[RE-DRAFT] Aviation Regulation Charter

[Voltrovia]

"The Voltrovian Legation is planning to submit this proposal in a few days - are there any views on the Charter that this chamber hasn't yet heard?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"If you submit this, it will be removed as illegal. It breaks the 3,500 character count limit. This, including spaces, comes to 5,613. Before I can pass any other criticism, this needs to be addressed."

[Voltrovia]

"If you submit this, it will be removed as illegal. It breaks the 3,500 character count limit. This, including spaces, comes to 5,613. Before I can pass any other criticism, this needs to be addressed."

[OOC: Oops, I forgot to upload my new draft.]

[Separatist Peoples]

"If you submit this, it will be removed as illegal. It breaks the 3,500 character count limit. This, including spaces, comes to 5,613. Before I can pass any other criticism, this needs to be addressed."

[OOC: Oops, I forgot to upload my new draft.]

"Much better. Well, we can't support this with Article V.v in place. The C.D.S.P. really gives no damns if one's aircraft is experiencing an emergency, all craft entering C.D.S.P. territory without prior permission are fired upon. We have no intention of allowing them to land, unless they had permission prior to an emergency forming. Also, it is generally customary, as well as easier to follow, to place the definitions at the start of the operative section, rather then at the end."

[Jarish Inyo]

I can not vote for this. We do not believe that forcing us to create a civilian oversight agency is acceptable. Nor do we believe that our aircraft should be registered and inspected by an international board. Our aerospace technology is a national secret.

We also do not allow non Jarsh Inyo registered aircraft to enter our territorial airspace unless they have filed a flight plan with us before hand. Any craft experiencing difficulty is on their own.

[Voltrovia]

I can not vote for this. We do not believe that forcing us to create a civilian oversight agency is acceptable. Nor do we believe that our aircraft should be registered and inspected by an international board. Our aerospace technology is a national secret.

We also do not allow non Jarsh Inyo registered aircraft to enter our territorial airspace unless they have filed a flight plan with us before hand. Any craft experiencing difficulty is on their own.

"But ambassador, all power will be vested with the national authorities, the IARB will only exist to aid them and ensure that these critical regulations are adhered to. What's more, no technology transfers will take place. The providing of manufacturing datasheets is all that is required in that respect. The charter is hardly asking for full sets of blueprints - at any rate surely the pilots themselves should have some source of data about the aircraft available in an emergency!"

[Voltrovia]

We also do not allow non Jarsh Inyo registered aircraft to enter our territorial airspace unless they have filed a flight plan with us before hand. Any craft experiencing difficulty is on their own.

"What if a civilian aircraft from Jarish Inyo was experiencing difficulties and needed to land but was refused. Would your government not be shocked by the needless loss of hundreds of lives. Anyhow, if your government perceives any real threat, it is in no way obligated to authorise any landings."

[The Dark Star Republic]

I can not vote for this. We do not believe that forcing us to create a civilian oversight agency is acceptable. Nor do we believe that our aircraft should be registered and inspected by an international board. Our aerospace technology is a national secret.

Out of interest, how do you then deal with the mandates of International Transport Safety, which:

MANDATES that all aircraft, seagoing vessels, trains & railway routes operating internationally, and their relevant infrastructures, conform to ITSC requirements, subject to exemptions in article 6. Nations may require transport based in their own countries to conform to higher standards

[Jarish Inyo]

To Voltrovia,

We do not believe that an international oversight board is needed to do what the national civilian boards already do. Any record of the aircraft can give away sensitive information.

No, we wouldn't be. Getting on a plane has inherent risk. One accepts that if they chose to fly. Our only concern would be why the aircraft was having difficulty.

To The Dark Star Republic,

It's simple. All Jaresh Inyo aircraft is government owned. And the only aircraft operating internationally are military craft on diplomatic missions. As such, our craft are not subject by many of the mandates of International Transport Safety.

[Voltrovia]

To Voltrovia,

We do not believe that an international oversight board is needed to do what the national civilian boards already do. Any record of the aircraft can give away sensitive information.

"But many nations either don't have civil aviation authorities at all or employ differing policies. Unless the policies are harmonised and the regulation standardised passengers will continue to be at risk and international trade and security will continue to suffer. As far as records are concerned, I for one simply cannot understand how requiring a flight manual that gives information to the pilots of the aircraft and anyone inspecting it is an attempt to reveal national secrets."

[Jarish Inyo]

What proof to you you have that nations don't have civil authorities. What proof do you offer that each nation having their own regulations are putting passengers at risk, compromises security or effecting international trade?

A manual gives away data that can be classified.

[Voltrovia]

What proof to you you have that nations don't have civil authorities. What proof do you offer that each nation having their own regulations are putting passengers at risk, compromises security or effecting international trade?

A manual gives away data that can be classified.

"I never said that individual regulations put passengers at risk. I said that the lack of standardisation does. I am sure that many nations in this Assembly have highly effective civil aviation regulations - I am also sure that a considerable number have inadequate or substandard regulations that do not fully preserve the safety and security of passengers. As far as international trade is concerned, if regulations vary dramatically, the legal and bureaucratic burdens must be immense.

Therefore this proposal simply seeks to set out some adequate and effective benchmarks for international civil aviation without severe intrusions into national sovereignty.

[Voltrovia]

"The Legation has made a slight alteration to VII. in order to remove any ambiguity over this charter's lack of effect on military affairs."

[Separatist Peoples]

"The Legation has made a slight alteration to VII. in order to remove any ambiguity over this charter's lack of effect on military affairs."

"Which doesn't really address the issues I, at least, raised, nor, I think, the concerns of Ambassador Nameless."

[Voltrovia]

"The Legation has made a slight alteration to VII. in order to remove any ambiguity over this charter's lack of effect on military affairs."

"Which doesn't really address the issues I, at least, raised, nor, I think, the concerns of Ambassador Nameless."

"We were fixing a grammatical error in a section currently under debate. We were not codifying the idea that air passengers should be stranded in the air and left to perish at the whim of the nation next door. Anyway, if your government was so much as to perceive any threat to your security, you wouldn't be obligated to let the aircraft land. I hardly believe that every nation in the WA is inclined to direct their air defences towards aircraft in distress and so we have decided not to remove the clause.

There is a possibility that VI.(v) is too overarching and isn't appropriate on its own as part this proposal. The Legation is considering this problem, but we won't change it for the reasons you've given."

[OOC: I'm thinking of getting rid of VI.(v) because it's out of place, but I don't buy that aircraft in distress shouldn't be aided in any way.]

[Separatist Peoples]

"We were fixing a grammatical error in a section currently under debate. We were not codifying the idea that air passengers should be stranded in the air and left to perish at the whim of the nation next door. Anyway, if your government was so much as to perceive any threat to your security, you wouldn't be obligated to let the aircraft land. I hardly believe that every nation in the WA is inclined to direct their air defences towards aircraft in distress and so we have decided not to remove the clause.

There is a possibility that VI.(v) is too overarching and isn't appropriate on its own as part this proposal. The Legation is considering this problem, but we won't change it for the reasons you've given."

"I could care less why you change it, so long as you do. The voting masses of the WA will likely take it very negatively to have to assist or even tolerate access to their nation by a craft, just because the owners were unable to keep it in the air. This is, after all, the same Assembly that turned down proposals with similar wording for naval assistance and even a ban on wartime perfidy. Honestly, if we can determine a damaged craft a threat and shoot it down as the text is currently written, I don't see the point in keeping the clause anyways."

[Jarish Inyo]

What proof do you offer that the lack of standardization creates a risk to passengers, risk to security, and is harmful to international trade?

The changes you've made not addressed my concerns. I can not support Sections V or VI.

[Voltrovia]

"We were fixing a grammatical error in a section currently under debate. We were not codifying the idea that air passengers should be stranded in the air and left to perish at the whim of the nation next door. Anyway, if your government was so much as to perceive any threat to your security, you wouldn't be obligated to let the aircraft land. I hardly believe that every nation in the WA is inclined to direct their air defences towards aircraft in distress and so we have decided not to remove the clause.

There is a possibility that VI.(v) is too overarching and isn't appropriate on its own as part this proposal. The Legation is considering this problem, but we won't change it for the reasons you've given."

"I could care less why you change it, so long as you do. The voting masses of the WA will likely take it very negatively to have to assist or even tolerate access to their nation by a craft, just because the owners were unable to keep it in the air. This is, after all, the same Assembly that turned down proposals with similar wording for naval assistance and even a ban on wartime perfidy. Honestly, if we can determine a damaged craft a threat and shoot it down as the text is currently written, I don't see the point in keeping the clause anyways."

[OOC: Look, I'm going to remove it. Your point about whether the WA might turn against the proposal makes sense and I've already weakened the clause so much anyway it hardly matters.]

[Sierra Lyricalia]

IV. NOTES that this charter takes various terms to have specific contextual meanings, therefore establishing that:

(i) It is taken that the term "airspace" shall refer to the air or sky above a country that is considered to belong to that country, inclusive of the absolute extent of the atmosphere.

I'm afraid this piece is an utter non-starter, Ambassador. Once the WA defines national airspace as encompassing "the absolute extent of the atmosphere" above a nation, that will mean that satellites and spacecraft in relatively lower orbits will of necessity pass through many nations' sovereign airspace simply by virtue of their inertia-determined resting paths. The status quo is far preferable, not least because no nation needs to seek permission to orbit a satellite along any particular vector. This definition will seriously complicate space travel, if not make it totally impossible to peaceably (or at least respectfully of nations' sovereignty) carry out. We don't particularly like the fact that other nations are capable of putting satellites in "our" sky, but there's really nothing we can do about it, short of military action; and of course all those "others" are in the same boat with our various craft. Defining national airspace all the way out to the furthest extent of the atmosphere (never mind that no craft with an air-breathing engine can even pretend to come close to making it that far up) will usher in at best a horrific bureaucratic shitshow; and possibly a bloodbath.

I note, however, that since the term "airspace" never again appears in the prospective resolution, not once, you can safely remove that section without remotely affecting the rest of your proposal.

[Voltrovia]

IV. NOTES that this charter takes various terms to have specific contextual meanings, therefore establishing that:

(i) It is taken that the term "airspace" shall refer to the air or sky above a country that is considered to belong to that country, inclusive of the absolute extent of the atmosphere.

I'm afraid this piece is an utter non-starter, Ambassador. Once the WA defines national airspace as encompassing "the absolute extent of the atmosphere" above a nation, that will mean that satellites and spacecraft in relatively lower orbits will of necessity pass through many nations' sovereign airspace simply by virtue of their inertia-determined resting paths. The status quo is far preferable, not least because no nation needs to seek permission to orbit a satellite along any particular vector. This definition will seriously complicate space travel, if not make it totally impossible to peaceably (or at least respectfully of nations' sovereignty) carry out. We don't particularly like the fact that other nations are capable of putting satellites in "our" sky, but there's really nothing we can do about it, short of military action; and of course all those "others" are in the same boat with our various craft. Defining national airspace all the way out to the furthest extent of the atmosphere (never mind that no craft with an air-breathing engine can even pretend to come close to making it that far up) will usher in at best a horrific bureaucratic shitshow; and possibly a bloodbath.

I note, however, that since the term "airspace" never again appears in the prospective resolution, not once, you can safely remove that section without remotely affecting the rest of your proposal.

"Oh yes, that section was included when the proposal was more, shall we say, wide-ranging...I shall have the clerks remove it at once."

[Jarish Inyo]

Very nice that you ignore my statements.

Again, what proof do you offer that not harmonized and the regulation standardized passengers will continue to be at risk and international trade and security will continue to suffer?

Why do we need to create an international agency be created? Why should a nation be forced to register their domestic airlines with a new created international agency?

We oppose the creation of a redundant international agency and the forced registration of domestic airlines. As this the bases for Section V, we can not support this. To begin with, there is already an international agency whose duties are to already makes regulations and enforces them on international transports.

[Voltrovia]

Very nice that you ignore my statements.

Again, what proof do you offer that not harmonized and the regulation standardized passengers will continue to be at risk and international trade and security will continue to suffer?

Why do we need to create an international agency be created? Why should a nation be forced to register their domestic airlines with a new created international agency?

We oppose the creation of a redundant international agency and the forced registration of domestic airlines. As this the bases for Section V, we can not support this. To begin with, there is already an international agency whose duties are to already makes regulations and enforces them on international transports.

"I am not ignoring you Ambassador. My point is that, if there is no minimum requirement for regulations then every many nation will have at least slightly differing policies and some nations will not have effective regulation at all. If there is such variation then some pilots will not have as much training as many of their international counterparts and may not even have complete flight manuals for the aircraft they are piloting - this lack of training in some nations and the associated problems put passengers at risk, would you not agree?

What's more, variation in policies and legal potholes borne out of not having a set of benchmarks (not even individual laws - benchmarks!) produces a bureaucratic nightmare, harming international trade (air freight organisations specifically) due to the sheer complexity of dealing with each individual system.

As far as the registration process is concerned, the requirement is in fact that the national agencies register them - and go on to submit this to the IARB as proof that they have registered their airlines. The IARB exists to monitor and support national regulators, not supersede and replace them.

The fact of the matter is that unless you, Ambassador, can prove to me that each and every member of the World Assembly has an air safety regime compliant with these standards already, this legislation remains sorely needed.

This charter has attempted to preserve sovereignty at every point - responsibility is vested with domestic aviation boards, the international board exists only to monitor and support, as I said earlier. The aircraft aren't 'internationalised', each nation isn't bound by a legal document containing the stone-set 'the rules of aviation' - instead we have proposed a set of benchmarks and guidelines for each nation to interpret and abide by. These minimum standards will ensure that each nation employs adequate safety measures, and my Legation quite simply doesn't see what's wrong with that.

[OOC: I'm sorry I didn't respond to you when you posted. There's no need to be upset about it though.]

[Voltrovia]

"The Voltrovian Legation is planning to submit this shortly. Unless any member has legal objections, we think that this proposal is ready to try for approval."

[Jarish Inyo]

I have legal objections.

Um, no. That's not how it works You made the statement that non standardization is dangerous to travelers, security, and international trade. Now you have to prove that your statements. It is you that has to convince me and others that this legislation remains sorely needed. You have not done so.

I do not agree that each nation having different training programs then another nation or pilots not having a flight manual for an aircraft is problems that put passengers at risk. A pilot is trained by a professional. If that person certifies the pilot can fly an aircraft, then they are qualified. An inexperienced pilot is partnered with a more experienced pilot. I do not see anything here that puts passengers at risk. Nor do I see any risk to security or international trade.

Variation in policies and legal potholes are not borne out of not having a set of benchmarks. They are produced by experiences that a nation has had. Those experiences dictate what policies are for that nation. I do not see this as producing a bureaucratic nightmare and harming international trade due to the sheer complexity of dealing with each individual system. If you're shipping something to another nation, then you load your cargo to that nations standards. It is not that difficult or costly to do so.

This charter does not attempt to preserve national sovereignty in anyway. Why would a nation have one of it's agencies have to register with an international oversight agency? Why do you believe that a nation is not capable of monitoring and supporting their national regulators. This charter is superseding and replacing the national boards. Your agency would make regulations for nations, enforce them and force countries to register aircraft with you agency. Where is the preservation of national sovereignty in any of it?

[Wrapper]

(iii) All commercial, private and state pilots must possess qualifications compliant with international standards and regulations as detailed by this charter, GAR#34 and other globally recognised standards of flight education and training.

The reliance on GAR #34 looks like a House of Cards violation.