NationStates Jolt Archive

Title: Air Traffic Control

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Damned PoPer

The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the increasing amount of international 'air traffic' (AT),
AWARE of problems accruing from different security-regulations,
BELIEVING in the importance of uniform standards for international AT control,
DECIDES to enact fundamental rules for AT control.

§1 DEFINES flights
a) by engine driven aircrafts or sailplanes as AT.
b) under 'instrument flight rules' (IFR) as AT with at least 'transponder and radio' (TAR) and navigational aid unlinked to 'visual meteorological conditions' (VMC).
c) under 'visual flight rules' (VFR) as AT with at least VMC.
d) under 'blind flight rules' (BFR) as any other AT.

§2 DEFINES 'controlled airport' (CAP) as airport with at least one 'air traffic manager' (ATM) responsible solely.

§3 DEFINES airsector
a) 'higher' (H) as 5 km to 20 km 'above mean sea level' (AMSL).
b) 'lower' (L) as 500 m above ground level to 5 km AMSL.
c) 'ground' (G) as below L.
d) 'airport' (A) as radius of at least 30 km around a CAP up to 5 km AMSL; overlapping are divided meaningful.
e) 'space' (S) as above H; not regulated by ATM.
f) 'exceptional' (X) at nations discretion within their territory for special reasons.
g) Aberrant regulations with approval of UNAO are possible.

§4 RESTRICTS
a) IFR to H, L and A.
b) VFR to L, A and G; TAR is obligatory except within G.
c) BFR to G on national discretion.
d) flights within X on national discretion.

§5 ESTABLISHES the 'United Nations Aviation Organisation' (UNAO) to
a) declare a 'common aviation language' (CAL).
b) define all designators for CAPs (CAPD), regions (RegD), nations (NatD), and airlines (AirD) as unique letter abbreviations of same length within group.
c) define appropriate substitutes for each technical or non-technical condition.
d) monitor national laws for conflicting rules.

§6 DISPOSES
a) CAL to be obligatory for ATM in addition to their national and IFR and recommended for VFR and BFR.
b) CAPDs to be composed of RegD, NatD, and an intrastate unique airport designator assigned by each nation.
c) every aircraft to have a radio callsign composed of either homebase-CAPD and intrastate unique license code number assigned by nation or AirD and airline-unique flight numbers assigned by airline.

§7 ENACTS that H, L and A must be operated by adequate numbers of appropriately trained ATMs; G may remain uncontrolled at national discretion.

§8 ENACTS minimum separation for
a) IFR in H, L and A of 5 km horizontal and 300 m vertical.
b) VFR in A of 3 km horizontal and 300 m vertical.
c) apron and taxiways of 10 m (visual separation must be possible) and runways (including the extended centerline up to 3 km) of one aircraft maximum; crossing and parallel runways closer than 300 m are treated as one.

§9 DEFINES for 'non-standard procedures' (NSP) priorities
a) 'top' as flights with an emergency, 'affecting the flight quality' (AtFQ) or health of a passenger or crew member.
b) 'second' as rescue flights.
c) 'third' as aircrafts with minor damage, not AtFQ, but demanding NSP.
d) 'fourth' as IFR in L and A.
e) 'no' as all other flights.

§10 ENACTS that all flights must be handled in priority order. Runways used by top priority flights must be closed and may be reopened after rectifying the situation.

§11 OBLIGATES ATM to take care of all circumstances affecting §§8-10 and take any action needed to guarantee the security of AT and aircrafts on the ground.

Co-Authored by Lapis Heaven

We are sorry for a proposal full of abbreviations, but the UN proposal submitting formular forced us to cut down the original length of ~6500 characters to 3500 characters maximum.

OOC:

1. Please consider posting proposals on the forums before submitting them; as much as anything, it means the resident wordsmiths can make them sound less like they're written in Engrish: 'overlapping are divided meaningful.' Wow, I didn't know that.

2. In no way does this seem to fit to the category. Vaguely mentioning security regulations in the preamble wouldn't seem to correlate to a Significant spending on military and law enforcement. In fact, I don't really see how it fits any category, but I won't mention that because it'll lead to usual attempts to clawhammer it into Free Trade.

3. I would really suggest removing some parts from this proposal, because it is ridiculously unreadable as it stands. Other proposals are edited down, and cramming in stupid abbreviations is, well, stupid. It reminds me of one English class: we all had to presentations of 15 minutes. One boy decided, rather than editing his work down, he'd simply read an hour's worth of material at a wpm rate that would defeat most professional rap artist. He then wondered why he got a bad mark, but we who had had to 'listen' to it didn't.

OOC: I have a feeling this is illegal:
Format

Remember where I mentioned needing more than rhetoric? Yeah, this is what I'm talking about. This also includes Repeals with no argument, Proposals that are questions ("Don't you think we should...?"), and Proposals that are just too incomprehensible to make sense of.

2. In no way does this seem to fit to the category. Vaguely mentioning security regulations in the preamble wouldn't seem to correlate to a Significant spending on military and law enforcement. In fact, I don't really see how it fits any category, but I won't mention that because it'll lead to usual attempts to clawhammer it into Free Trade.

It is the category, that fits best - that's all I can do since there is no "others" category...

3. I would really suggest removing some parts from this proposal, because it is ridiculously unreadable as it stands. Other proposals are edited down, and cramming in stupid abbreviations is, well, stupid. It reminds me of one English class: we all had to presentations of 15 minutes. One boy decided, rather than editing his work down, he'd simply read an hour's worth of material at a wpm rate that would defeat most professional rap artist. He then wondered why he got a bad mark, but we who had had to 'listen' to it didn't.

I think, it is comprehensible enough, because all abbreviations make sense. It's not like, we abbreviated "air traffic" with XG or something. If you read the proposal proper, you will be able to keep "CAP = Controlled Airport" in mind for a few lines ...

OOC: Sir... seeing as how the VP is such a VIP it's best to keep the PC on the QT because if it leeks to the VC he could end up MIA and then we'd all be put out on KP. (can anyone name the movie)

IC:

As soon as Mr Longbottom our lead translator finishes with the proposal we will have an opinion on it.

NSY
UNAAL
USoP

It is the category, that fits best - that's all I can do since there is no "others" category...
Bzzzzt, wrong answer. Proposals don't work like that: you have to write to the category.

I have no authority to say it's illegal, and I think the category is actually a lesser concern right now, but the mods have consistently rejected the 'it's the only one that fits' line in the past, so I don't see why they'd make an exception here.
I think, it is comprehensible enough, because all abbreviations make sense. It's not like, we abbreviated "air traffic" with XG or something. If you read the proposal proper, you will be able to keep "CAP = Controlled Airport" in mind for a few lines ...
I think, it is not comprehensible enough. I'm not interested in whether the abbreviations correlate to the full phrases: it's the fact you cannot read the proposal fluently, without having to constantly check back, all the time. Come on, you even abbreviate the word airport.

As to your ridiculous, hubristic and insulting suggestion I didn't 'read the proposal proper' [sic], no, I did indeed not read the proposal proper because it is physically impossible to do so. As someone's already commented, it's like reading a bowl of alphabet soup.

It is the category, that fits best - that's all I can do since there is no "others" category...

Sorry, I'm going to agree with Quintessence of Dust on this one. There's nothing in here about International Security, and thus it's in category violation.

What you have here is a fine series of technical regulations that some executive bureau would use to regulate air traffic control. What you haven't done here is establish any reason why it has anything to do with "improv[ing] world security by boosting police and military budgets".

We tried in the past to come up with a Standards and Practices UN category, but it was virtually impossible to do so within the constraints of the game. You basically have 3-4 coding choices that have to accurately reflect all the forms of possible choices within that category ... and the actual list of potentials would probably be closer to 50 choices.

Calling a screwdriver a saw won't help you cut lumber. Yes, it's a more limited set of choices than we might like, but it's the tool we have to work with. Take your idea (NOT your proposal) and compare it to the list of possible UN categories. Write your proposal to the Category, not the other way around.

crewdriver a saw won't help you cut lumber.

*pulls out board and screwdriver*

Hmm.

*starts banging the board with the screwdriver*

Damn.

I guess you're right.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

We are sorry for a proposal full of abbreviations, but the UN proposal submitting formular forced us to cut down the original length of ~6500 characters to 3500 characters maximum.

OOC: The Declaration of Independence has 6600 characters you mean to tell me you need as many to describe how planes should take off and land?

Uhh...

Now, as I SI, TUN doesn't NT crap LT on TB.

CPA?

Van Turin Lath
His Excellency the Ambassador of Allech-Atreus

I'd have to agree with most of the other opinions put forth that attempting to read this proposal without constantly checking back to see what the letters mean is rather difficult...there surely must be a less-involved way of describing what needs to be done, yes?

Additionally, the "Ground" airsector reaches to 499 m above ground? That would seem a rather generous definition of "Ground". And anything above 20km is space and not controllable? That is a pretty low threshold for space...

--Roger Outhwaite
UN Ambassador-in-Ordinary, Cwrulandia

(OOC: apologies if this is somehow off-base...this is my first time back in here for a long while; new country even...)

It's not CONTROLLED BY ATM

This is different from "not controllable" - it's just not adressed by THIS resolution...

And: It's not a definition of "ground", but a definiton of "airsector ground, abbreviated G"

[OOC: It's that way in reality, check ICAO page]

This would be a version without abbreviations, but exeeding the maximum length:

Title: Air Traffic Control

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Damned PoPer

The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the increasing amount of international air traffic,
AWARE of problems accruing from different security-regulations,
BELIEVING in the importance of uniform standards for international air traffic control,
DECIDES to enact fundamental rules for air traffic control.

§1 DEFINES flights
a) by engine driven aircrafts or sailplanes as air traffic.
b) under instrument flight rules as air traffic with at least transponder and radio and navigational aid unlinked to visual meteorological conditions.
c) under visual flight rules as air traffic with at least visual meteorological conditions.
d) under blind flight rules as any other air traffic.

§2 DEFINES controlled airport as airport with at least one air traffic manager responsible solely.

§3 DEFINES airsector
a) 'higher' as 5 kilometer to 20 kilometer above mean sea level.
b) 'lower' as 500 meter above ground level to 5 kilometer above mean sea level.
c) 'ground' as below airsector lower.
d) 'airport' as radius of at least 30 kilometer around a controlled airport up to 5 kilometer above mean sea level; overlapping are divided meaningful.
e) 'space' as above airsector higher; not regulated by air traffic managers
f) 'exceptional' at nations discretion within their territory for special reasons.
g) Aberrant regulations with approval of United Nations Aviation Organization are possible.

§4 RESTRICTS
a) instrument flight rules flights to airsectors higher, lower and airport.
b) visual flight rules flights to airsector lower, airport and ground; working transponder and radio is obligatory except within airsector ground.
c) blind flight rules flights to airsector ground on national discretion.
d) flights within airsector exceptional on national discretion.

§5 ESTABLISHES the United Nations Aviation Organisation to
a) declare a common aviation language.
b) define all designators for controlled airports, regions, nations, and airlines as unique letter abbreviations of same length within group.
c) define appropriate substitutes for each technical or non-technical condition.
d) monitor national laws for conflicting rules.

§6 DISPOSES
a) the common aviation language to be obligatory for air traffic manager in addition to their national and intrument flight rules flights and recommended for visual flight rules flights and blind flight rules flights.
b) controlled airport designators to be composed of a region designator, a nation designator, and an intrastate unique airport designator assigned by each nation.
c) every aircraft to have a radio callsign composed of either controlled airport designator of it's homebase and intrastate unique license code number assigned by nation or airline designator and airline-unique flight numbers assigned by airline.

§7 ENACTS that airsectors higher, lower and airport must be operated by adequate numbers of appropriately trained air traffic managers; airsector ground may remain uncontrolled at national discretion.

§8 ENACTS minimum separation for
a) instrument flight rules flights in airsectors higher, lower and airport of 5 kilometer horizontal and 300 meter vertical.
b) visual flight rules flights in airsector airport of 3 kilometer horizontal and 300 meter vertical.
c) apron and taxiways of 10 meter (visual separation must be possible) and runways (including the extended centerline up to 3 kilometer) of one aircraft maximum; crossing and parallel runways closer than 300 meter are treated as one.

§9 DEFINES for non-standard procedures priorities
a) 'top' as flights with an emergency, affecting the flight quality or health of a passenger or crew member.
b) 'second' as rescue flights.
c) 'third' as aircrafts with minor damage, not affecting the flight quality, but demanding non-standard procedures.
d) 'fourth' as instrument flight rules flights in airsectors lower and airport.
e) 'no' as all other flights.

§10 ENACTS that all flights must be handled in priority order. Runways used by top priority flights must be closed and may be reopened after rectifying the situation.

§11 OBLIGATES air traffic manager to take care of all circumstances affecting §§8-10 and take any action needed to guarantee the security of air traffic and aircrafts on the ground.

Co-Authored by Lapis Heaven

4261 Characters

Things to consider when you rewrite this:

1) Work out what category it is first.
2) 90% of this is micromanagement. Don't micromanage, it will only get you slapped.
3) If you must create a committee, let it handle the details. That way you don't try to enshrine technical issues in law, and end up crippling everyone when those technical issues become obsolete.

This still ain't International Security.

This still ain't International Security.

I know - that is why it got deleted. I'm waiting for an admin to tell me, wheather it fits ANY category or wheather i can throw 5 days of work in the trash can ...

There is scope to shoehorn something to do with this into international security, but you really need to get rid of the chaff first - and unfortunately that means about 90% of this. It would have been so much easier if you came to us 5 days ago ;)

Think first on why an international standard on air traffic control is going to improve international security, and stick it into preamble form. That'll give you a platform to do the legislation.

Edit: Actually I'd say you could do better with Free Trade by arguing the standardisation of the industry furthers commerce.

Well - now it got deleted. So we have 5 days (or more) to edit the proposal to dragoon it into a cat. (can i say so in english?)

Well - now it got deleted. So we have 5 days (or more) to edit the proposal to dragoon it into a cat. (can i say so in english?)

I don't know, can you?

Please, please, trim this down a lot (and, perhaps, go to some offsite forums for assistance in drafting) before taking another whack at this.

Umm... the question was: Is that correct english?

I'm sure this has been said before, but I'll say it anyway. You do realize that the category of international security affects UN members military? You should select the category first.

Well ... that's what this topic is about ... cat violation :rolleyes:

Umm... the question was: Is that correct english?

I don't believe there is an English phrase that uses "dragoon" in such a sense, so no, it isn't (if that is indeed the question you are asking).

OOC: actually there is, but it's getting a bit archaic.

IC: I think your only hope of getting harmonised regulations of any sort through the UN is to claim that they promote free trade. Which is at least partially true, though not with any great strength.

Perhaps the category of political stability? This sort of proposal would affect the civil rights of passengers.

Political Stability affects political freedoms, not civil rights.

OOC: The Declaration of Independence has 6600 characters you mean to tell me you need as many to describe how planes should take off and land?

Actually it is a highly technical process, not to take away from the game, but in the real life world, the FAA rule book (FAR/AIM) is a couple thousand pages long. And as I a pilot I have to know quite a bit of it :)

It is a nice proposal, but alas, a bit confusing.

I would use a simple lettering system....A, B, C, D, E, G for airspace

A would be your high altitude / spaceflight airspace

B is reserved for IFR commercial flights and VFR flights with special permission

C, D, E, are for VFR / IFR (as long as weather minimums are met)

G is for general aviation, mostly VFR traffic

Actually it is a highly technical process, not to take away from the game, but in the real life world, the FAA rule book (FAR/AIM) is a couple thousand pages long. And as I a pilot I have to know quite a bit of it :)
It is a nice proposal, but alas, a bit confusing.
I would use a simple lettering system....A, B, C, D, E, G for airspace
A would be your high altitude / spaceflight airspace
B is reserved for IFR commercial flights and VFR flights with special permission
C, D, E, are for VFR / IFR (as long as weather minimums are met)
G is for general aviation, mostly VFR traffic

OOC:
I still don't see how international air traffic control is a NSUN Matter? That and I know about the FAR/AIM, I work at a bookstore and we carry them for the Aerospace students.

Not to mention ICAO statutes, Letters of Agreement, Company Procedures, Special Procedures at an airport, Special restrictions of several airsectors by nations ...

OOC:
I still don't see how international air traffic control is a NSUN Matter?

As it involves interactions between nations it can't be handled at a purely national level and some form of international agreement is therefore needed instead... and NSUN Resolutions are a form of international agreement. The real problem with taking this approach is, of course, the fact that as currently written it totally ignores the existence of the many non-UN nations whose collective airspace is also likely to be on the flight-paths of many aircraft travelling between UN members...

As it involves interactions between nations it can't be handled at a purely national level and some form of international agreement is therefore needed instead... and NSUN Resolutions are a form of international agreement. The real problem with taking this approach is, of course, the fact that as currently written it totally ignores the existence of the many non-UN nations whose collective airspace is also likely to be on the flight-paths of many aircraft travelling between UN members...

OOC:
Which still begs the question, why make a UN Resolution about it, if Nation A who is abiding by this set of laws have to travel through Nation B who doesn't. It would be two different set of laws conflicting with eachother and that wouldn't be good for either nation A or Nation B.

OOC:
Which still begs the question, why make a UN Resolution about it, if Nation A who is abiding by this set of laws have to travel through Nation B who doesn't. It would be two different set of laws conflicting with eachother and that wouldn't be good for either nation A or Nation B.

OOC: But that begs the question, why make a UN resolution about anything, ever? In this case, the example is still a good thing to have, and if it's sensibly written there's every chance that other nations would sign up to it.