[RE-DRAFT] Aviation Regulation Charter

[Voltrovia]

And maybe it has been declared illegal because no one has sent a flag up.

[OOC: I don't think it's illegal. I've asked questions about it in the GA Q&A Thread, a lot of people have been in this thread and haven't raised legal objections to anything that made it into in the submitted draft and Mousebumples dropped in when this process started (and would have probably raised something then).

Thanks for reminding me.

That's totally unnecessary. Look, I would like to pass this resolution eventually, which is why I'm here trying to improve it. If the current iteration is illegal (we already know it has some grammatical failings) then please tell me exactly what isn't allowed so I can modify it. I still don't understand what your specific legal objections are - if there are legal problems with this resolution, please tell me precisely what they are so I can try to rectify them.

other then the forced registrations

'Forced registrations': NS has no international aircraft registry and you simply can't say that every human nation in the WA Assembly has a fully functional registry system. Cross-registration nationally and internationally aids data accessibility and prevents data loss in flooding/document destruction/fire/etc.

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

1. Establising specific mational bodies tasked with carry out air crash investigations (GAR#34 mentions that the ITSC should merely devise regulations on this issue).

2. Introduces a number of specific and exact requirements for aircraft to comply with (i.e levels of airworthiness, documentation on airframe and engine units, manufacturer's manuals) as opposed to 'conform[ing] to ITSC standards'.

3. Details piloting training levels and so forth instead of simply declaring that they should meet a standard to be set by the ITSC.

4. Vests power with sovereign, independent and accountable bodies in each nation instead of with a single international committee (the IARB exists to oversee, enforce and support).

5. The resolution also advances GAR#34's transport-wide provisions for the aircraft industry. I have no quarrel with GAR#34 but it was aimed transport as a whole whereas this proposal is aimed specifically at aviation.]

[Jarish Inyo]

[OOC: I don't think it's illegal. I've asked questions about it in the GA Q&A Thread, a lot of people have been in this thread and haven't raised legal objections to anything that made it into in the submitted draft and Mousebumples dropped in when this process started (and would have probably raised something then).

The legal issue is that it is a duplication of GAR#34. Other then the forced registration, it duplicates all of GAR#34.

'Forced registrations': NS has no international aircraft registry and you simply can't say that every human nation in the WA Assembly has a fully functional registry system. Cross-registration nationally and internationally aids data accessibility and prevents data loss in flooding/document destruction/fire/etc.

Again, what evidence do you have that nations do not have a functional registry system. Why do you believe that nations are incapable of regulating their own domestic airlines? What evidence do you provide that nations are not safe guarding their data?

1. Establising specific mational bodies tasked with carry out air crash investigations (GAR#34 mentions that the ITSC should merely devise regulations on this issue).

Actually, you are not. Your proposal doesn't require any nation to to carry out air crash investigations. As per your proposal "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 fulfills the role of a national aviation regulator."

2. Introduces a number of specific and exact requirements for aircraft to comply with (i.e levels of airworthiness, documentation on airframe and engine units, manufacturer's manuals) as opposed to 'conform[ing] to ITSC standards'.

First, you do not set exact requirements for aircraft to comply with. You require documentation that states the aircraft is airworthy. Nothing more. The ITSC actually sets mechanical inspection protocol.

3. Details piloting training levels and so forth instead of simply declaring that they should meet a standard to be set by the ITSC.

Again, this is not true. IYour proposal states "All commercial, private and state pilots must possess qualifications compliant with international standards and regulations as detailed by this charter and other globally recognised standards of flight education and training." But does not have any details on training at all. The ITSC sets training and, where deemed necessary, experience requirements for internationally operating for Cockpit Personnel, Flight Attendants and private pilots on aircraft.

4. Vests power with sovereign, independent and accountable bodies in each nation instead of with a single international committee (the IARB exists to oversee, enforce and support).

It doesn't vest any power with sovereign, independent and accountable bodies. As you stated, the IARB exist to oversee and enforce it's will upon those sovereign, independent and accountable bodies. It doesn't support them in anyway. Why does a sovereign, independent and accountable body need the WA to be looking over there should in domestic affairs?

5. The resolution also advances GAR#34's transport-wide provisions for the aircraft industry. I have no quarrel with GAR#34 but it was aimed transport as a whole whereas this proposal is aimed specifically at aviation.]

GAR#34 already everything, but the force registrations, that is in your proposal. It also covers safety, communications, markings & signals, distress signals, loading limits, emergency protocols, the provision of life saving equipment, and search & rescue procedures. All things that are not part of your proposal. This resolution doesn't advance GAR#34's provisions for the aircraft industry. GARS#34's provisions are already part of the aircraft industry. All you have done is duplicate them.

[Potted Plants United]

"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?"

There was a short, deliberate silence, and if the plant had had any visible eyes, it was a fair bet that it would've given the Manchovian ambassador A Look.

"Our selves reside in plant pots in and around the WA Headquarters¹," it eventually spoke up. "Our plant pots contain our sovereign soil, literally. We have yet to observe any foreign planes trying to crash into one. And considering how such an attempt might be considered assault with a deadly weapon, there is a fair chance that the ACME Weapons Nullifier would transform said plane and its fuel into something quite harmless."

¹OOC: Not counting the ones that are off-world tending to a few orchards in Araraukar, but that's just half a dozen or so.

[Manchovia]

"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?"

There was a short, deliberate silence, and if the plant had had any visible eyes, it was a fair bet that it would've given the Manchovian ambassador A Look.

"Our selves reside in plant pots in and around the WA Headquarters¹," it eventually spoke up. "Our plant pots contain our sovereign soil, literally. We have yet to observe any foreign planes trying to crash into one. And considering how such an attempt might be considered assault with a deadly weapon, there is a fair chance that the ACME Weapons Nullifier would transform said plane and its fuel into something quite harmless."

¹OOC: Not counting the ones that are off-world tending to a few orchards in Araraukar, but that's just half a dozen or so.

The Delegate spoke again:

"In that case I apologise for my misunderstanding of your national situation. But don't you think that in organisations such as the WA, where many of the resplutions won't apply to you anyway, it is sometimes worth voting in the international interest, rather than being bound by nationalisticly selfish views of the duty of government?"

[Jakuso]

Wouldn't this proposal massively interfere with aviation laws already in place within member states under their sovereign law?

[Jarish Inyo]

Wouldn't this proposal massively interfere with aviation laws already in place within member states under their sovereign law?

Yes, it would.

[Voltrovia]

Wouldn't this proposal massively interfere with aviation laws already in place within member states under their sovereign law?

Yes, it would.

"Which sections of the proposal were you concerned with Ambassador?"

[Potted Plants United]

"In that case I apologise for my misunderstanding of your national situation. But don't you think that in organisations such as the WA, where many of the resplutions won't apply to you anyway, it is sometimes worth voting in the international interest, rather than being bound by nationalisticly selfish views of the duty of government?"

"We would not be here if we were not interested in international laws," the plant pointed out gently. "However, the requirement to establish a national committee just for the sake of it, is absurd. It is as though you were required to declare one of your eyebrows to be a committee just to comply with a would-be-resolution.

Also, the proposal probably should concern itself with planes crossing international borders only, not with all domestic flights."

[Ardchoille]

We were asked to check this one out for duplication. It's fine. Reasoning: GAR#34 is concerned with personnel while the aviation charter is more about hardware operations and standards. That said, GAR#34 has a single clause related to hardware operations and standards. Not enough to justify pulling the charter as duplication.

Personal note: If it doesn't make quorum and you have to resubmit, I think you should clarify the distinction between the committee and the directions to member states. The wording "adherent to the requirements of V.:", and the fact that it comes after the committee, makes it seem at first glance as if the whole proposal is just a committee, though the function of VI is clear when you read on.

[Araraukar]

Personal note: If it doesn't make quorum and you have to resubmit, I think you should clarify the distinction between the committee and the directions to member states. The wording "adherent to the requirements of V.:", and the fact that it comes after the committee, makes it seem at first glance as if the whole proposal is just a committee, though the function of VI is clear when you read on.

...so do I need to file a separate GHR about it being nothing-but-a-committee?

[Ardchoille]

Only if you're feeling masochistic. My post was supposed to convey that we don't see it as just-a-committee.

[Gruenberg]

VI (v), really doesn't look like it's just-a-committee.

But I don't exactly get the category, given how much the proposal emphasises that it doesn't apply to military spending.

[Araraukar]

Only if you're feeling masochistic. My post was supposed to convey that we don't see it as just-a-committee.

OOC: That's why I asked, as you put it down as personal opinion instead of Voice-of-Mod opinion.

[Voltrovia]

VI (v), really doesn't look like it's just-a-committee.

But I don't exactly get the category, given how much the proposal emphasises that it doesn't apply to military spending.

[OOC:This is a bit of a dilemma because there's no resolution category that this proposal truly fits. While the proposal is pretty clear on how it doesn't apply to military spending, I think the wider sphere of 'International Security' is a practical choice.

Anyway, what's your delegation's view on the charter?]

[Voltrovia]

Personal note: If it doesn't make quorum and you have to resubmit, I think you should clarify the distinction between the committee and the directions to member states. The wording "adherent to the requirements of V.:", and the fact that it comes after the committee, makes it seem at first glance as if the whole proposal is just a committee, though the function of VI is clear when you read on.

[Certainly will do! I'll probably have a structural update up in a few days.]

[Ardchoille]

[OOC:This is a bit of a dilemma because there's no resolution category that this proposal truly fits. While the proposal is pretty clear on how it doesn't apply to military spending, I think the wider sphere of 'International Security' is a practical choice.

No, Gruenberg's right: IntSec proposals increase international security by increasing police and military budgets. It's the only thing they do, so they have to do it. (This would have been a valid legality challenge, so you're not the only one who dodged a bullet when it timed out. )

Since it's complementary to GA#34, which is Free Trade, you might start thinking about that. Just a player suggestion, not a modly one.

OOC: That's why I asked, as you put it down as personal opinion instead of Voice-of-Mod opinion.

Ah, right. It was a personal opinion because I was the only one who mentioned it. The other mods no doubt fastened unerringly on VI (iv) and didn't have a moment's uncertainty.

[ALMF]

"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.

Thats easily enough fixed

Requires: nations to comply with regulations of....

[Araraukar]

Thats easily enough fixed

It was already fixed in the most current draft, but only after a modly opinion was offered on it.

[Voltrovia]

"The Voltrovian Legation is planning to put this proposal to the GA Floor - are there any legal objections at this late stage?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"I still feel this should apply only to international flights. The language doesn't effectively reflect the Intenational focus, and still hovers strongly over the national focus."

[Voltrovia]

"I still feel this should apply only to international flights. The language doesn't effectively reflect the Intenational focus, and still hovers strongly over the national focus."

"I'm not sure I understand you Ambassador Bell. Are you saying that the proposal should be changed to remove some or all of its national focus or are you saying that the language dealing with the international parts of the ARC is unclear and should be altered?

Anyway, making minor changes shouldn't be too much difficulty, should it William?" *The dozing clerk in the corner of the Voltrovian box opens his eyes, mumbles something the cozy chairs in the Foreign Office back in Voltrovia before slumping back again and resuming his doze*

[Separatist Peoples]

"I still feel this should apply only to international flights. The language doesn't effectively reflect the Intenational focus, and still hovers strongly over the national focus."

"I'm not sure I understand you Ambassador Bell. Are you saying that the proposal should be changed to remove some or all of its national focus or are you saying that the language dealing with the international parts of the ARC is unclear and should be altered?

Anyway, making minor changes shouldn't be too much difficulty, should it William?" *The dozing clerk in the corner of the Voltrovian box opens his eyes, mumbles something the cozy chairs in the Foreign Office back in Voltrovia before slumping back again and resuming his doze*

"Well, upon further review, and I really only scanned this as a brief refresher, I realize this would be far more palpable if it only focused on aircraft crossing international borders. There's little reason clause VI should handle purely domestic flights. Obviously, from a national standpoint it makes more sense to have one standard for all aircraft, but from a political standpoint, you'll win more supporters if you snipped the direct references to national flights. I know this is rehashing an old fight, but, in retrospect, I believe it will benefit you."

[Voltrovia]

"I'm not sure I understand you Ambassador Bell. Are you saying that the proposal should be changed to remove some or all of its national focus or are you saying that the language dealing with the international parts of the ARC is unclear and should be altered?

Anyway, making minor changes shouldn't be too much difficulty, should it William?" *The dozing clerk in the corner of the Voltrovian box opens his eyes, mumbles something the cozy chairs in the Foreign Office back in Voltrovia before slumping back again and resuming his doze*

"Well, upon further review, and I really only scanned this as a brief refresher, I realize this would be far more palpable if it only focused on aircraft crossing international borders. There's little reason clause VI should handle purely domestic flights. Obviously, from a national standpoint it makes more sense to have one standard for all aircraft, but from a political standpoint, you'll win more supporters if you snipped the direct references to national flights. I know this is rehashing an old fight, but, in retrospect, I believe it will benefit you."

[OOC: It's a good point but I feel that the resolution will have too many holes if I remove the domestic references and change VI.'s provisions. I think that it should deal with domestic and international aviation because the overall difference to the vote *if it is actually viable* will probably not be that severe and the separation between domestic and international aviation is quite difficult to make here as well...

In essence, I'm not sure the change would be worth it and I'm not too keen on it either. I know it seems like your advice is falling on deaf ears but I don't particularly want to remove the domestic element. Anyway, thanks for the advice, I really appreciate it.]

[Jarish Inyo]

What loopholes would this open if you remove the domestic references and change VI.'s provisions? Domestic flights should not be held to international oversight or regulations.

How is the separation between domestic and international aviation is quite difficult to make?

[Manchovia]

Having been made aware of a movement to promote this Draft Resolution and put it before the Regional Delegates for approval, the Manchovian Legate to the World Assembly would like to again stress Manchovia's support for this Resolution. Our government believe that it will lead to international improvements in Aviation Safety, as well as easing of burdens for International Trade, and subsequently an increase in international standards of economic and material well-being on both a national and individual level.

As an answer which is, if not whole, perhaps of some help to the Delegate from Jaresh Inyo, the Manchovian Legate would like to suggest that international passengers and companies are affected by Domestic Flights, and that as such they do come under the purview of the World Assembly. While this point is open to many attacks, it is the best that we can currently suggest.

Jeremy Hind
Special Envoy to the World Assembly, Manchovia