NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't know if this has been done, so If it has I'll delete it, otherwise...

Imperial Airways (http://12.47.45.83/rendered/cooltext8278705.png)

Proposed by: Imperiux
Category: Human Rights
Strength: To be decided

This resolution is based on the knowledge that Air Passengers in some states are unsatisfactorily treating passengers and abusing basic requirements. This resolution aims to:

#1) Define a set of rules by which aircraft crew will have to follow. They must pertain of:

a) Safety: All passengers must be supplied with a lifejacket, this includes infants.

II) Inflatable life boats must be able to contain all crew and passengers and have no more than 20 to a boat with a aircraft crew-member on each lifeboat.

III) Disabled, pregnant, elderly passengers and young infants must be able to
have access to the lifeboat

IV) Passengers must receive basic instructions on how to operate emergency gear.

V) If the aeroplane crashes onto the ground then the crew must evacuate all living passengers

VI) In any emergency a head count must be taken

VII) If the plane is on fire, then no-one must enter the plane

VIII) First Aid must be prioritised

b) In-flight rules: Passengers must have the right to walk when the aeroplane is in-flight when the plane is level. They must be seated when the plane has landed, is descending or in event of strong turbulence

II) Passengers must be supplied with one sickbag each

III) Any passenger that might vomit in-flight must be given an extra sickbag just in case

IV) Passengers must be able to recline their chairs to a certain extent

V) Fold out trays must be available on every seat

VI) The crew are entitled to work in non-violent positions and must detain any passenger who is giving or threatening physical and mental abuse

VII) Smoking is prohibited at all times

VIII) Their must be at least one toilet facility for every 20 passengers

c) Medication&Disablility: Passengers who are required to take medication must notify their travel agent when they book, so we can prepare for any needs they might have

II) At least one of the crew must have a certificate enabling them to perform injections

III) Any drugs found on the plane will be confiscated and the passenger responsible will be held under civil arrest

d) Onboard food and shopping: Passengers are entitled to a hot and/or vegetarian meal in flight. Passengers which are prevented from eating certain foods because of religion must pre-order their meal

II) Drinks will be supplied with all meals (Tea, Coffee, Orange Juice and Water must be available) and desserts will be supplied for any meal other than breakfast

III) 5 meals extra will be supplied in case any meals are unsatisfactory

IV) Where possible goods will be sold

e) Banned Items: Any inflated Items

II) Firearms

III) Any model or toy gun, sword or other weapon

IV) Organic Produce

V) Recreational and illicit drugs

VI) Animals

f) Security: At least one crew member shall be certified to operate a taser when required

II) Flights for UN members must have a weapons locker in a ndisclosed location, which must be accesible by a passenger and a crew member

III) Figures of Law may board aeroplanes, and only fire guns when the aeroplane has landed. Also they are allowed to use lash Grenades

g) Toilets: No, we aren't the Mile High club

II) Any passengers found recruiting or joining the mile high club will face a fine

III) Smoking in a toilet won't hide the stink

IV) Crew member must regularly clean the toilets, in-flight

h) Inappropiate behaviour: Intimate Kissing/Snogging

II) Groping or fingering

III) Reading a pornographic magazine

IV) Not flirting with the crew members

V) Being rude to crew members

VI) Threatening crew members

If you have any comments, questions or additions please post away!

Are we turning the UN into the international equivalent of the US FAA?

No. Whatever that is. If it's anything like the Civila Aviatian Authority then no. I just thoguht that some passengers in ountries might be unfairly or poorly treated, so I brought this out.

Are we turning the UN into the international equivalent of the US FAA?

It isn't a bad idea actually.

First, if all airlines based in UN companies or flying to or from a UN port were to have higher safety standards than other non-UN airlines, then it is reasonable to assume that our companies would profit more than non-UN airlines (on average of course).

Second, international flights tend to have international passengers. In fact, Mikitivitians often fly with non-domestic carriers such as: Antiran Air Transportation Company (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Antrian_Air_Transportation_Company), SkyCeo (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/SkyCeo), and Baranxtu State Airlines (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Baranxtu_State_Airlines), especially because service into and out of Miervatia City's Flughafen Biberwiesen (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Flughafen_Biberwiesen) is extremely limited. The UN is a nice way to protect the safety of international air passengers.

In its history, my government's airship carrier, Eule Fluglinien (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Eule_Fluglinien), is not without accidents (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Flughafen_Biberwiesen#Incidents).

(OOC: Yes, there are plenty of other regions and players that do actively roleplay or neogitate out airline arrangements, and I'd like to encourage others to do so as well.)

Proposed by: Imperiux
Category: Human Rights
Strength: To be decided

This resolution is based on the knowledge that Air Passengers in some states are unsatisfactorily treating passengers and abusing basic requirements. This resolution aims to:

#1) Define a set of rules by which aircraft crew will have to follow. They must pertain of:

b) Safety: All passengers must be supplied with a lifejacket, this includes infants."B" where the hell is A?

II) Inflatable life boats must be able to contain all crew and passengers and have no more than 20 to a boat with a aircraft crew on each lifeboat.I would add the word member after crew otherwise it sounds like the enitre crew needs to be on every lifeboat. Oh, and where's I?

c) In-flight rules: Passengers must have the right to walk when the aeroplane is in-flight when the plane is level. They must be seated when the plane has landed, is descending or in event of strong turbulenceI would add during takeoff to the list of times that the passangers must remain seated and when the plane has landed needs to be changed because you usually walk off the plane after it's landed.

II) Passengers must be supplied with one airbag eachWhat do you mean by airbag?

III) Any passenger that might vomit in-flight must be given an extra sickbag just in caseOh, the UN's going to legislate barf bags.:rolleyes:

IV) Passengers must be able to recline their chairs to a certain extentAnd the function of the seats, why not include the right to have a tray table with their seats too.:rolleyes:

e) Onboard food and shopping: Passengers are entitled to a hot and/or vegetarian meal in flight. Passengers which are prevented from eating certain foods because of religion must pre-order their meal.

f) Drinks and desserts will be supplied with all mealsYou're going to give the passengers a dessert with breakfast?

g) 5 meals extra will be supplied in case any meals are unsatisfactory

h) Where possible goods will be soldYou want to put stores on the airplanes?:rolleyes:

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I would add the word member after crew otherwise it sounds like the enitre crew needs to be on every lifeboat. Oh, and where's I?

I would add during takeoff to the list of times that the passangers must remain seated and when the plane has landed needs to be changed because you usually walk off the plane after it's landed.


Actually my government would prefer that the proposed resolution focus on in-flight safety and not on in flight comforts. We believe a good business will treat its customers right, however, as governments it is our job to see to larger issues such as emergency prepardeness. With that in mind, we'll second the two additional items suggested by the people of Flibbeites.

Essentially I believe our two governments are ultimately suggesting that we support more of an "Airline Safety Guidelines" proposal. Now what UN category would that be ... hmmm, I'll think about it.

Cassandra Thonberger
Assistant Ambassador
Confederated City States of Mikitivity

I think human rights. It would help improve equality and fairness wouldn't it?

I think human rights. It would help improve equality and fairness wouldn't it?

As currently proposed, I see your point. However, Bob Flibble and myself have argued that some of the "creature comfort" clauses be replaced with more safety focused clauses, which is a public safety issue and public safety is always sort of a difficult type of activity to categorize using our "broken" UN resolution categories.

If the proposal focused more on telling airlines how to provide for safety *and* outlining some basic conduct of passengers, you might actually be drafting a "moral decency" proposal similar to the Good Samaritan Laws and Epidemic Protocols from October 2004. For example, requiring passengers refrain from smoking in the plane (arguebly to protect the health of the rest of the passengers) is trading a civil liberty for safety. The same holds true for Ambassdor Flibble's suggestion that we require that passengers remain seated during take off and landing.

While nutcases might cry "You are taking away my rights!" we are protecting the lives of the 99.9% of passengers and crew that want to arrive safely.

I'd also highly recommend that firearms be limited from airplanes, however, that might make a wonderful and short gun control resolution. It would be simple and since there is a specific category for restricting gun ownership, I'd highly recommend anybody wishing to pursue this idea first do what you've done here ... post a draft, but focus just on firearms in planes.

Just a question, but what would happen if you used a taser on a plane?
Just in case you had to stun a passenger would you be able to use them?

Just a question, but what would happen if you used a taser on a plane?
Just in case you had to stun a passenger would you be able to use them?


OOC: Actually this weekend a neighbor with a taser likely saved me from being beat up and mugged. Some kids thinking they were gangsters were tossing racist comments at me and when they threatened me, I said, "Fine, I'll call the police now" and they started following me. My neighbor went inside and came out with his taser and sparked it ... boy did that get the kids attention. It was over 12 18-year olds vs. 5 adults (one with a taser and me with a 4D maglite, my 6D is always at my bed side).

IC:
My government will take the position that only law enforcement personnel should carry tasers on board aircraft. Obviously a gun discharge could compromise a pressured cabin, so even law enforcement personnel shouldn't really carry firearms in the cabin. I'd like to propose that a gun control resolution:

1) Absolutely prohibit passengers from carrying any weapons on board the aircraft, though allow them to check weapons with the flight crew.

2) Require that UN flights have a special weapons locker (hidden location) that only the crew knows about, and where any weapons checked in by passengers are safely kept for transport from A to B.

3) Prohibit law enforcement officials from A or B from carrying firearms on board (though at the discretion of port A and port B they should be allowed other weapons).

4) Grant domestic sky marshalls legal authority in the aircraft based on the laws of the destination port until such a time that the plane disembarks at the arrival port. Also will allow destination ports to grant the sky marshalls from an arrival port the same rights as those fromthe destination port ... i.e. to encourage nations to coordinate their airline safety in-flight security programs.

These are just crude ideas, but after an international building code, airline safety is current the second highest international issue of interest to the people of Mikitivity.

a) Safety: All passengers must be supplied with a lifejacket, this includes infants.

II) Inflatable life boats must be able to contain all crew and passengers and have no more than 20 to a boat with a aircraft crew-member on each lifeboat.

III) Disabled, pregnant, elderly passengers and young infants must be able to
have access to the lifeboat

Even if the flight won't be passing over any significant bodies of water?

V) If the aeroplane crashes onto the ground then the crew must evacuate all living passengers

If the crew themselves are still in a fit state to do so...

VI) In any emergency a head count must be taken

Presumably by the crew?

VII) If the plane is on fire, then no-one must enter the plane

Except for firefighters, and perhaps any medical personnel who might be needed for the evacuation of casualties without causing them further injury?

VIII) First Aid must be prioritised

Putting saving the plane first might reduce the final number of casualties...

b) In-flight rules: Passengers must have the right to walk when the aeroplane is in-flight when the plane is level.

Even in the smallest of passenger aircraft, and for the shortest of journeys?

IV) Passengers must be able to recline their chairs to a certain extent

V) Fold out trays must be available on every seat

ditto.

VI) The crew are entitled to work in non-violent positions and must detain any passenger who is giving or threatening physical and mental abuse

Unless doing so would take them away from more important duties, such as keeping the plane in flight or administering emergency medical assistance... or where trying to detain a passenger who's giving them mental abuse would involve a serious risk of physical harm to themselves? What if it's only a small plane, with no separate compartment in which to place any detainees?

VII) Smoking is prohibited at all times

Abridgement of both liberty & national sovereignty: Operators should be free to offer 'smoking', 'non-smoking' & 'mixed' flights as they choose, subject to the laws of the nations where they are based.

VIII) Their must be at least one toilet facility for every 20 passengers

"There", not "Their". Presumably any planes carrying fewer than 20 passengers are exempt from this requirement?

III) Any drugs found on the plane will be confiscated and the passenger responsible will be held under civil arrest

Even legal drugs?

d) Onboard food and shopping: Passengers are entitled to a hot and/or vegetarian meal in flight. Passengers which are prevented from eating certain foods because of religion must pre-order their meal

II) Drinks will be supplied with all meals (Tea, Coffee, Orange Juice and Water must be available) and desserts will be supplied for any meal other than breakfast

III) 5 meals extra will be supplied in case any meals are unsatisfactor

Even in the smallest of passenger aircraft, and for the shortest of journeys?

e) Banned Items: Any inflated Items

Except for life-rafts in emergencies? ;)


(OOC: Out of time: Will continue later on...)

(OOC: Okay, I'm back...)

e) Banned Items: Any inflated Items

II) Firearms

III) Any model or toy gun, sword or other weapon

IV) Organic Produce

V) Recreational and illicit drugs

VI) Animals

Presumably there should be a 'I)' after the 'Banned Items:' & before 'Any inflated Items'?

Are these supposed to be bans on items actually accessible to passengers during flight, or do they apply to luggage that's carried but to which they lack access as well? Doesn't 'IV' make serving the specified meals during flights rather difficult? (and 'V' mean that alcoholic or caffeinaceous beverages can't be served with them, too?)
I note that the introduction to this resolution doesn't say that it only covers civilian passenger flights: The ban on firearms might be rather inconvenient for military flights, especially any ones that are heading directly into combat-zones (for example to drop paratroops...) .
This section seems like micromanagement of matters that should be determined at a national level, or by bilateral or multilateral treaties between the specific nations concerned for international flights.

Security: At least one crew member shall be certified to operate a taser when required

Remember the differing Tech Levels at which some of NSUN's members exist: Some of them might have aircraft but not tasers.

II) Flights for UN members must have a weapons locker in a ndisclosed location, which must be accesible by a passenger and a crew member

If its location is "undisclosed" then how can anybody have access to it, unless they find it either by chance or by a deliberate search?

III) Figures of Law may board aeroplanes, and only fire guns when the aeroplane has landed. Also they are allowed to use lash Grenades

'Law-enforcement personnel' is a more established term.
'but may not fire guns aboard them whilst those planes are still airborne'
"lash Grenades" = ?

g) Toilets: No, we aren't the Mile High club

II) Any passengers found recruiting or joining the mile high club will face a fine

Too colloquial.

III) Smoking in a toilet won't hide the stink

Is this meant to be a matter specified by UN law, or just an [unnecessary] statement of fact?

IV) Crew member must regularly clean the toilets, in-flight

Even on the smallest of passenger airplanes, and the shortest of journeys (and if nobody's actually used those toilets since before takeoff)?

h) Inappropiate behaviour: Intimate Kissing/Snogging

II) Groping or fingering

III) Reading a pornographic magazine

Please remember cultural differences, and leave this for either national law or local treaties ;) .

IV) Not flirting with the crew members

Did you actually mean to include the word 'NOT' there? ;)



Or, in short: It's a nice basic idea, but there's too much micromanagement...

1) Absolutely prohibit passengers from carrying any weapons on board the aircraft, though allow them to check weapons with the flight crew.


Can you define "weapons" without any major loopholes?
What if people are actually required to carry certain weapons -- even if these can actually be scaled-down versions -- by their religions? (OOC: for one RL example, Sikhs & the 'kirpan'...)?

Can you define "weapons" without any major loopholes?
What if people are actually required to carry certain weapons -- even if these can actually be scaled-down versions -- by their religions? (OOC: for one RL example, Sikhs & the 'kirpan'...)?

My government will not grant religions the right to circumvent the law, as Mikitivity believes in secular rule. The reason: if we allow religion to be above the law, it wouldn't take a terrorist any time at all to realize he or she need only found a new religion, say the cult of the Holy Handgrenade of Antioch, and argue that it is part of their religion to carry around handgrenades at all times.

The idea (not even a draft) is essentially a gun control measure, so by UN rules, it must represent some loss of gun freedoms. In this case, my government is advocating that passengers on international non-military flights to or from UN nations do not have the right to possess weapons while in transit.

OOC:
When coming back from Japan in 1995 after winning an essay contest, another essay contest winner bought a sword and when we flew to San Francisco he had to check his sword in the plane's weapons locker by handing the sword to the ticket person and asking that they give the sword to the pilot. Apparently he collected swords from other countries as well and was familiar with the airlines policies on weapons. When we arrived in San Francisco he had to go through a special customs check to retrieve his sword, but did with no problems.

Sorry for not answering your first question. :)

I'll recommend we avoid coming up with an exhaustive list of weapons, but rather simply defer the lists to a case by case basis for the port of entry and port of debarkation to agree upon.

If you are flying from Berlin to Nairobi, then the banned weapons list would be anything that the Germans and Kenyans feel unsafe. If your flight later goes to Cape Town and the South Africians have an even more restrictive set of criteria, you can still check in say a nail file on the flight from Nairobi to Cape Town, but the German rules no longer apply on that leg.

seriously, this is one of the worst ideas I've read -just delete the whole thing, already.

Sorry for not answering your first question. :)

I'll recommend we avoid coming up with an exhaustive list of weapons, but rather simply defer the lists to a case by case basis for the port of entry and port of debarkation to agree upon.

If you are flying from Berlin to Nairobi, then the banned weapons list would be anything that the Germans and Kenyans feel unsafe. If your flight later goes to Cape Town and the South Africians have an even more restrictive set of criteria, you can still check in say a nail file on the flight from Nairobi to Cape Town, but the German rules no longer apply on that leg.

Fair enough. In that case I'd suggest making this point clear in the actual resolution, if people agree that there has to be one...

Fair enough. In that case I'd suggest making this point clear in the actual resolution, if people agree that there has to be one...

That is a good suggestion.

Since this thread and proposal are not my government's idea, I'm leaving it to the people from Imperiux to decide if they'd like to make these proceed in this direction or not. :)

I tried to make a clause but I'm struggling with the language. If Miktivity wants to then I'll allow him to copy this thread, and delete this one.
Please tell me if you'redgoing to do so though.

Meaning no disrespect to the representative from Imperiux, we believe this proposal contains far too much detail and sinks deeply into the morass of micromanagement. We cannot accept that it is legitimate for the NSUN to legislate on things such as how many extra meals will be carried aboard aircraft and whether goods will be sold on planes.

Ausserland cannot support the proposal.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Meaning no disrespect to the representative from Imperiux, we believe this proposal contains far too much detail and sinks deeply into the morass of micromanagement. We cannot accept that it is legitimate for the NSUN to legislate on things such as how many extra meals will be carried aboard aircraft and whether goods will be sold on planes.

Ausserland cannot support the proposal.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Ambassador Barfanger,

If the delegation from Imperiux were to streamline and focus their idea into something focused on airline safety (obviously a point my government has been lobbying for) would the people of Ausserland be interested in such a draft proposal?

Howie Katzman

Ambassador Barfanger,

If the delegation from Imperiux were to streamline and focus their idea into something focused on airline safety (obviously a point my government has been lobbying for) would the people of Ausserland be interested in such a draft proposal?

Howie Katzman

Ambassador Katzman, we would be most interested in supporting an effort to improve international air safety. In fact, there is a draft proposal which has been posted here which addresses certain navigational and air traffic control aspects of the issue. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468007) We're currently working with the author to refine some of the language in the draft.

Airline safety is clearly an issue deserving NSUN attention. Provision of passenger amenities is not. We commend your effort to refocus this proposal appropriately, although we can't say we have much hope it will be successful.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

I hereby grant Miktivity the right to copy my proposal and perfect it as he wishes, with the single request he makes a better job of it than I did.

I would say with this kind of legislation you have to be careful you're not becoming a 'nanny-state', the last thin you want is to control every single aspect of your peoples lives, saying 'you must be able to seat this many people, you must not do this, don't touch that, leave that be, etc'. I would suggest trying to make the wording slightly more vague, so as to leave it open to a degree of interpritation, so certain people can see something to agree with, yet not be put off by other, unnecissarily strongly worded sections, like the 'mile high club' references, if someone fancies a shag in the bathroom, whats it matter to us? one of the first UN Laws passed stated that, whatever happened behind locked doors was of no concern to the state, unless there was reason to believe it was infringing other laws, e.g. rape.

I have to say tho, apart from tha, good idea, and well done

Well, If you were sitting behind a toilet and two people went in, and you started hearing moans and groans, it wouldn't be very pleasant. Also it's also very unhygenic.

As this stands its pure micromanaging of the highest order.

If you really want to improve air travel safety a set of miminum maintenance and safety equipment standards would have a better chance of flying.

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero

http://users.pandora.be/bdc/Tadj/tajair.jpg
Tadjik Int'l Airlines


#1) Define a set of rules by which aircraft crew will have to follow. They must pertain of:

a) Safety: All passengers must be supplied with a lifejacket, this includes infants.

II) Inflatable life boats must be able to contain all crew and passengers and have no more than 20 to a boat with a aircraft crew-member on each lifeboat.

III) Disabled, pregnant, elderly passengers and young infants must be able to
have access to the lifeboat

IV) Passengers must receive basic instructions on how to operate emergency gear.

V) If the aeroplane crashes onto the ground then the crew must evacuate all living passengers

VI) In any emergency a head count must be taken

VII) If the plane is on fire, then no-one must enter the plane

VIII) First Aid must be prioritised
Many of these rules already exist in most states, in fact without them an airline would take a great risk. Lifejackets and oxygenmasks are supplied standard in any aircraft and a proper explanation of how to use them can be provided by all crewmembers.
Making a head count during a problem is something that takes alot of time, instead time should be used to tell passengers at emergency exits wwhat to do, I also think it is obvious that you'll evacuate people from a crash site and prohibit them from going back.

b) In-flight rules: Passengers must have the right to walk when the aeroplane is in-flight when the plane is level. They must be seated when the plane has landed, is descending or in event of strong turbulence

II) Passengers must be supplied with one sickbag each

III) Any passenger that might vomit in-flight must be given an extra sickbag just in case

IV) Passengers must be able to recline their chairs to a certain extent

V) Fold out trays must be available on every seat

VI) The crew are entitled to work in non-violent positions and must detain any passenger who is giving or threatening physical and mental abuse

VII) Smoking is prohibited at all times

VIII) Their must be at least one toilet facility for every 20 passengers Do you expect us to hire extra doctors to find out which passenger may vomit more than another? We already provide every seat with one sickbag, if this isnt enough, they can call the steward(ess) and (s)he will provide a second one.
Furthermore, any plane nowadays has fold out trays and reclinable seats while the whole idea of having one toilet per 20 passengers is ridiculous. There are many types were this is not true and yet there are no problems.
A few examples of planes with one toilet but more passengers: Embrear 135 and 145, Canadair Regional Jets series 100-700, ATR42 and 72, Saab 2000.
Adding an extra toilet will force the company to remove several seats and thus miss the income from possible passengers. For one plane this is no problem, but most big airlines have a hundred or more planes.

c) Medication&Disablility: Passengers who are required to take medication must notify their travel agent when they book, so we can prepare for any needs they might have

II) At least one of the crew must have a certificate enabling them to perform injections

III) Any drugs found on the plane will be confiscated and the passenger responsible will be held under civil arrest
People with serious diseases need to be accompanied by anurse or doctors, otherwise they are not accepted. again, do you expect us to hire doctors to treat these people?
And if drugs are found the laws of the country the plane belongs too will count and not this resolution. It seems this resolution is trying to ban drugs, even in nations where they are allowed.
Not to forget that sick people may have drugs with them, will you arrest them too?

d) Onboard food and shopping: Passengers are entitled to a hot and/or vegetarian meal in flight. Passengers which are prevented from eating certain foods because of religion must pre-order their meal

II) Drinks will be supplied with all meals (Tea, Coffee, Orange Juice and Water must be available) and desserts will be supplied for any meal other than breakfast

III) 5 meals extra will be supplied in case any meals are unsatisfactory

IV) Where possible goods will be sold
Offcourse, Vegetarians and Jews(and others too) must preorder their meal, atleast 48 hours in advance to allow us to prepare it.
Furthermore it is up to the airline in question to decide what beverages it supplies on its flights

e) Banned Items: Any inflated Items

II) Firearms

III) Any model or toy gun, sword or other weapon

IV) Organic Produce

V) Recreational and illicit drugs

VI) Animals
Firearms have to be reported to the authorities and Check In Agent, an accepted weapon goes in the hold and nowhere else.

f) Security: At least one crew member shall be certified to operate a taser when required

II) Flights for UN members must have a weapons locker in a ndisclosed location, which must be accesible by a passenger and a crew member

III) Figures of Law may board aeroplanes, and only fire guns when the aeroplane has landed. Also they are allowed to use lash Grenades

No weapons on the flight/main deck. whether a stawrd(ess) is allowed to operate a taser or not is a decision made by the airline, not a resolution.
Figures of Law may board aeroplanes but their weaponry goes in the hold. Only with a document of the Main Intelligence Directorate and the approval of the Captain may this weapon be taken onboard with the passenger and even this is usually refused.

In the end, it is the Captain who decides what is or is not allowed on his plane. He is responsible for his passengers, not the UN or his government.

Simon Grinchik
Tajair Security Department

[center]http://users.pandora.be/bdc/Tadj/tajair.jpg


In the end, it is the Captain who decides what is or is not allowed on his plane. He is responsible for his passengers, not the UN or his government.

Simon Grinchik
Tajair Security Department

Nice logo. :)

Opinions on the details I'm not going to dispute, however, my government strongly feels that safety on international flights is much more than the responsibility of a single captain. The minute a plane flies into Mikitivity air space, it is the responsibility of the Council of Mayor. Knowing this, we recognize that other UN members may have similar feelings about objects and people in them above our air space, and feel that the UN actually is the appropriate venue to discuss safety matters which you may be assuming are routine for all international (read UN) flights.

It would be nice if the items you listed were in fact protected or that some minimum standards of safety could be established.

My government must add our agreement to the worries of micromanagement. While we agree with the spirit of the proposal, it goes too far down. A streamlined proposal which keeps the spirit while losing the details would probably be acceptable, we'll have to see what Imperiux or Mikitivity or whomever actually drafts this comes up with. We especially object to the clauses that require hot meals and items for sale, as well as the references to the "Mile High Club". These types of issues are up to the airline, not the government or the NSUN.

Nice logo. :)

Opinions on the details I'm not going to dispute, however, my government strongly feels that safety on international flights is much more than the responsibility of a single captain. The minute a plane flies into Mikitivity air space, it is the responsibility of the Council of Mayor. Knowing this, we recognize that other UN members may have similar feelings about objects and people in them above our air space, and feel that the UN actually is the appropriate venue to discuss safety matters which you may be assuming are routine for all international (read UN) flights.

It would be nice if the items you listed were in fact protected or that some minimum standards of safety could be established.

http://users.pandora.be/bdc/Tadj/tajair.jpg
Tadjik Int'l Airlines

The best way to improve the safety onboard is by giving the pilot/captain proper training and make him understand how important his role is. Then he will take his responsibility and refuse anything that could endanger his plane, crew and (other) passengers. The minute a captain loses control of the situation, he can always rely upon the Tadjik authorities(police and airforce) to help him solve the problem.
The authorities themselves try to help the captain in his task by constantly improving security in and around the airport.

When I saw someone propose rights for passengers, I thought they would discuss the minimal amount of money given to a passenger when he misses a flight because of a fault made by the airline.
Or the rights that a passenger has when he books his ticket. I was rather surprised to see that someone wants to regulate the policy a company has to or wants to follow.

Simon Grinchik
Tajair Security Department

The best way to improve the safety onboard is by giving the pilot/captain proper training and make him understand how important his role is.


That's a very good point. Any resolution about such matters really should specify that all aircrew must have been properly trained...

And wasn't there a suggestion in an earlier thread about a ban on aircrew operating whilst under the influence of alcohol (and other drugs?) too?

And wasn't there a suggestion in an earlier thread about a ban on aircrew operating whilst under the influence of alcohol (and other drugs?) too?

My government has in the past suggested that we feel that would be an appropriate recreational drug use PROHIBITION topic. Short, sweet, and very important.

Simply put, most of the air space over Mikitivity is in fact restricted (and enforced). We simply have enough trouble with skilled pilots slamming into the sides of the Thuvian and Solace mountain ranges. The last thing we need are 'compromised' pilots also raining down upon us.