NationStates Jolt Archive

The Ceorana UN Office has decided to take a crack at a sort of safety standards system for aircraft, somewhat along the lines of the Cobdenian effort for ships. Without further ado, here is our rough draft for comment.

Aviation Safety Act
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant

Description: The United Nations,

NOTING that air travel is a fast and efficient method of transportation, however

NOTING that without standards for air travel, it can also be dangerous,

DETERMINED to improve the safety of air travel to allow increased confidence in international trade and tourism,

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a. "aircraft" as any vehicle that travels through the air, such as airplanes, airships, helicopters, blimps, hot-air- and lighter-than-air balloons, etc. and is under the command of a civilian crew without military purpose or intent;
b. "civilian aircraft" as an aircraft under the command of a civilian crew for a non-military purpose and "military aircraft" as any aircraft being used for military purposes (including civilian aircraft that have been hijacked for military purposes);
c. "airport" as anywhere designated for any type of air vehicle to take off an land;
d. "emergency situation" as a situation on an aircraft in which eminent loss of life, property or the aircraft is threatened;
e. "international flight" as a flight by a civilian aircraft that takes off in one UN nation and lands in another;

2. CREATES the UN Team for Aviation Regulations and Mandates to Avoid Catastrophic Kinds of Erratic Disasters (UNTARMACKED) to create and periodically revise standards for air transportation;

3. AFFIRMS that all nations have sovereignty over their airspace, and that aircraft must respect any regulations made by any nation as long as they are in that nation's airspace except:
a. under clause 4;
b. in cases where the aircraft is assisting or conducting a military operation and the aircraft's nation of registration is at war or military conflict with that nation whose airspace is in question;

4. MANDATES that, in an emergency situation on a civilian aircraft, the nearest or most convenient airport to the aircraft where the aircraft could make a safe landing, as determined by the captain or other officer-in-charge of the aircraft, must allow the aircraft to land safely as soon as possible, and must allow another or the same aircraft or other vehicle to pick up the passengers and transport them to their final destination in a safe and timely manner;

5. CONDEMNS the attack of any civilian aircraft except when absolutely necessary and the disguising of military aircraft as civilian aircraft;

6. MANDATES that all passenger aircraft flying international flights carry safety items to adequately protect each passenger in case of cabin depressurization, water landing, rough/crash landing, and other emergency scenarios, the exact specifications of which shall be determined and periodically revised by UNTARMACKED and may vary with different types of aircraft;

7. DESIGNATES UNTARMACKED to develop and periodically revise a universal system of lights, insignia, signals, radios, and other methods of aircraft identification and communication that all aircraft flying international flights must use and that all crew members of such aircraft be familiar with;

8. DESIGNATES UNTARMACKED to develop and periodically revise a standard for minimum training and size of crew (including emergency preparedness training) and safe routes of travel for different types of aircraft that all airlines must abide by for international flights;

9. STRONGLY URGES nations to enact similar safety policies for domestic flights.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Whilst we think air travel is a reasonable subject for UN legislation, and we very much like Clause 3, we are concerned by the powers designated to UNATC - they should only be applicable for international travel, at most.

We are also strongly against Clause 5.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

4. MANDATES that, in an emergency situation, the nearest airport to the aircraft where the aircraft could make a safe landing, as determined by the captain or other officer-in-charge of the aircraft, must allow the aircraft to land safely as soon as possible, and must allow another or the same aircraft to pick up the passengers and transport them to their final destination in a safe and timely manner;Ooooohh, let's see ... so you've defined "aircraft" as "any vehicle that travels through the air" and made no exception for military craft -- so, if the Kawaiian Air Force jet was struggling over our airspace, we would be obligated to allow it to land and give the "passengers" (whoever they're supposed to be) another airplane in order to return safely to Sanrio City, or better yet, to wherever the warplane was headed on its mission?

5. BANS the attack of any civilian aircraft;Absolutely not. If a plane has been hijacked, and there is reasonable information to suggest the hijackers intend to crash it into Frowning Street, and there was no way for the air force to intercept it without firing a shot, we would be obligated to shoot the plane down. The safety of our own airspace (which you so kindly allow us the rights to), our own nation, and our own people is at stake. You will not usurp our responsibility to protect our people from attack.

[EDIT: Mr. Dioce makes an excellent point about this issue as well.]

7. MANDATES that all passenger aircraft carry safety items to adequately protect each passenger in case of cabin depressurization, water landing, rough/crash landing, and other emergency scenarios, the exact specifications of which shall be determined by UNATC and may vary with different types of aircraft;Split infinitive, you naughty boy.

Cmdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

I'm in agreement with Rono. Stick to international travel. If a purely domestic airline wants to have wonky safety standards, signals, or lights, then so be it. It ain't like they're affecting any other nations.

And what's wrong with attacking a civilian aircraft carrying important political leaders during a time of war? Hell, that's a smart thing to do.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

An aircraft is no longer civillian if it has been hijacked by terrorists. I think destruction of a building counts as a military purpose, don't you?

However, that should be specified in the resolution.

And the part about enemy leaders on civilian aircraft: I'd say that it might be a good thing to dequalify aircraft with leaders on it as civillian. Or you could just look at the carrying of leaders as a military purpose.

Ooooohh, let's see ... so you've defined "aircraft" as "any vehicle that travels through the air" and made no exception for military craft -- so, if the Kawaiian Air Force jet was struggling over our airspace, we would be obligated to allow it to land and give the "passengers" (whoever they're supposed to be) another airplane in order to return safely to Sanrio City, or better yet, to wherever the warplane was headed on its mission?
Whoops...I meant for that to only apply to civilian craft...I'll fix that.

Re clause 5: didn't think about the plane being hijacked. Kedalfax's suggestion is a good one, I think.

And what's wrong with attacking a civilian aircraft carrying important political leaders during a time of war? Hell, that's a smart thing to do.
I believe that can be incorporated.

OK, here's the new draft.

Air Travel Safety Act
Category: Free Trade/International Security/Global Disarmament/Human Rights (depending on how the draft shapes up)
Strength: Strong/Significant

Description: BELIEVING that air travel is a fast and efficient method of transportation, however

NOTING that without standards for air travel, it can also be dangerous,

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a. "aircraft" as any vehicle that travels through the air, such as airplanes, airships, helicopters, blimps, hot-air- and lighter-than-air balloons, etc.;
b. "passenger aircraft" as a civilian aircraft primarily carrying passengers, "cargo aircraft" as a civilian aircraft primary carrying cargo for civilian use, and "military aircraft" as any aircraft being used for military purposes (including passenger aircraft that have been hijacked for military purposes) or any aircraft carrying one or more government officials whose official duties involve a declared war;
c. "airport" as anywhere designated for any type of air vehicle to take off an land;
d. "emergency situation" as a situation on an aircraft in which eminent loss of life, property or the aircraft is threatened;
e. "international flight" as a flight by a passenger aircraft that takes off in one UN nation and lands in another;

2. CREATES the UN Air Transportation Commission (UNATC) to create and periodically revise standards for air transportation;

3. ASSERTS that all nations have sovereignty over their airspace, and that, in non-emergency situations, aircraft must respect any regulations made by nations as long as they are in the nation in question's airspace;

4. MANDATES that, in an emergency situation on a civilian aircraft, the nearest airport to the aircraft where the aircraft could make a safe landing, as determined by the captain or other officer-in-charge of the aircraft, must allow the aircraft to land safely as soon as possible, and must allow another or the same aircraft to pick up the passengers and transport them to their final destination in a safe and timely manner;

5. BANS the attack of any passenger or cargo aircraft;

6. DECLARES that no military aircraft may be painted like a civilian aircraft or otherwise deceive others into believing it is a civilian aircraft;

7. MANDATES that all passenger aircraft flying international flights carry safety items to adequately protect each passenger in case of cabin depressurization, water landing, rough/crash landing, and other emergency scenarios, the exact specifications of which shall be determined by UNATC and may vary with different types of aircraft;

8. DESIGNATES UNATC to develop a universal system of lights, insignia, signals, radios, and other methods of aircraft identification and communication that all aircraft flying international flights must use and that all captains, pilots and officers of such aircraft be familiar with;

9. DESIGNATES UNATC to develop a standard for minimum safe training, size of crew and safe routes of travel for different types of aircraft that all airlines must abide by for international flights;

10. STRONGLY URGES nations to enact similar safety policies for domestic flights.

It's just me but I prefer the real-UN body of ICAO since I'm used to their stuff.

carrying one or more government officials whose official duties involve a declared war;

I don't like this. They might be on a civillian airliner in a country with nothing to do with that conflict. How can that be said to be a military use? And then it might also mean that they can't even use airline transport because then it would be "deceptively" painted to look like what it is, an airliner, which is the primary means of transport for many government officials.

To use a real example, Tony Blair (and British PMs) typically charters a British Airways plane when he needs to go places. But Britain is at war (or was) with Iraq. Because his duties are involved in that war, for most of 2003 he wouldn't have been able to use his normal form of transport and would have to hitch rides with the RAF, which tends to not have such luxury facilities as cushioned seats. Or Vladimir Putin and Junichiro Koizumi can never step onto an airliner because Japan and Russia are still technically at war because due to a territorial dispute they never signed a peace treaty after WW2. Ditto Dutch and Portugese politicans, who have technically been at war since the 1500s. Or Koreans - the Korean War has never formally ended.

And then there's the fact that governments are typically civillan and made up of civillians. If they're going to fly over a country they're at war with I don't really see why that country should be forbidden by international law from shooting at them. But 1) that'd be stupid, UN resolution or no, and 2) it really can't be a military use unless they're doing something directly related to the war.

The way I see it, here are the issues:

- Originally, our UN office thought it would be nice if we didn't blow up each others plane's that were carrying innocent civilians going about their life.

- Then the point was brought up that we might want to assassinate people from each others' governments.

- Finally, there is also the paradox that if we're allowed to shoot civilians on the ground, why shouldn't we be able to do it in the air.

Therefore, I'm leaning towards changing clause 5 to an URGE.

Comments?

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

But all of those tend to be considered acts of war anyway. And even in wartime, targeting enemy civillians isn't likely to win friends and influence people, to put it mildly.

I'd say stick to the safety equipment and emergency landing safety guarentees. And please don't call it UNATC. It's confusing because in the abbreviation-filled and ambiguity-conscious aviation world ATC means air traffic control.

Perhaps just ban attacks on civilian aircraft except under conditions.

Aircraft is carrying officials directly involved in a war
Aircraft is flying in the airspace of a nation involved in said war

Makes a hell of a mess any way you put it, and we're appalled that some nations here would stoop so low as to shoot down a plane carrying innocents in an attempt at assassinating a foreign official. We are appalled in both our anti-war, anti-needless killing philosophy, and our mighty, hand-to-hand, warrior against warrior battles of the past. It's both cowardly and excessive.

4. MANDATES that, in an emergency situation, the nearest airport to the aircraft where the aircraft could make a safe landing, as determined by the captain or other officer-in-charge of the aircraft, must allow the aircraft to land safely as soon as possible, and must allow another or the same aircraft to pick up the passengers and transport them to their final destination in a safe and timely manner.
We don't like this one as we feel our people should have the final say to clear any aircraft to land at an airport in our nation regardless of the condition of the aircraft or it crew and passengers. A captain under duress will find any airport suitable to land at.

Also the idea of shooting down an aircraft that seems to be civilian is a bad one. As if one enters any restricted area or goes outside it's intended path of flight then it is considered hostile and given a chance to correct it's flight path or be shot down. Simple solution to prevent events that might come about from terrorists taking over aircraft and using them as weapons of mass distruction.. This goes for emergancy situations or non such situations as they only have to follow instructions during and emergancy and they will not be shot down and directed to a proper place to land. The captain in a non emergancy don't decide where their aircraft lands and they will not during an emergancy as we have policies in place here to deal with all emergancies and expect pilot or captains to follow those. As all who fly into our airspace are required to know them. Fail to follow and you are considered hostile and won't get to deep into our airspace until it's found you are safe to do so. Otherwise we shoot and figure out what the problems are later. If we find enough of the aircraft in the waters around to do anything with.

Also on clause 10 we think this needs to be looked at more. As some nations have domestic flights that enter international air lanes. Also many international flight take the shortest path and often cross into domestic flich lanes, especialy as they cross over larger nations by land mass. Then during those emergancies they might just for sure cross into domestic lanes since the captain can select where they land.. as they may find it best to land at a strictly domestic airport, thus come into problems since that airport is not prepared to handle international aircraft..... and the problems they might have that bring on an emergancy.

5. BANS the attack of any passenger or cargo aircraft;
Isn't this even worse? We now can't attack planes carrying cargos of ammunition, or troop supplies?

I agree with the previous comments that this should be removed, and instead concentrate on defining the powers of the committee, with regards safety regulations for international flights. Clause 5 and that sort of thing should be dealt with separately, as part of the more general rules of war.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Are you seriously suggesting that your government would prevent a foreign civillian aircraft in an emergency from putting down anywhere it needed to?


The captain in a non emergancy don't decide where their aircraft lands and they will not during an emergancy as we have policies in place here to deal with all emergancies and expect pilot or captains to follow those

Most definitely OOC: In case of an emergency lives are at stake and rules are suspended. Early on in my flight training it was emphasised that ANY rule can be broken in order to save lives, and aviation laws internationally reflect this principle. As if while dealing with an emergency the pilots can be expected to follow all the rules and procedures anyway, assuming the aircraft is in any condition to comply with the normal regulations in the first place.

Emergency or not, the captain does decide where and when the aircraft lands. The captain is in command of the aircraft. And if an aircraft declares an emergency, saying they can't land here and have to land where you say they land can have fatal consequences. What if you have a situation like this one? - http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/1998/a98h0003/a98h0003.asp

EDIT: As an explanatory note, the flight crew could have chosen to land anywhere. Time was of the essence in this case, and they likely opted for Halifax because they realised that, so that makes the closer airport the better option. The choice of Boston initially was because their airline had maintenance facilities there. Analysis has since indicated that they likely wouldn't have made it to any airport because of the speed at which the fire spread. What I'm trying to illustrate is that time can be a factor in air emergencies. I could also bring out this case - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236 to show you simply can't go dictating to an aircraft in an emergency where they can and can't land, not that any sane pilot would obey anyway.

Isn't this even worse? We now can't attack planes carrying cargos of ammunition, or troop supplies?

MILTARY PURPOSE!


I don't see anything wrong with this proposal. I think it could help save lives. I think that an aircraft should be able to put down wherever it needs to to save lives. I mean, what would happen if there were....

Snakes on a Plane!

Snakes on a Plane
OOC: Oh noes!!! Do a barrel roll 50 times for the win!!!

3. ASSERTS that all nations have sovereignty over their airspace, and that, in non-emergency situations, aircraft must respect any regulations made by nations as long as they are in the nation in question's airspace;

Okay, our first regulation is that if & when we are at war with any nation then that nation's military aircraft aren't allowed to enter our airspace...

Er, I think it's kind of a given in most cases that once you go to war with someone you're not really going to be nice to their military units.

Er, I think it's kind of a given in most cases that once you go to war with someone you're not really going to be nice to their military units.

But if the nation with whom we were at war was a UN member this proposal would bind it to respect our sovereign rights over our national airspace and refrain from sending its military aircraft in against our wishes... wouldn't it?

Good catch, St Edmund. Clause 3 now only applies to civilian aircraft.

I think I fixed most other problems people had.
Air Travel Safety Act
Category: Free Trade/International Security/Global Disarmament/Human Rights (depending on how the draft shapes up)
Strength: Strong/Significant

Description: BELIEVING that air travel is a fast and efficient method of transportation, however

NOTING that without standards for air travel, it can also be dangerous,

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a. "aircraft" as any vehicle that travels through the air, such as airplanes, airships, helicopters, blimps, hot-air- and lighter-than-air balloons, etc. and is under the command of a civilian crew without military purpose or intent;
b. "civilian aircraft" as an aircraft under the command of a civilian crew for a non-military purpose and "military aircraft" as any aircraft being used for military purposes (including civilian aircraft that have been hijacked for military purposes);
c. "airport" as anywhere designated for any type of air vehicle to take off an land;
d. "emergency situation" as a situation on an aircraft in which eminent loss of life, property or the aircraft is threatened;
e. "international flight" as a flight by a civilian aircraft that takes off in one UN nation and lands in another;

2. CREATES the UN Team for Aviation Regulations and Mandates to Avoid Catastrophic Kinds of Erratic Disasters (UNTARMACKED) to create and periodically revise standards for air transportation;

3. ASSERTS that all nations have sovereignty over their airspace, and that, in non-emergency situations, civilian aircraft must respect any regulations made by nations as long as they are in the nation in question's airspace;

4. MANDATES that, in an emergency situation on a civilian aircraft, the nearest airport to the aircraft where the aircraft could make a safe landing, as determined by the captain or other officer-in-charge of the aircraft, must allow the aircraft to land safely as soon as possible, and must allow another or the same aircraft to pick up the passengers and transport them to their final destination in a safe and timely manner;

5. CONDEMNS the attack of any civilian aircraft except when absolutely necessary and the disguising of military aircraft as civilian aircraft;

6. MANDATES that all passenger aircraft flying international flights carry safety items to adequately protect each passenger in case of cabin depressurization, water landing, rough/crash landing, and other emergency scenarios, the exact specifications of which shall be determined by UNTARMACKED and may vary with different types of aircraft;

7. DESIGNATES UNTARMACKED to develop a universal system of lights, insignia, signals, radios, and other methods of aircraft identification and communication that all aircraft flying international flights must use and that all captains, pilots and officers of such aircraft be familiar with;

8. DESIGNATES UNTARMACKED to develop a standard for minimum safe training, size of crew and safe routes of travel for different types of aircraft that all airlines must abide by for international flights;

9. DECLARES that the regulations in clauses 8 and 9 will be reviewed and revised yearly in order to account for new types of aircraft and other changing factors, and that airlines and nations may submit petitions to change regulations set by UNTARMACKED, which will be read at these yearly reviews;

9. STRONGLY URGES nations to enact similar safety policies for domestic flights.

Oh dear, that's even worse. Why not just UNCAO, UNCASO, UNCARSO if you so wish. Don't go for the confusing acronym, trust me, pilots will work out a way to pronounce whatever you come up with anyway.

Imagine one fine day at the flying club...

Jim: "John, there's a new bunch of regs for UNTARMACKED."

John: "What?"

Jim: "The UN thingy. Has to do with lights and stuff."

John: "They're sticking lights on the untarmacked areas of the field? What the hell for?"

Jim: "No. U-N-T-A-R-M-A-C-K-E-D."

John: "Come again?"

Jim: "The United Nations aviation agency thing. Uniform november tango alfa romeo mike alfa charlie kilo echo delta."

John: *stares blankly for a while trying to assemble the word together. He suddenly gets a look of comprehension* "Yeah, what about untarmacked? They're going resurface the apron or something? Cut the grass? What?"

Jim: "United Nations Team for Aviation Regulations and something. We need to put red blinking lights on all the aircraft."

John: "What's that gotta do with the tarmac?"

Jim: *puts snakes on John's plane*

UNTARMACKED... I love it! Just like UNSEAWORTHY suggests that stuff is unseaworthy, UNTARMACKED suggests that planes don't get tarmacked, e.g. splattered all over the ground! AH HA!

-laughs-

AH HA!

Oh dear, that's even worse. Why not just UNCAO, UNCASO, UNCARSO if you so wish. Don't go for the confusing acronym, trust me, pilots will work out a way to pronounce whatever you come up with anyway.
The pilots can call it what they want. This is a game, and it's supposed to be fun. Therefore, I shall have fun coming up with weird names for commissions. ;)

Now it needs a category. I can modify it a bit if necessary to help it fit properly. I'm thinking free trade, but it might need some changes. Thoughts?

Now it needs a category. I can modify it a bit if necessary to help it fit properly. I'm thinking free trade, but it might need some changes. Thoughts?

It has to do with the safety in international transportation. My chemical proposal hasn't been raising any red flags using the Free trade category. Perhaps Free Trade may work there as well, dressed up to make it safer for international airlines to do business.

First, I suggest editing the first post, or linking to the current draft in it.

Second, I'm still not happy about clause 3. It should be a declaration or affirmation, not an assertion - especially as Rights & Duties has already set this out - and military aircraft should have to oblige by our regulations too. The point, surely, is that they shouldn't have to in a time of war.

Second, I'm still not happy about clause 3. It should be a declaration or affirmation, not an assertion - especially as Rights & Duties has already set this out - and military aircraft should have to oblige by our regulations too. The point, surely, is that they shouldn't have to in a time of war.

Agreed. For that matter, what if any civilian aircraft are used to provide logistical support (probably "behind" the areas where fighting is actually in progress) for invasions? Are they still to be subject to the invaded nation's regulations? In my government's opinion a better wording for that clause would be something along the lines of_


3. AFFIRMS that all nations have sovereignty over their airspace, and that aircraft must respect any regulations made by any nation as long as they are in that nation's airspace unless
a/ they are in an emergency situation, or
b/ their own nation is at war with that nation;

Agreed. For that matter, what if any civilian aircraft are used to provide logistical support (probably "behind" the areas where fighting is actually in progress) for invasions? Are they still to be subject to the invaded nation's regulations? In my government's opinion a better wording for that clause would be something along the lines of_

OOC: The US does this very thing, with about 600 or so civilian aircraft tagged as reserves to be called upon for logistics and transport. They're still technically civilian aircraft, but they get tasked to assist in military operations.

OOC: The US does this very thing, with about 600 or so civilian aircraft tagged as reserves to be called upon for logistics and transport. They're still technically civilian aircraft, but they get tasked to assist in military operations.

OOC: I know, I read Tom Clancy's books... ;)

How about:
3. AFFIRMS that all nations have sovereignty over their airspace, and that aircraft must respect any regulations made by any nation as long as they are in that nation's airspace except:
a. under clause 4;
b. in cases where the aircraft's nation of registration is at war or conflict with that nation whose airspace is in question;

So we have:

Aviation Safety Act
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant

Description: The United Nations,

NOTING that air travel is a fast and efficient method of transportation, however

NOTING that without standards for air travel, it can also be dangerous,

DETERMINED to improve the safety of air travel to allow increased confidence in international trade and tourism,

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a. "aircraft" as any vehicle that travels through the air, such as airplanes, airships, helicopters, blimps, hot-air- and lighter-than-air balloons, etc. and is under the command of a civilian crew without military purpose or intent;
b. "civilian aircraft" as an aircraft under the command of a civilian crew for a non-military purpose and "military aircraft" as any aircraft being used for military purposes (including civilian aircraft that have been hijacked for military purposes);
c. "airport" as anywhere designated for any type of air vehicle to take off an land;
d. "emergency situation" as a situation on an aircraft in which eminent loss of life, property or the aircraft is threatened;
e. "international flight" as a flight by a civilian aircraft that takes off in one UN nation and lands in another;

2. CREATES the UN Team for Aviation Regulations and Mandates to Avoid Catastrophic Kinds of Erratic Disasters (UNTARMACKED) to create and periodically revise standards for air transportation;

3. AFFIRMS that all nations have sovereignty over their airspace, and that aircraft must respect any regulations made by any nation as long as they are in that nation's airspace except:
a. under clause 4;
b. in cases where the aircraft's nation of registration is at war or military conflict with that nation whose airspace is in question;

4. MANDATES that, in an emergency situation on a civilian aircraft, the nearest airport to the aircraft where the aircraft could make a safe landing, as determined by the captain or other officer-in-charge of the aircraft, must allow the aircraft to land safely as soon as possible, and must allow another or the same aircraft to pick up the passengers and transport them to their final destination in a safe and timely manner;

5. CONDEMNS the attack of any civilian aircraft except when absolutely necessary and the disguising of military aircraft as civilian aircraft;

6. MANDATES that all passenger aircraft flying international flights carry safety items to adequately protect each passenger in case of cabin depressurization, water landing, rough/crash landing, and other emergency scenarios, the exact specifications of which shall be determined by UNTARMACKED and may vary with different types of aircraft;

7. DESIGNATES UNTARMACKED to develop a universal system of lights, insignia, signals, radios, and other methods of aircraft identification and communication that all aircraft flying international flights must use and that all crew members of such aircraft be familiar with;

8. DESIGNATES UNTARMACKED to develop a standard for minimum safe training, size of crew and safe routes of travel for different types of aircraft that all airlines must abide by for international flights;

9. DECLARES that the regulations in clauses 8 and 9 will be reviewed and revised yearly in order to account for new types of aircraft and other changing factors, and that airlines and nations may submit petitions to change regulations set by UNTARMACKED, which will be read at these yearly reviews;

9. STRONGLY URGES nations to enact similar safety policies for domestic flights.

I'll edit the first post. I think it's almost ready for submission. What do others think?

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

I suppose a clause banning the transportation of serpentes via aircraft is out of the question.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

"The Imperial Aeronautical Survey of the Holy Empire of Saint Anns Bay suggests the removal of the implication of conditional sovereignty in clause 3. Perhaps this "Untarmacked", using flight path data and each nations Airline Safety Board equivalent, to come up with agreed upon emergency airports and protocols with each nation. This might create more bureacracy but provide a fiecely sovereign nation such as this empire to agree to this. Also, we are uneasy about including clause 5 as this has more of a chance to survive passage if it remains a purely safety resolution rather than bringing military concerns into it. You may perhaps have the Emperor-Saint's vote if this indeed makes quorum."

-Jules Amun-Kes, Chief Cleric for Aeronautics

I suppose a clause banning the transportation of serpentes via aircraft is out of the question.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA
Well, how about something banning hazardous materials on aircraft? Or is that beyond the scope of this proposal?

"The Imperial Aeronautical Survey of the Holy Empire of Saint Anns Bay suggests the removal of the implication of conditional sovereignty in clause 3. Perhaps this "Untarmacked", using flight path data and each nations Airline Safety Board equivalent, to come up with agreed upon emergency airports and protocols with each nation. This might create more bureacracy but provide a fiecely sovereign nation such as this empire to agree to this.
I'm afraid I have to disagree. In an emergency situation, the primary concern is saving lives, and that means that petty concerns of sovereignty must be put aside for the moment. If a plane needs to land, it should be up to the pilot to choose the best airport for landing, especially if they have left their planned path.

Also, we are uneasy about including clause 5 as this has more of a chance to survive passage if it remains a purely safety resolution rather than bringing military concerns into it.
Well, we in Ceorana consider our aircraft a lot safer if they're not being blown out of the sky by militaries of other nations. It's just a CONDEMNS clause anyway, so I don't think it will be a major problem.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Well, how about something banning hazardous materials on aircraft? Or is that beyond the scope of this proposal?
OOC: Actually I was just making a snakes on a plane joke.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. In an emergency situation, the primary concern is saving lives, and that means that petty concerns of sovereignty must be put aside for the moment. If a plane needs to land, it should be up to the pilot to choose the best airport for landing, especially if they have left their planned path.


"petty concerns of sovereignty" are not negotiable with some nations. I agree that life-threatening situations require special....considerations, but to allow what could be an easily-faked "emergency landing" to open not only airspace but populated areas to a well-planned terrorist or rogue nation attack is ill-adviced at best and foolhearty at worst. "Especially if the have their planned path"?!!? These are grounds for suspicion by any wary government. I am merely suggesting a better way of assuring that proper mutually-assured protocols between nations are agreed upon instead of one blanket clause. Some nations like yours don't apparently care about matters of national security but some do...I am suggesting you take both types into account

good day

-The Imperial Aeronautical Survey of The Holy Empire of Saint Anns Bay

I suppose a clause banning the transportation of serpentes via aircraft is out of the question.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

If there are any sapient serpentes out there, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this is so, then that would be unfair discrimination on speciesist grounds.

Lady Pyewhacket,
Security Officer (and head of Vermin Control),
St Edmundan Antarctic mission to the UN

How about:3. AFFIRMS that all nations have sovereignty over their airspace, and that aircraft must respect any regulations made by any nation as long as they are in that nation's airspace except:
a. under clause 4;
b. in cases where the aircraft's nation of registration is at war or conflict with that nation whose airspace is in question;

I could see certain nations using the imprecision of the term 'conflict' (which, after all, can mean anything from a mild disagreement in conversation right up to an all-out war) as a loophole in this resolution, and would suggest either clarifying or omitting it.

Well, how about something banning hazardous materials on aircraft? Or is that beyond the scope of this proposal?
OOC: Warsaw Convention.

IC: Beyond the scope of this proposal, I think - it would need to be dealt with in its own right.

I could see certain nations using the imprecision of the term 'conflict' (which, after all, can mean anything from a mild disagreement in conversation right up to an all-out war) as a loophole in this resolution, and would suggest either clarifying or omitting it.
Well, I'm kind of talking about things where nations are leading up to a war, and so may want to send spy planes or covert military units over...if I restricted it to military and cargo aircraft assisting with those operations only would it be OK?

I will heed the advice of Gruenberg about the HazMat.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

(OOC: The SoaP reference was good. :) )

Some nations like yours don't apparently care about matters of national security but some do...I am suggesting you take both types into account

Saving lives always trumps "national security". Always. If a plane has to land at a top secret military base then put blindfolds on the passengers before letting them out, whatever, but there is simply no excuse to deny them permission to land - as I've said before, no pilot knowing lives are at risk would comply anyway. National security is itself about saving lives anyway, so it's not as if the goals are contradictory.

Well, I'm kind of talking about things where nations are leading up to a war, and so may want to send spy planes or covert military units over...if I restricted it to military and cargo aircraft assisting with those operations only would it be OK?

Okay.

John McKay respectfully requests that the version in the first post be updated.

I'm almost ready to submit, but I have a legality concern: does clause 9 constitute metagaming? It seems a bit borderline...

You have two clause 9s.

9. DECLARES that the regulations set by UNTARMACKED as per clauses 6, 7, and 8 will be reviewed and revised yearly in order to account for new types of aircraft and other changing factors, and that airlines, nations, and other groups or people may submit petitions to change regulations set by UNTARMACKED, which will be read at these yearly reviews;
I wouldn't include this, because I think it is questionable...but it also seems like the sort of thing we have to assume committees do anyway. Reviewing policy makes sense: if we have to mandate committees do it, I don't see how we can trust them in the first place.

And I'm sorry, but this is not Free Trade. That's about removing regulations - this is an act to put regulations in place. I'd say International Security might be a better fit.

You have two clause 9s.


I wouldn't include this, because I think it is questionable...but it also seems like the sort of thing we have to assume committees do anyway. Reviewing policy makes sense: if we have to mandate committees do it, I don't see how we can trust them in the first place.
I removed that clause 9 and put "and periodically revise" into each clause, just to make things clear and avoid metagaming.

And I'm sorry, but this is not Free Trade. That's about removing regulations - this is an act to put regulations in place. I'd say International Security might be a better fit.
I got the feeling that free trade was about removing barriers - in this case the barrier of planes falling out of the sky, preventing people from trading and goods from being traded - not regulations. Free trade seems a better fit than International Security, which must "increase police and military budgets".

I got the feeling that free trade was about removing barriers - in this case the barrier of planes falling out of the sky, preventing people from trading and goods from being traded - not regulations. Free trade seems a better fit than International Security, which must "increase police and military budgets".
Look at the description:
"Free Trade" increases Economic freedoms...Economic freedoms primarily discuss how much regulation there is on business/industry...Total Economic freedom is Laissez-faire Capitalism. Zero Economic freedom is a completely government-controlled economy. Creating a Food and Drug Administration in all UN member nations, or creating a Securities and Exchange Commission in all UN member nations is imposing a mild form of Economic control, and therefore a mild reduction of Economic freedoms; you're imposing restrictions on what businesses and industries may do and you're moving away from a completely-uncontrolled Laissez-faire system.

Look at the description:

Yeah, I just saw that...but it seems to point towards Social Justice, which doesn't make sense at all...

But then again, copyrights, patents and MSSA all went in Free Trade, even though they established additional regulations on business, because they reduced non-governmental restrictions on trade.

But then again, copyrights, patents and MSSA all went in Free Trade, even though they established additional regulations on business, because they reduced non-governmental restrictions on trade.
That past resolutions have been allowed in free trade category doesn't mean this one should be. Much as I liked MSSA, it wasn't a Free Trade resolution, and shouldn't have been allowed as such.

That past resolutions have been allowed in free trade category doesn't mean this one should be. Much as I liked MSSA, it wasn't a Free Trade resolution, and shouldn't have been allowed as such.

I think it might have to come down to a mod ruling on this...I'm really not sure where it should go...

I could just add "BANS all protectionist devices on the trade of aviation safety equipment...:p ;) just kidding...

2. CREATES the UN Team for Aviation Regulations and Mandates to Avoid Catastrophic Kinds of Erratic Disasters (UNTARMACKED) to create and periodically revise standards for air transportation;

While I find this easy to remember air safety -- tarmack, I'm not a fan of forcing a description to an abbreviation. In other words, consider shortening the name.

I saw your request for moderator input on a category and I'm not exactly sure ... this proposal attempts to do several things. Like Gruenberg, I see Free Trade as a category designed to deregulate something, while I think what you are doing is really focused on safety (which is a degree of regulation). In the past we've used "International Security" for cooperative agreements on activities that involve multiple countries:

Tracking Near Earth Objects
Tsunami Warning System
Natural Disaster Act

An IS proposal is more consisten with how you've started to differentiate between civilian and military aircraft.

On that subject ... I like to top reference. In clause 3a you say except in clause 4. Though I don't have any easy rewrite, could clause 4 be promoted above clause 3?

Also, I think it is OK for nations at war to violate each other's airspace, but *also* to agree that these violations will still be considered a violation of their sovereignty. For example, me swinging my fist into somebody's face (for whatever reason) is still me assaulting the guy. The courts will worry about my justification later, but I violated him either way.

Basically I don't think you need 3b and 3a can be just an exception to clause 4.

Finally a blimp *is* by definition an airship, but an airship is not always a blimp. While I'm tempted to say you don't need both terms for aircraft, I know for a fact that most Americans don't know what airships are, though they do know what blimps are ... and frequently misidentify rigid airships as blimps. (Trust me here, I'm one of the few NS players whom actively RPs that his nation relies upon airships instead of fixed wing aircraft for commerical air transport. Don't worry, Mikitivity has fixed wing military craft.) ;) Anways, back to the proposal ... I actually *like* your definition of aircraft ... it is functional, but don't be surprised if somebody from Eule Fluglinien points out that a blimp *is* an airship when this comes to vote.

That said a more general aircraft definition might be "any airplane, glider or sail, airship, helicopter, or lighter-than-air craft". I think you may want to add gliders back into the list, though they are pretty much used for recreational and military use, and not commerial air traffic.

"The Imperial Aeronautical Survey of the Holy Empire of Saint Anns Bay suggests the removal of the implication of conditional sovereignty in clause 3. Perhaps this "Untarmacked", using flight path data and each nations Airline Safety Board equivalent, to come up with agreed upon emergency airports and protocols with each nation. This might create more bureacracy but provide a fiecely sovereign nation such as this empire to agree to this. Also, we are uneasy about including clause 5 as this has more of a chance to survive passage if it remains a purely safety resolution rather than bringing military concerns into it. You may perhaps have the Emperor-Saint's vote if this indeed makes quorum."

-Jules Amun-Kes, Chief Cleric for Aeronautics


OOC: Actually your suggestion helps with the need to classify this proposal as well. International Security resolutions infer some degree of "budget". What if each country was encouraged to have a plan to deal with emergenices ... these planes could be ground crews waiting for an emergency or military aircraft that can help guide an wayward vehicle to a safer landing place.

As a kid I remember seeing the alert fighters at Ellington Air Force Base ... they were guarded, armed, fueld, and ready to launch if needed. :)

Like this resolution; love the acronym even more!

As for catagory, the convention with the sort of thing appears to be free trade. Admittedly, I sorted of helped this convention on the way, but hey, convention's convention!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11611206&postcount=3

That said a more general aircraft definition might be "any airplane, glider or sail, airship, helicopter, or lighter-than-air craft".

OOC: So what about ornithopters? Surely there must be at least one nation that uses them... ;)

OOC: So what about ornithopters? Surely there must be at least one nation that uses them... ;)

Bwahahaha, perhaps we then say helicopters, hoppers, and other similar VTOL craft. Dinosaurs might be exempt though. ;)

Whilst discussion of a new proposal category continues, we have to accept such a change might take a while. There are, in the interim, salvageable bits of this proposal, aren't there? If the parts about providing aid/rescue to planes in trouble were fleshed out, it could be an International Security; there's probably also a Free Trade resolution in there somewhere if you were to generally promote air travel.

Why not work on making some of this into a resolution, leaving aside other parts for later, if/when a new category is added?

Whilst discussion of a new proposal category continues, we have to accept such a change might take a while. There are, in the interim, salvageable bits of this proposal, aren't there? If the parts about providing aid/rescue to planes in trouble were fleshed out, it could be an International Security; there's probably also a Free Trade resolution in there somewhere if you were to generally promote air travel.

Why not work on making some of this into a resolution, leaving aside other parts for later, if/when a new category is added?

I was hoping Frisbeeteria would have responded. His post in the moderation forum seemed to suggest that he felt nothing was salvagable, so I asked he if he felt otherwise and haven't yet seen a reply --> which only means we can talk about things and do as you've suggested (a good idea BTW), but I would advise not submitting even a trimmed down proposal until a moderator could weigh in. Besides, there are so many proposals in the queue, there should be no need to rush things.

I was hoping Frisbeeteria would have responded. His post in the moderation forum seemed to suggest that he felt nothing was salvagable, so ... I would advise not submitting even a trimmed down proposal ... Besides, there are so many proposals in the queue, there should be no need to rush things.
Essentially correct. I think it would be better to campaign hard for a new category than to shove this one into an existing box.

Despite the fact that it took over a year for the last category additions, we could conceivably push it through much faster. We had a lot of other irons in the fire last time, but things appear pretty calm right now. All we have to do is sell the admins on the idea, which (given their RL schedules) is the only hard part.

Essentially correct. I think it would be better to campaign hard for a new category than to shove this one into an existing box.

Despite the fact that it took over a year for the last category additions, we could conceivably push it through much faster. We had a lot of other irons in the fire last time, but things appear pretty calm right now. All we have to do is sell the admins on the idea, which (given their RL schedules) is the only hard part.

Thanks for the reply. :)

In the other thread, just how detailed should we get? Would it help if we pointed to *existing* resolutions that we feel might be better suited for this new category (demonstrating a need for it)?