[RE-DRAFT] Aviation Regulation Charter

[Voltrovia]

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?

Those aren't legal objections - I've attempted to argue that variations in regulation create bureaucratic difficulties and that poorly trained pilots (i.e. those trained under lax regimes) are a risk to their passengers. You evidently don't agree with me. Do you have any objections to this on the grounds that it is against WA rules?

[Voltrovia]

(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.

[OOC: Thanks, I'll get rid of that.]

[Separatist Peoples]

"Ambassador Nameless, your arguments are, as usual, startlingly shortsighted."

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.

“I do hope you’re not being serious. If Bigtopian requirements for pilot training involved a 2 hour class and no flight time before certification was issued, would you honestly be comfortable allowing such a pilot to fly in your territory? Or if there were no copilots, just a single pilot, regardless of experience, flying a jet liner, would you honestly claim that there is no risk? Standardization ensures that everybody can rely on other nations to have competent pilots in charge of what essentially amounts to a slow-moving missile full of civilians. And before you try to tell me that Jarish Inyo security would simply deem them security threats and turn them away, how is the Jarish Inyo regulatory agency in charge of airspace supposed to have detailed information of every pilot in every cockpit available at a moment’s notice to check? Even if you can, you have to admit that this option would be infinitely cheaper and simpler for all parties, especially for the Jarish Inyo airspace regulatory agency’s espionage wing…By establishing a Least Common Denominator of standards, WA nations negate this, because, theoretically, every aircraft will meet the same minimum standards, and you are perfectly able to set your own, more stringent requirements atop the WA requirements, based on your own experiences.”

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?

“So a nation can be held accountable for violations. If C.D.S.P. aircraft accidentally spilled burning jet fuel onto a Jarish Inyo playground because of faulty, improperly maintained parts, you’d damn well want compensation. By registering aircraft particular agencies, fault and ownership can be determined easily. Likewise, if an aircraft dangerously threatens Jarish Inyo commercial aircraft outside of your territory, forcing a crash landing that aircraft can be identified based on a number of factors available, and the responsible party held accountable. With your system, a C.D.S.P. private aircraft could play chicken with Jarish Inyo aircraft in international territory, and when your government demands compensation for damage, we can say “Oh, we investigated it and found our pilots totally not at fault. No, you cannot appeal. Fuck off.” Which we would absolutely do in such an instance, the wellbeing of our citizenry being far more important to us then anybody else's' citizenry.

"WhileI can't say I entirely support this proposal, your arguments are bordering on the absurd, ambassador."

[Jarish Inyo]

I am being serious. If Bigtopian requirements for pilot training involved a 2 hour class and no flight time before certification was issued, would I would be comfortable allowing such a pilot to fly in my territory as long as they stay on their flight plan. And to answer your question, we do not care to have that information. Nor will we provide information on our pilots and aircraft to anyone else. We consider any aircraft not schedule and not on on the proper flight plan entering Jarish Inyo airspace, is automatically considered a security risk and removed from our airspace. The Jarish Inyo airspace regulatory agency doesn't have an intelligence branch. Nor does it want to know anything about the pilots or the aircraft that are allowed into Jarish Inyo. It's only concern is when any foreign aircraft last had its maintenance check as certified by it's nation's regulatory agency.

We do not agree that infinitely cheaper and simpler for all parties. We do not agree that the WA standardizing minimum standards will negate anything. Not everyone is on the same tech level. You can not have the same standards for a wooden biplane and jet liner.

A nation can not be held account for a business. If an aircraft accidentally spilled burning jet fuel onto a Jarish Inyo playground, then we would seek compensation from the business. I can't agree with you. I do not believe that by registering aircraft particular agencies, fault and ownership can be determined easily. I believe that it is already easy to determine without registering with an international agency. Simple fact is the aircraft in the scenario you mentioned would already be known, be tracked, and the owners known.

If one of our aircraft crashes, it crashes. If your pilots want to play chicken, good for them. We do not seek compensation for damages from other countries. We accept that their is dangers in flying. Including stupid pilots. Anyone willing to fly are made aware of this and have to accept the risks.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I have no words. Your response does a better job of satirizing the bastardized version of National Sovereignty that has become so popular in the past several weeks then I could ever have done. To the delegation of Voltrovia, though I cannot declare support, I nonetheless wish you luck in making quorum."

[Araraukar]

"I have no words. Your response does a better job of satirizing the bastardized version of National Sovereignty that has become so popular in the past several weeks then I could ever have done. To the delegation of Voltrovia, though I cannot declare support, I nonetheless wish you luck in making quorum."

At least, please, don't think all national sovereignists are the same. I would have wanted to see a clause where this all would only apply to flights that cross international borders.

Though I now wonder if this doesn't violate committee-only rule, since V. establishes the committee and says it's responsible of... VI. which gives the regulations to the committee. I don't see this telling the member states themselves to do more than to comply with the committee.

[Voltrovia]

"I have no words. Your response does a better job of satirizing the bastardized version of National Sovereignty that has become so popular in the past several weeks then I could ever have done. To the delegation of Voltrovia, though I cannot declare support, I nonetheless wish you luck in making quorum."

At least, please, don't think all national sovereignists are the same. I would have wanted to see a clause where this all would only apply to flights that cross international borders.

Though I now wonder if this doesn't violate committee-only rule, since V. establishes the committee and says it's responsible of... VI. which gives the regulations to the committee. I don't see this telling the member states themselves to do more than to comply with the committee.

The resolution brings in a number of regulations in VI. - V simply establishes a body tasked with enforcing these regulations. VI. simply introduces regulations in line with the mission set out for the body in V. They're separate and it's hardly structured as a committee-only resolution.

It doesn't give the regulations to the committee, it says that the committee's job is to support national authorities and enforce the charter's (separate) regulations, which are then detailed below. Just because the IARB is important to the regulatory regime as a whole doesn't mean that it is one with each and every regulation proposed.

[OOC: Sorry for the edits, my grammar didn't have a good time in this post!]

[Separatist Peoples]

At least, please, don't think all national sovereignists are the same. I would have wanted to see a clause where this all would only apply to flights that cross international borders.

"Ambassador, I am, and have always been, a National Sovereigntist. While I'm a centrist within that subset, and while I have no love for this proposal, I have little tolerance for those who use arguments of absurdity and claim to be cut of the same cloth. This level of obtuseness is why many consider National Sovereignty to have degraded beyond intellectual defense..."

[Voltrovia]

"I have no words. Your response does a better job of satirizing the bastardized version of National Sovereignty that has become so popular in the past several weeks then I could ever have done. To the delegation of Voltrovia, though I cannot declare support, I nonetheless wish you luck in making quorum."

Ambassador, thank you for your kind and helpful words. We respect your position on this proposal but I hope that we can all agree that this submission, for all of its faults, is hardly a gross violation of the very foundations of national sovereignty as some of the members of this assembly would have us believe."

[Wrapper]

At least, please, don't think all national sovereignists are the same. I would have wanted to see a clause where this all would only apply to flights that cross international borders.

"Ambassador, I am, and have always been, a National Sovereigntist. While I'm a centrist within that subset, and while I have no love for this proposal, I have little tolerance for those who use arguments of absurdity and claim to be cut of the same cloth. This level of obtuseness is why many consider National Sovereignty to have degraded beyond intellectual defense..."

Ambassador Bell, you seemed to offer tenuous support when this process started a few months ago. What has changed in your mind? Just curious, as we don't find anything too objectionable in the submitted draft, aside from some inconsistent formatting with bold and italic text, which irritates poor Wad Ahume's eyes.

Ari lightly taps Ahume on the shoulder with the back of his hand. Ahume, who was obviously not paying attention, finally nods and wipes his left eye.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ambassador Bell, you seemed to offer tenuous support when this process started a few months ago. What has changed in your mind? Just curious, as we don't find anything too objectionable in the submitted draft, aside from some inconsistent formatting with bold and italic text, which irritates poor Wad Ahume's eyes.

Ari lightly taps Ahume on the shoulder with the back of his hand. Ahume, who was obviously not paying attention, finally nods and wipes his left eye.

"Did you mean tentative, ambassador? There's nothing especially objectionable, no. I believe it could use more fine-tuning, especially in the formatting details and some polishing grammatically and stylistically. I don't believe this was ready for a test run, and I'm not sure it effectively addresses all the issues inherent to this topic as well as I'd like. That's not to say it needs more to it, but it isn't as efficient as it could be. I've held off on a detailed critique due to the unfamiliar subject matter, but my interns are developing a briefing as we debate."

[Hakio]

"I support this resolution," Sia states before drinking from the straw of a giant soft drink and biting into a cheesesteak.

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

I do not think this is a good idea. It's just more unnecessary World Assembly bureaucracy that will become inactive in the future anyway.

Besides that, there are already independent aviation unions (plenty that are active). We don't need another one.

If it comes to vote, you should expect to see a no vote from me and those in my region.

[Hakio]

I do not think this is a good idea. It's just more unnecessary World Assembly bureaucracy that will become inactive in the future anyway.

Besides that, there are already independent aviation unions (plenty that are active). We don't need another one.

If it comes to vote, you should expect to see a no vote from me and those in my region.

"World Assembly bureaucracy is marvelous though, Mr. Ken Ham!"
By the way, the answers to the universe are not in Genesis.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We are somewhat uncertain about Article VI-v in the proposal:

Furthermore, all member states as defined by this charter must possess some authority or body on a national level that is vested with responsibility over civil aviation and its regulation and fulfils the role of a national aviation regulator.

Not all nations possess national-level authorities over industry like this. For example, our own national airline, Air Kawaii, is in fact not "national" at all, but a partnership jointly operated by a number of our tribal governments. These governments have worked out a common set of regulations between them without input from the central Church authority. (And honestly, our Council of Elders has better things to do with their time than write aviation regulations.)

So, how does this proposal affect loosely federal or confederate governments? It would seem to be forcing us to establish national regulations on commerce, which is against our Church discipline.

[Voltrovia]

I do not think this is a good idea. It's just more unnecessary World Assembly bureaucracy that will become inactive in the future anyway.

Besides that, there are already independent aviation unions (plenty that are active). We don't need another one.

If it comes to vote, you should expect to see a no vote from me and those in my region.

"Ambassador, if you are referring to labour unions, then I must politely inform you that they have very little to do with this proposal, which seeks to establish a set of credible and necessary benchmarks for the aviation industry for enforcement by national regulators and an international watchdog.

If you are referring to arline unions and alliances, I must also politely inform you that they have very little to do with this proposal - the IARB isn't going to be an alliance for airlines, it is going to support national regulators in performing their duties (i.e. certification, inspection, investigation) .

If you feel this is unnecessary and bureaucratic, can you please explain why?

[Jarish Inyo]

No, the IARB is gonna take over the national boards. As it stands, the IARB isn't needed. The WA already has a committee that sets regulations and benchmarks for all forms international transportation. The author has never explained why the WA should interfere with national airlines. Or why there is a need for the WA to have an international watchdog on national airlines. Or why he believes that any nation is unable to regulate national airlines without WA interference.

[Voltrovia]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We are somewhat uncertain about Article VI-v in the proposal:

Furthermore, all member states as defined by this charter must possess some authority or body on a national level that is vested with responsibility over civil aviation and its regulation and fulfils the role of a national aviation regulator.

Not all nations possess national-level authorities over industry like this. For example, our own national airline, Air Kawaii, is in fact not "national" at all, but a partnership jointly operated by a number of our tribal governments. These governments have worked out a common set of regulations between them without input from the central Church authority. (And honestly, our Council of Elders has better things to do with their time than write aviation regulations.)

So, how does this proposal affect loosely federal or confederate governments? It would seem to be forcing us to establish national regulations on commerce, which is against our Church discipline.

"Fear not, Ambassador! As I understand it, your nation's needs would be more adequately satisfied by establishing a small regulator for each tribal government and then allowing them to cooperate with each other and their governments on building an effective set of regulations. This model was planned for nations such as yours and allowed for in the definition of a "national aviation regulator":

(i) It is established that the terms "national aviation regulator" and "relevant national authority" shall refer to the authority or body, or authorities or bodies, responsible for the lawful conduct and regulation of civil aviation within a member state.

In short, multiple bodies are perfectly legal under this proposal.

There is no specific requirement for a national-level body (the clause you quoted that uses national loosely and refers back to fulfilling the role of a "national aviation regulator" anyway) and VI.(v) is obviously referring to a body that satisfies the definition requirements and operates nationally as the minimum. A group of tribal regulators each individually working at a regional level would have no quarrel with either the definition or VI.(v) so long as the group of regulators combined remit did extend nationwide, if you understand my meaning. At any rate, I hope that the system I've suggested meets your needs."

[Voltrovia]

No, the IARB is gonna take over the national boards.

"No, it isn't. In many cases the proposal which would establish the IARB would also actually establish sovereign national boards. On what basis did you reach that extraordinary conclusion?"

As it stands, the IARB isn't needed.

"Ambassador, I have stated on many occasions on why it is needed. I hope that the submission has a reasonably good job of justifying itself as well. You and I evidently don't agree. Could you perhaps explain to me why the nations of the WA don't need it?"

The WA already has a committee that sets regulations and benchmarks for all forms international transportation.
"That is a very different resolution that doesn't deal with many of the specific problems faced by the aviation industry - if that was the case this proposal would have long ago been ruled illegal. My Legation was in fact able to cite the achievements and limitations of GAR#34 as a motivation for separate and specific aviation regulations until it was kindly pointed out that citing GAR#34 in that way was in fact not allowed."

The author has never explained why the WA should interfere with national airlines.

"The Voltrovian Legation has done so on many occasions. The VL has also repeatedly explained why this doesn't interfere with national airlines or governments but actually supports them and their passengers. If you are asking why the resolution deals with these problems, it is because civil airlines make up the vast majority of civil aviation traffic..."

Or why there is a need for the WA to have an international watchdog on national airlines. Or why he believes that any nation is unable to regulate national airlines without WA interference.

"These questions have too been answered, in some cases at reasonable length."

[Havendes Forvenson]

The nation of Havendes Forvenson does not support needless bureaucracy and as of such shall not support this Charter.
Our Ambassador believes that this would also infringe on other Nations aviation industry.
The people of Havendes Forvenson also wish to tax any aircraft that flies over our nation. If an aeroplane is in a state of emergency then there is a 30% increase in all tax rates on it and it's cargo.

[Jarish Inyo]

No, the IARB is gonna take over the national boards.

"No, it isn't. In many cases the proposal which would establish the IARB would also actually establish sovereign national boards. On what basis did you reach that extraordinary conclusion?"[/quote]
Yes, the IARB does take over national boards. It will make the regulations for domestic air travel. It forces a nations to register every craft and certify every pilot with an international agency. How is that not taking over a national board? It forces nations to set up boards that they may deem are not necessary.

"Ambassador, I have stated on many occasions on why it is needed. I hope that the submission has a reasonably good job of justifying itself as well. You and I evidently don't agree. Could you perhaps explain to me why the nations of the WA don't need it?"

No, you haven't. You have yet to state why the WA needs to interfere with a nations domestic agency. Nations are quite capable of regulating their own domestic airlines without the WA. Why do you believe that nations can't. What evidence do you provide showing any nation that has developed flight flight can't regulate themselves? The WA already has a committee that already regulates international transport, as it should. Domestic affairs are not something that the WA should dictate to nations.

"That is a very different resolution that doesn't deal with many of the specific problems faced by the aviation industry - if that was the case this proposal would have long ago been ruled illegal. My Legation was in fact able to cite the achievements and limitations of GAR#34 as a motivation for separate and specific aviation regulations until it was kindly pointed out that citing GAR#34 in that way was in fact not allowed."

Actually, it does deal with many of specific problems faced by the aviation industry. Let's see what it does shall we? Sets regulations for safety, as as your proposal. Sets standards for training, same as yours. In fact, it does everything that your proposal does other then require domestic airlines to register with the ITSC. You don't point out specific aviation regulations that are not covered by GAR#34. And maybe it has been declared illegal because no one has sent a flag up. Thanks for reminding me.

Again, you have not addressed my concerns. You have not addressed any of them at any reasonable length. I looked at all your post in this thread. You have provided no evidence that this proposal is needed. It duplicates all of GAR#34.

Let's try something. Please point out something in your proposal, other then the forced registrations, that is not covered by GAR#34.

[Louisistan]

Deputy Ambassaor Roland Schulz sighs after reading the proposal put before him.
Mr. Ambassador, I fear this proposal was far from being ready to be submitted. Let us have a look at

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

(i) It is established that the terms "national aviation regulator" and "relevant national authority" shall refer to the authority or body, or authorities or bodies, responsible for the lawful conduct and regulation of civil aviation within a member state.

As much as I would like to establish that we have established, it's stylisticly unfortunate. Also the red part is just in the wrong order. While these mistakes by themselves may not be reason enough to vote against the proposal, we would suggest, the author withdraw the proposal and take up another round of drafting since there still seem to be a lot of questions and comments on the proposal.

Also, what are member states as defined by this charter (Clause VI.v)? The charter does not define member states, the WA does. So that clause does absolutely nothing because the states it's supposed to apply to aren't defined.

More in-detail commentary following once we have gained more insight into WA transportation law.

[Potted Plants United]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We are somewhat uncertain about Article VI-v in the proposal:

Furthermore, all member states as defined by this charter must possess some authority or body on a national level that is vested with responsibility over civil aviation and its regulation and fulfils the role of a national aviation regulator.

Not all nations possess national-level authorities over industry like this. For example, our own national airline, Air Kawaii, is in fact not "national" at all, but a partnership jointly operated by a number of our tribal governments. These governments have worked out a common set of regulations between them without input from the central Church authority. (And honestly, our Council of Elders has better things to do with their time than write aviation regulations.)

So, how does this proposal affect loosely federal or confederate governments? It would seem to be forcing us to establish national regulations on commerce, which is against our Church discipline.

"Fear not, Ambassador! As I understand it, your nation's needs would be more adequately satisfied by establishing a small regulator for each tribal government and then allowing them to cooperate with each other and their governments on building an effective set of regulations. This model was planned for nations such as yours and allowed for in the definition of a "national aviation regulator":

(i) It is established that the terms "national aviation regulator" and "relevant national authority" shall refer to the authority or body, or authorities or bodies, responsible for the lawful conduct and regulation of civil aviation within a member state.

In short, multiple bodies are perfectly legal under this proposal.

A large potted plant in a big plantpot with wheels suddenly comes to life, revealing a large leaf curled up to form a cone, from which a somewhat hissing voice can be heard:

"We do not travel by air by our selves. We do not have any sort of national air travel system. At the moment we do not even have any selves whose seeds would require air to propagate. We have no need for aviation regulation, unless the WA wishes to get involved in our beekeeping, and we feel it has already done that.

Now, please tell us why we should establish a national committee to cater to your international committee? Nor do we understand why the Kawaiians should establish several of them."

[Manchovia]

"Fear not, Ambassador! As I understand it, your nation's needs would be more adequately satisfied by establishing a small regulator for each tribal government and then allowing them to cooperate with each other and their governments on building an effective set of regulations. This model was planned for nations such as yours and allowed for in the definition of a "national aviation regulator":

(i) It is established that the terms "national aviation regulator" and "relevant national authority" shall refer to the authority or body, or authorities or bodies, responsible for the lawful conduct and regulation of civil aviation within a member state.

In short, multiple bodies are perfectly legal under this proposal.

A large potted plant in a big plantpot with wheels suddenly comes to life, revealing a large leaf curled up to form a cone, from which a somewhat hissing voice can be heard:

"We do not travel by air by our selves. We do not have any sort of national air travel system. At the moment we do not even have any selves whose seeds would require air to propagate. We have no need for aviation regulation, unless the WA wishes to get involved in our beekeeping, and we feel it has already done that.

Now, please tell us why we should establish a national committee to cater to your international committee? Nor do we understand why the Kawaiians should establish several of them."

Jeremy Hind, the Manchovian Delegate, stood up in the corner from which he had been observing proceedings, and addressed himself to the plant.

"My dear chap, don't you think its worthwhile having a regulator to ensure that foreign planes don't cause any damage to your plants and country?"

[Voltrovia]

Deputy Ambassaor Roland Schulz sighs after reading the proposal put before him.
Mr. Ambassador, I fear this proposal was far from being ready to be submitted. Let us have a look at

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

(i) It is established that the terms "national aviation regulator" and "relevant national authority" shall refer to the authority or body, or authorities or bodies, responsible for the lawful conduct and regulation of civil aviation within a member state.

As much as I would like to establish that we have established, it's stylisticly unfortunate. Also the red part is just in the wrong order. While these mistakes by themselves may not be reason enough to vote against the proposal, we would suggest, the author withdraw the proposal and take up another round of drafting since there still seem to be a lot of questions and comments on the proposal.

Also, what are member states as defined by this charter (Clause VI.v)? The charter does not define member states, the WA does. So that clause does absolutely nothing because the states it's supposed to apply to aren't defined.

More in-detail commentary following once we have gained more insight into WA transportation law.

"Ambassador, the stylistic failings are indeed unfortunate. Perhaps this proposal might fare better if certain sections were rewritten. I hope the legislative provisions are more amenable to your delegation though."

[OOC: Establishing what we have established was an added to the final draft, I'm not entirely sure why I did it. IV. needs a little grammatical work and the entire resolution could do with some stylistic revisions. I've decided that I will do my best to help the proposal reach quorum but that if it doesn't I'll try to re-submit (if possible) in a few weeks time following a structural overhaul of the document. I already knew about these but thanks for being attentive in your reading, it really is helpful.]