infection requiring quarantine: yellow and black quartered flag;

This resolution would/will have the support of the Empire

OOC: Will reply tomorrow; looks ok, though.

Looks fine, but wouldn't it be easier to create just a generic distress call for all vessels instead of outlining all of the different methods that would be approved? In RL, remember the Titanic fired off rockets but from a distance they were believed to be fireworks, so those ships that could see them didn't think anything of them. But that's just my little thing, overall though, it's pretty good, I'd support it.

Sound resolution. The idea of a generic distress signal is good in theory, but problematic in practice. All of these distress signals are already recognized by different nations and if a generic was to be implemented the teaching of it to all nations would be difficult. It would be a time consuming process to phase out the others people already practice at sea and it would be callous to ignore those still using old siginals of distress. Confusion like the Titanic is unfortunate, but I don't think it's an issue to be solved here. The Protectorate of Wyldtree supports this resolution.

I like the basic idea of this although it would be better if the proposal was simplied to establish a few protocols rather than a big list of them. Keeping it to 'Mayday', 'SOS' and orange smoke would make life a lot simpler for mariners.

I understand that there would be a period of time while everyone is getting used to the signals, but they wouldn't be entirely new ones. Just a few, like the delegate from Kirisubo suggested: Mayday, SOS, and orange smoke, all of which are regularly used anyways. But I will still support this no matter what, I'm all for standardizing things between the UN nations. Now onto the phoenetic alphabet...

Well, the reason for so many is two fold:

1) RL
2) What if you caught fire and it engulfed your wireless and your orange smoke machine? The more, the merrier, and the safer

Well, the reason for so many is two fold:

1) RL
2) What if you caught fire and it engulfed your wireless and your orange smoke machine? The more, the merrier, and the safer

I agree with you completely and thank you for presenting this proposal on an important issue. We should not unreasonably restrict the ways people can call for help should a situation arise.

I'm not entirely sure how RL has anything to do with this, but I'm talking about all of the different flags you mentioned. It seems like you just listed all of the different mayday symbols in use nowadays. They would also most likely be taught to a crew member before he went to sea as well. I'm not against this resolution, I plan to vote for it if/when it is put before the General Assembly, I just think that it would be better to list a few that are generally used as "official" to make it less wordy when trying to read it.

This a useful proposal, one which has our support. We do have two comments:

Sections 3 and 6 seem to have little to do with the subject of the proposal. We would not be averse to seeing them deleted.

Would it be worthwhile to include a requirement that all ship's officers pass some sort of recognition test on these signals before receiving their papers?

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

You also might want to recognize those devices that future-tech nations use because if not listed, they would not be "official" signals.

n) National flag of the nation in which the ship is registered, flown inverted;

This could cause a problem due to some flags looking very similar or alike to their inverted form. Other captains could get in trouble for not noticing if the flag upside down looked very similar to the one in right-side-up form.

This could cause a problem due to some flags looking very similar or alike to their inverted form. Other captains could get in trouble for not noticing if the flag upside down looked very similar to the one in right-side-up form.
I highly doubt that nations whose flags look the same when inverted would use that particular distress signal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I highly doubt that nations whose flags look the same when inverted would use that particular distress signal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative


But if that's the only way they can signal...

1. DEFINES distress as a situation that poses an imminent threat to the crew and passengers travelling on a vessel,

'DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution'? Otherwise, that seems fine, except that because 'imminent' and 'threat' aren't defined either, it's still probably a national right.

2. MANDATES that any captain or master of a vessel within fifty nautical miles of a vessel in distress attend to the incident, except when another vessel is closer to the incident, or when the captain or master of a vessel believes that attending to the incident may endanger the safety of his own ship,

This would include all official research, roadways, and labeling.

Does this require you to convert 50nm into kilometres? Also, what if the two ships are at war with one another? This also contravenes Article 1 of "Rights of Neutral States": declared neutral ships would have to be granted an exemption.

3. MANDATES that a ship carrying, or suspected of carrying, passengers or crew infected with an infectious disease which may require quarantine at their next port of call declare this to the next port of call prior to docking,

As the representative of Ausserland has already mentioned, whilst I think this is a worthy consideration, I do not see it of immediate import to this resolution.

4. AUTHORISES the following as internationally recognised maritime distress signals:

These are all fine, but is 'AUTHORISES' really the right word? I feel it could be something stronger, such as 'PROCLAIMS' or 'ESTABLISHES'.

5. AFFIRMS that distress signals sent over radiotelegraphic equipment includes the location of the ship, if known,

I...don't really understand what this one means.

6. MANDATES that the location of sunken vessels be made available to all relevant oceanic mapping institutes,

I do see this one as relevant, as it clearly represents a hazard. There is a confidentiality case here, though, isn't there, regarding military technology?

7. AUTHORISES the following flag signals, flown from the bow jack mast, as internationally recognised signals of quarantine status:

Again, re AUTHORISES, but otherwise, fine. Incidentally, I know nothing about boats...but if there isn't a 'bow jack mast'?

But if that's the only way they can signal...
Then they're screwed.

This proposal looks good. It's nice to see one that Gatesville can support. If it actually get's propose, I for one, will be encouraging our delegate to support it.

I'm only speaking for my nation not Gatesville as a whole.

Having an Imperial navy and a Merchant navy laws concerning the sea have great relevance to us hence our interest in this.

ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

Good morning. My name is Miulana Kapalaoa, and I am the Minister for External Affairs of the Protectorate of Wailele Island. I have been accredited by His Royal Highness, the Prince of Ausserland, to speak before this distinguished Assembly on behalf of Ausserland on matters concerning naval and maritime affairs.

The Ausserland delegation wishes to associate itself with the comments of the honorable representative of Gruenberg concerning sections 4 and 7 of the draft proposal. We would suggest adding "or similar location" after "mast" in section 7.

We also share the honorable representative's uncertainty about section 5. It would seem simple common sense to include the location of a distressed vessel in a call for help. It does not seem to be something that would have to be legislated. But we suspect there may be something about this section that we don't understand.

The Ausserland delegation awaits with interest the author's responses to the distinguished representative of Gruenberger's comments, also to those of Ambassador Ahlmann yesterday. We also look forward to voting in favor of this eminently sensible proposal when it comes to the floor.

Miulana Kapalaoa

But if that's the only way they can signal...As mentioned, they'd be fucked. I mean, take France, for example:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/flag3.jpg

The original image is on the left (it came with the Eiffel Tower superimposed). I did a simple verticle flip, and then created a panoramic image with the two of them side by side. As you can see, if it wasn't for the upsidedown tower, there'd be no difference at all.

As is, this draft (this is a draft, right?) is a good start, but needs some work. I think the list needs to be trimmed a little, it reads like a shopping list right now. Also, the longer the list, the more likely people are going to want to add their personal method ("Flying hamsters on fire!"). A short list of two or three would cut that off as people would realise that it's a purposefully truncated list.

And the waving of arms? Do we need the UN to make waving your arms official?

I would cut the first list of signals. The second - quarantine flags - I think is fine, but the first is long, and will lead to people picking at that ("flares are dangerous!" "why can't it be red?") rather than dealing with the - wholly admirable - substance of the proposal. Perhaps designate the allocation of an approved set of signals to the authority of Another Useless Committee. I'm not sure about the legality of giving it to the International Maritime Standards Bureau, given if the repeal of LotS passes, that loses its mandate, but it seems reasonable to assume you could redirect its use.

I also wonder about mapping, and whether that merits a separate resolution, and also about the Phonetic Alphabet, and whether that could/should be included. We also have never established Morse code in the NSUN, but I assume it doesn't count as a RL reference.

4. AUTHORISES the following as internationally recognised maritime distress signals:
a) The spoken word MAYDAY, repeated where possible, transmitted via radiotelegraphic equipment;
b) Signalling SOS (…---…) in Morse code by any method;
c) Continuous sounding of any fog-signalling apparatus;
d) Gun or other explosive devise fired at intervals of one minute;
e) Rockets or shells with red stars fired singly at short intervals;
f) Square flag with ball above or below it;
g) Flames on a vessel, including burning tar or oil barrel;
h) Rocket parachute or hand flare shewing a red light;
i) Smoke signal giving off orange smoke;
j) Raising and lowering arms outstretched to the side;
k) Radiotelegraphic alarm;
l) Dye marker;
m) Orange coloured canvas with black square and circle;
n) National flag of the nation in which the ship is registered, flown inverted;

Perhaps there could be a line added allowing further signals to be added to this list by subsequent international agreements?

5. AFFIRMS that distress signals sent over radiotelegraphic equipment includes the location of the ship, if known,

Shouldn't that be "should include" rather than "includes"?

Does this require you to convert 50nm into kilometres?

I think that in RL most if not all "metricated" nations still use nautical miles (although these are redefined as being a particular number of metres in length) for distances at sea, so that (in my opinion) it should probably be considered valid terminology here.

Having reread Metric System, I've realized that only applies to nations, and not to legislation. So I don't think you have a problem.

Originally Posted by Cobdenia
4. AUTHORISES the following as internationally recognised maritime distress signals:
a) The spoken word MAYDAY, repeated where possible, transmitted via radiotelegraphic equipment;
b) Signalling SOS (…---…) in Morse code by any method;
c) Continuous sounding of any fog-signalling apparatus;
d) Gun or other explosive devise fired at intervals of one minute;
e) Rockets or shells with red stars fired singly at short intervals;
f) Square flag with ball above or below it;
g) Flames on a vessel, including burning tar or oil barrel;
h) Rocket parachute or hand flare shewing a red light;
i) Smoke signal giving off orange smoke;
j) Raising and lowering arms outstretched to the side;
k) Radiotelegraphic alarm;
l) Dye marker;
m) Orange coloured canvas with black square and circle;
n) National flag of the nation in which the ship is registered, flown inverted;

The problem with truncating the list is that circumstances may dictate that certain options aren't usable; the flags aren't any use at night, flares and fires are too dangerous to use on sailing ships, smoke and flares are no use during fog, radio signals excludes past tech nations (and your radio would cut out sooner or later if sinking), you could run out of flares/bullets/rocket parachutes before a ship comes, and setting fire to tar might be a bit excessive if it's just dighny that is sinking.

Anyway, I had to learn all these when I was in the Naval Cadets, and I don't want this utterly useless knowledge to go to waste!

Shouldn't that be "should include" rather than "includes"?
Yes

Does this require you to convert 50nm into kilometres?
NM's are considered metric. Sought of. It would make life far more difficult at sea if they used km, not due to the conversion, but because of the there relation to latitude

Also, what if the two ships are at war with one another? This also contravenes Article 1 of "Rights of Neutral States": declared neutral ships would have to be granted an exemption.
Well, if they were at war a captain could reasonably consider that attending to the ship would endanger the ship, a problem that wouldn't happen with a neutral ship.


I also wonder about mapping, and whether that merits a separate resolution, and also about the Phonetic Alphabet, and whether that could/should be included.
Shh...that's coming!


As mentioned, they'd be fucked. I mean, take France, for example:
*Wonder's if it would be considered flaming to say "Sod 'em, there only French"...*

*cough*

Seems reasonable enough.

I have to disagree with those asking for the list to be truncated. I think it's perfectly reasonable. The idea is to make the distress signals universal, as in, the only ones you should use, because they're the only ones guaranteed to be recognized (by ships belonging to UN member states). Now, I could sympathise with the truncation requests if two or more are only available in the same circumstances, but that seems to me to be the only reason. If there aren't any completely overlapping signals, then the list should be fine.

I would cut the first list of signals. The second - quarantine flags - I think is fine, but the first is long, and will lead to people picking at that ("flares are dangerous!" "why can't it be red?") rather than dealing with the - wholly admirable - substance of the proposal. Perhaps designate the allocation of an approved set of signals to the authority of Another Useless Committee. I'm not sure about the legality of giving it to the International Maritime Standards Bureau, given if the repeal of LotS passes, that loses its mandate, but it seems reasonable to assume you could redirect its use.


We don't agree with our distinguished colleague from Gruenberg on shortening the list of signals. We believe the whole idea is to have a wide selection of recognized signals, available to nations of all technology levels, and usable in a variety of weather conditions, sea states, and emergency situations.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I take it if you are at war with the nation the ship comes from, you are excused from helping? I know - it says "if you think you will be in danger you can let them drown" but that might not cover every situation.

And on that point.....


2. MANDATES that any captain or master of a vessel within fifty nautical miles of a vessel in distress attend to the incident, except when another vessel is closer to the incident, or when the captain or master of a vessel believes that attending to the incident may endanger the safety of his own ship,


Is just insane.
Firstly - how are you ever going to know if another ship is nearer unless that ship signals you.
Secondly - how would you ever prove that that was the case? I could say "yeah - that ship was 49 and 9/10 miles away, and I was fifty, so I didn't have to go".
Thirdly - attending any rescue puts a ship in danger - if the distressed ship is in danger of blowing up (something that can happen when a ship has fuel oil on it, I am given to understand) then coming close to it is dangerous. If the distressed ship is breaking up in to bits, a bit of it could strike the rescuing ship and sink it, so it's dangerous.

I know this clause wants to help, but it basically means that no ship ever has to respond to a distress signal ever again because you have given it so many out clauses.


And with the flag thing - you are assuming that all the people in the world of NS are not colour blind.

To respond to a few specific points raised....

I take it if you are at war with the nation the ship comes from, you are excused from helping? I know - it says "if you think you will be in danger you can let them drown" but that might not cover every situation.

And on that point.....

2. MANDATES that any captain or master of a vessel within fifty nautical miles of a vessel in distress attend to the incident, except when another vessel is closer to the incident, or when the captain or master of a vessel believes that attending to the incident may endanger the safety of his own ship,

Is just insane.
Firstly - how are you ever going to know if another ship is nearer unless that ship signals you.

First, the other ship may very well have signalled. Beyond that, there is radar and visual observation.

Secondly - how would you ever prove that that was the case? I could say "yeah - that ship was 49 and 9/10 miles away, and I was fifty, so I didn't have to go".

Possibilities include observation by other vessels, observation by aircraft, and satellite photography.

Thirdly - attending any rescue puts a ship in danger - if the distressed ship is in danger of blowing up (something that can happen when a ship has fuel oil on it, I am given to understand) then coming close to it is dangerous. If the distressed ship is breaking up in to bits, a bit of it could strike the rescuing ship and sink it, so it's dangerous.

While some at-sea rescues are hazardous to the resuing vessel, others are not. Picking up passengers from lifeboats and providing a tow via a shot line are two examples of rescues which might pose no hazard at all to the rescuer.

I know this clause wants to help, but it basically means that no ship ever has to respond to a distress signal ever again because you have given it so many out clauses.


And with the flag thing - you are assuming that all the people in the world of NS are not colour blind.

We believe the assumption is more likely that not all the crew of a potential rescuing vessel would be color-blind.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Is just insane.
Firstly - how are you ever going to know if another ship is nearer unless that ship signals you.
Because you'd be an utterly shit captain if you didn't know the location of other ships in the area


We believe the assumption is more likely that not all the crew of a potential rescuing vessel would be color-blind.

And the fact that (in RL), a colour-blind person is not allowed to be a deck officer on a merchant ship, or an officer of the watch on a Naval ship

Because you'd be an utterly shit captain if you didn't know the location of other ships in the area
If there weren't any shit captains, then we wouldn't need this proposal. ;)

Because you'd be an utterly shit captain if you didn't know the location of other ships in the area


Maybe. Maybe not. It's possible that military ships from other nations won't broadcast their positions. Further more the "50 mile" rule means that a ship could be just under 100 miles away from you - can you be sure every ship knows the exact position of every other ship in a 100 mile circle? (That covers an area of 7854 square miles, if you are curious?)


And the fact that (in RL), a colour-blind person is not allowed to be a deck officer on a merchant ship, or an officer of the watch on a Naval ship

And what this this being entirely based on real life I can see why that would matter.

2. MANDATES that any captain or master of a vessel within fifty nautical miles of a vessel in distress attend to the incident, except when another vessel is closer to the incident, or when the captain or master of a vessel believes that attending to the incident may endanger the safety of his own ship,

4. AUTHORISES the following as internationally recognised maritime distress signals:
a) The spoken word MAYDAY, repeated where possible, transmitted via radiotelegraphic equipment;
b) Signalling SOS (…---…) in Morse code by any method;
c) Continuous sounding of any fog-signalling apparatus;
d) Gun or other explosive devise fired at intervals of one minute;
e) Rockets or shells with red stars fired singly at short intervals;
f) Square flag with ball above or below it;
g) Flames on a vessel, including burning tar or oil barrel;
h) Rocket parachute or hand flare shewing a red light;
i) Smoke signal giving off orange smoke;
j) Raising and lowering arms outstretched to the side;
k) Radiotelegraphic alarm;
l) Dye marker;
m) Orange coloured canvas with black square and circle;
n) National flag of the nation in which the ship is registered, flown inverted;


Several of those methods don't actually have a 50 nautical miles range, so there could easily be ships within the specified radius whose captains honestly didn't know about the ships in distress...

Change it to read:

2. MANDATES that any captain or master of a vessel within fifty nautical miles of a vessel known to be in distress attend to the incident, except when another vessel that is able to assist is known to be closer to the incident, or when the captain or master of a vessel believes that attending to the incident may endanger the safety of his own ship,

Sadly, i have not so much knowledge on this topic and I'm unable to debate most of its details, but I want to say this is a nice opportunity for the UN, the draft seems fair to me, it's obviously an international topic and LAE will support it.

We would just like to say the following:
The nautical mile is accepted but no encouraged by the The International System of Units (SI), and it's not a "SI Unit":
http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter4/4-1.html

Table 8 lists some other non-SI units which are currently accepted for use with the SI to satisfy the needs of commercial, legal and specialized scientific interests. These units should be defined in relation to the SI in every document in which they are used. Their use is not encouraged.

Table 8. Other non-SI units currently accepted for use with the International System
(nautical mile, knot; are, hectare; bar; ångström; barn)




A nautical is fixed in meters and doesn't depend of lattitude:
1 nautical miles = 1852 m (1 minute of arc along a great circle of the Earth)
The nautical mile is different from the "UK mile" = 1 609.344 meter, it's why the term "mile" is also very confusing and we would prefer the use of a more efficient, standardized, international recognized unit: km.

OOC: as a memmber in RL of a warfighting Navy, I would like to add the few comments to the debate

IC:
The nation of Nucleardom will support this measure. We agree with the revision submitted that modifies section one to ensure that the ship is within 50 NM and is known to be in danger.

We belive that NM is comonly accepted by the majority of all nations (it is in RL) and as such, already meets the wicket of customary international law for use as a measurement of distance at sea.

We believe that the requirement to assist survivors or sailors in danger should most definitely extend to a warship whose country is at war with the nation whose ship is sinking. This obligation has been held as one of the most sacred by sailors since time immemorial. If a ship is in such distress that the opposing country's warship would need to rescure survivors, the danger to that warship would be minimal. The only scenario would be that the ship in distress had help coming which could put the warhsip in danger, in shich case that help would assume the obligation to help the sailors in distress.

As to the length of the list, we believe that it is wholly appropriate in its current form, and note that concerns about the inverted flag, while valid, are mitigated by the fact that it is only one of many signals. While some countries may not have this tool available too them based on any symmetry in their flag, that is no reason to remove that tool from someone else's use.

Sadly, i have not so much knowledge on this topic and I'm unable to debate most of its details, but I want to say this is a nice opportunity for the UN, the draft seems fair to me, it's obviously an international topic and LAE will support it.

We would just like to say the following:
The nautical mile is accepted but no encouraged by the The International System of Units (SI), and it's not a "SI Unit":
http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter4/4-1.html






A nautical is fixed in meters and doesn't depend of lattitude:
1 nautical miles = 1852 m (1 minute of arc along a great circle of the Earth)
The nautical mile is different from the "UK mile" = 1 609.344 meter, it's why the term "mile" is also very confusing and we would prefer the use of a more efficient, standardized, international recognized unit: km.

You are getting confused with longitude, as opposed to a degree of latitude, which always corresponds to about 111 km (69 mi), a degree of longitude corresponds to a distance from 0 to 111 km: it is 111 km times the cosine of the latitude, when the distance is laid out on a circle of constant latitude; if the shortest distance, on a great circle were used, the distance would be even a little less. One degree of latitude corresponds with sixty nM, or one minute of latitude is one nM. This makes navigation far easier. If you were to use km it would be far more inefficient; a vessel would have to convert 50km into nM anyway in order to marry their position with the position of the distressed craft, adding time to the relief effort.

Thought of another addition:

PROHIBITS the use of any of these signals at times when a vessel is not in distress, especially for the purposes of piracy or otherwise luring a vessel into danger,

i.e., you can't pretend to be sinking, lure an enemy ship over, and sink it with a flotilla of submarines

Also

PROHIBITS vessels from flying the naval, mercantile marine, naval reserves, and other ensigns, of a nation in which the vessel is not registered, or otherwise misrepresenting the nation in which the vessel is registered

Similar idea; you don't want a foe pretending to be a freind

You are getting confused with longitude, as opposed to a degree of latitude, which always corresponds to about 111 km (69 mi), a degree of longitude corresponds to a distance from 0 to 111 km: it is 111 km times the cosine of the latitude, when the distance is laid out on a circle of constant latitude; if the shortest distance, on a great circle were used, the distance would be even a little less. One degree of latitude corresponds with sixty nM, or one minute of latitude is one nM. This makes navigation far easier. If you were to use km it would be far more inefficient; a vessel would have to convert 50km into nM anyway in order to marry their position with the position of the distressed craft, adding time to the relief effort.

Ok, thanks for your answer

It seems I need to try to understand how to navigate without a GPS;)

The Most Serene Republic of Balsack finds this proposed resolution to be well-thought out and most appropriate. The concurrence of mariners has existed in countless situations where concurrence did not exist between their nations. Emergencies at sea are universal in their implications, and should be treated as such by all mariners. We fully support this proposal.

We would suggest, however, an addition to the list. Electronic distress signals, which would transmit an automatic message of distress, complete with time and latitude/longitude. We can call these devices EPIRB (Emergency position indicating radiobeacons ), and they may be purchased by any vessel who wants them. They would turn on automatically when inverted or when they come into contact with sea water. They should be attached in appropriate harnesses in appropriate locations on the vessel, where they would begin transmitting automatically in the event of a fast sinking, where a manual message could not be transmitted.
The categories of EPIRBS could be as follows:

Class A
121.5/243 MHZ. Float-free, automatically-activating, detectable by aircraft and satellite. Coverage is limited. An alert from this device to a rescue coordination center may be delayed 4 - 6 or more hours.

Class B
121.5/243 MHZ. Manually activated version of Class A.

Class C
VHF ch15/16. Manually activated, operates on maritime channels only. Not detectable by satellite.

Class S
121.5/243 MHZ. Similar to Class B, except it floats, or is an integral part of a survival craft.

Category I
406/121.5 MHZ. Float-free, automatically activated EPIRB. Detectable by satellite anywhere in the world.

Category II
406/121.5 MHZ. Similar to Category I, except is manually activated. Some models are also water activated.

All coastal emergency stations would constantly scan these frequencies within one year after passing of the resolution. Any ships so equipped with the latest electronics would also voluntarily scan these frequencies. All UN Member Nation-owned vessels would be required to have this equipment on board and operating one year after the passing of this resolution.

Woudl this be a good time to point out that a previous resolution requires all UN Member Nations to use the metric system, and so a proposal with "50 Nautical MILES" in could be deemed illegal on that point alone?

Woudl this be a good time to point out that a previous resolution requires all UN Member Nations to use the metric system, and so a proposal with "50 Nautical MILES" in could be deemed illegal on that point alone?

No, it wouldn't, as that only applies to nations, and not to the UN.

Still haven't changed that sig.

Woudl this be a good time to point out that a previous resolution requires all UN Member Nations to use the metric system, and so a proposal with "50 Nautical MILES" in could be deemed illegal on that point alone?

In fact nautical mile is accepted by the The International System of Units (SI), even if it's not a "SI Unit" and not encouraged by the International System of Units, as 1 nautical mile = 1852 m, so I suppose it respect the metric system.

Nautical miles seems to be more efficient for navigation, I didn't manage to understand exactly how it's more useful than km, but i will try to inform myself about it tommorow, that said if someone want to help me to understand navigation, thanks a lot.:)

In fact nautical mile is accepted by the The International System of Units (SI), even if it's not a "SI Unit" and not encouraged by the International System of Units, as 1 nautical mile = 1852 m, so I suppose it respect the metric system.

The only difference between systems is the unit. A unit is an arbitrary normalisation, to set the exact measure of "one." As such, NM, m, feet, are different systems.

Nautical miles seems to be more efficient for navigation, I didn't manage to understand exactly how it's more useful than km, but i will try to inform myself about it tommorow, that said if someone want to help me to understand navigation, thanks a lot.:)

There is absolutely no difference between systems, they measure the same thing. Historically, the NM corresponded to one minute of arc at zero altitude, which is an angular measure, so it made distances easier to measure using the stars and the sun. However, that was notably innacurate, so it was made precise some centuries ago.

Historically, the NM corresponded to one minute of arc at zero altitude, which is an angular measure, so it made distances easier to measure using the stars and the sun.

Ok, thanks, I think i get an idea how it's work now.

Also from Wikipedia:

Each degree of latitude is further sub-divided into 60 minutes (one arcminute of latitude is exactly one nautical mile or 1852 metres), each of which divides into 60 seconds. A latitude is thus specified as 13° 19′ 43" N
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattitude

Each degree of longitude is further sub-divided into 60 minutes, each of which divided into 60 seconds. A longitude is thus specified as 23° 27′ 30" E
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude

It makes sense now to me, thanks

No, it wouldn't, as that only applies to nations, and not to the UN.


Then would it be wise to point out if all nations are using the Metric system, it's not beyond reason that they might not use nor understand the term "nautical mile" since it will have been phased out under previous guidelines?


Still haven't changed that sig.

And I don't plan to. Everything I said in the post it links to is still true.

And I don't plan to. Everything I said in the post it links to is still true.

OOC: I am sure you are right. Incidentally, since you said nothing in the Microsoft homepage, that is a rather empty statement.

This does seem to be a good proposal. It will have Karlania's support.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Wortham

Description: Science has already coverted over to the far superior metric system from all other localized forms of measurement. I propose that all countries within the United Nations be converted to the Metric standard.

This would include all official research, roadways, and labeling. This would breakdown barriers in sharing of research and in the international marketplace. Tourism would also be benifited from the common standard. This proposal would mainly help countries of poor economic standing, whereas the common standard would improve their ability to compete in the international market place.

Science would also benifit from a unifide standard to taught in public schools, no conversions would need to be made.

It only effects research, roadways and labeling, and education in public schools. Although how you convert a country to metric (as opposed to standardising the measurements within the country) is beyond me.

The Most Serene Republic of Balsack finds this proposed resolution to be well-thought out and most appropriate. The concurrence of mariners has existed in countless situations where concurrence did not exist between their nations. Emergencies at sea are universal in their implications, and should be treated as such by all mariners. We fully support this proposal.

We would suggest, however, an addition to the list. Electronic distress signals, which would transmit an automatic message of distress, complete with time and latitude/longitude. We can call these devices EPIRB (Emergency position indicating radiobeacons ), and they may be purchased by any vessel who wants them. They would turn on automatically when inverted or when they come into contact with sea water. They should be attached in appropriate harnesses in appropriate locations on the vessel, where they would begin transmitting automatically in the event of a fast sinking, where a manual message could not be transmitted.
The categories of EPIRBS could be as follows:

Class A
121.5/243 MHZ. Float-free, automatically-activating, detectable by aircraft and satellite. Coverage is limited. An alert from this device to a rescue coordination center may be delayed 4 - 6 or more hours.

Class B
121.5/243 MHZ. Manually activated version of Class A.

Class C
VHF ch15/16. Manually activated, operates on maritime channels only. Not detectable by satellite.

Class S
121.5/243 MHZ. Similar to Class B, except it floats, or is an integral part of a survival craft.

Category I
406/121.5 MHZ. Float-free, automatically activated EPIRB. Detectable by satellite anywhere in the world.

Category II
406/121.5 MHZ. Similar to Category I, except is manually activated. Some models are also water activated.

All coastal emergency stations would constantly scan these frequencies within one year after passing of the resolution. Any ships so equipped with the latest electronics would also voluntarily scan these frequencies. All UN Member Nation-owned vessels would be required to have this equipment on board and operating one year after the passing of this resolution.


They're already in the list (Radiotelegraphic Alarms), but unfortunately it would be impossible to mandate their fitting due to the problem of developing nations, PT nations, as well as very small vessels (plesure craft, fishing smacks, etc)

The Sea-Faring Nomadic Peoples of Hou Mian will gladly and joyfully approve of this resolution, when we see it come up. As a nation of nomadic sailors, we are all very-well acquainted with the dangerous lady we love so much, the ocean. We are happy to be of any help we can, and can only hope that others would help us just as much.

Fu Huangdi
Khaghan of Hou Mian