[DRAFT] International Aircraft Safety

[Jarish Inyo]

Let this die already. This and the air marshal idea is flawed.

[Kaboomlandia]

Let this die already. This and the air marshal idea is flawed.

It's not dead; it's just on the back burner due to being stuck in category hell.

[Normlpeople]

Clover smiled "Since you have reformed, I see no reason not to welcome the draft, and suggest some changes"

2. All airlines, as defined above, must have and keep in good working order the following objects:

A cockpit voice recorder to record the crew's discussion and noise. The recorder must be able to withstand temperatures of up to 2,000 degrees Celsius, deceleration of 3,400 G, and be able to emit an ultrasonic signal for 90 days while immersed in seawater.
A flight data recorder to record the aircraft's statistics. The recorder must be able to withstand temperatures of up to 2,000 degrees Celsius, deceleration of 3,400 G, and be able to emit an ultrasonic signal for 90 days while immersed in seawater.

OOC: You realize your requirements would literally ground every aircraft currently in operation? Your temperature requirement is double current standard, your battery requirement is triple. You may also include 'the local equivalent of' before the measurements.

3. International flights that are over 2,000 kilometres of uninterrupted water must only be piloted/co-piloted by pilots with at least 2,000 flight hours in the model of plane being flown.

"We hate micromanagement, and realize flight technology is different in every nation. A much more generic 'Flights must be staffed by sufficient crew for the flight", while taking into account such things as distance, route, how many passengers, type of plane, time in air, and so forth. You could also add clauses requiring crew be properly trained in the operation of the plane in question. Fills the requirement without pointless micromanagement."

4. Flights over five hours in length must have at least one reserve pilot to allow the other crew members to switch and rest. Flights over ten hours must have at least two reserve pilots.

"Again, sufficiently staffed takes care of this micromanagement. Many nations also have automation technology that allows the pilots to do the same thing. In many of our planes, the pilot is actually rarely flying himself when the plane is airborne."

5. Airlines that will run scheduled flights into or out of nations in armed conflict are encouraged to post trained "air marshals" on said flights to prevent hijacking of the cockpit, in addition to the above regulations.

"This was clearly a throw in, and shows it. Air Marshal is a poor term, and there is no requirements to what they are, where they come from, what they do, who provides them, what they are allowed to do and not to do, rather they are armed, how they are trained, and so forth. Again, this can be re-written without too much micromanagement, however, the other issues involved in the used of security on planes makes me believe this can be dropped entirely."

"All in all, it can be salvaged, but needs some work to eliminate the micromanagement we all hate"

[Kaboomlandia]

"Thank you, Clover. The delegation of Kaboomlandia will consider your suggestions."

[Great Eldaria]

4. Flights over five hours in length must have at least one reserve pilot to allow the other crew members to switch and rest. Flights over ten hours must have at least two reserve pilots.

"Again, sufficiently staffed takes care of this micromanagement. Many nations also have automation technology that allows the pilots to do the same thing. In many of our planes, the pilot is actually rarely flying himself when the plane is airborne."

I wish to write in OOC:
Speaking about clause 4. you mentioned automation.

• First you stated that it "allows pilots to do the same thing", although no kind of thing was mentioned. I probably missed something there, a clarification would be nice.
• Secondly you state that you have this automation in many of your planes. In my opinion automation is the autopilot. And I believe that it is a must for all planes in commercial operation. Flying the plane manualy requires at least one pilot to keep his hands at the yoke, joystick or other control column. This will cause fatigue, increasing chances of misshaps and accidents.
• Third, a automation system (better; autopilot), will not allow the pilots to leave the cockpit, it will only simplify their work. Pilots still have to monitor all systems, and perform tasks with FMCs (Flight Management Contol), ATC (Air Traffic Contol), autopilot, and other systems depending on aircraft type. To sum up what I just said in the third section, automation systems does not allow for more rest.
• Fourth, I would love to have your definition of an automation system. Because in our real MT world only simple automation systems exist, those ones being autopilots.

[Kaboomlandia]

I have taken Normlpeople's suggestions and put them in the resolution.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: so aircraft without onboard electrical supplies couldn't legally be used for international air transport, even at Tech Levels where that was still the normal state of affairs before this proposal? (e.g. in nations at a 1920s-ish level by RL standards...)
And conversely, I don't see why any dirigibles or rotary-winged aircraft that do have the electricity available should be exempt -- as the current draft says -- from the requirements. I'd suggest basing the requirement on number of passengers that can be carried (with a threshold number of, say, eight) rather than on the actual type of aircraft.

[Great Eldaria]

OOC: so aircraft without onboard electrical supplies couldn't legally be used for international air transport, even at Tech Levels where that was still the normal state of affairs before this proposal? (e.g. in nations at a 1920s-ish level by RL standards...)
And conversely, I don't see why any dirigibles or rotary-winged aircraft that do have the electricity available should be exempt -- as the current draft says -- from the requirements. I'd suggest basing the requirement on number of passengers that can be carried (with a threshold number of, say, eight) rather than on the actual type of aircraft.

Well this is a MT proposal. Editing it to be compatible with all tech levels will be quite hard. Now 1920s technology does not allow for flight recorders and other vital equipment.

Speaking of rotary crafts, they tend not to fly internationally. Rotary crafts also does not have the passenger capabilities as commercial aircrafts, lowering their "level of importance". In my opinion they would go more under private aircraft. But this is of course a open choice, and I am myself open for all possibilities.

Just a thing, I would like you (Kaboomlandia) to add something about emergency equipment under clause 2 (actualy 3). I am open to discuss details of it later/once added, if added. You have also messed up the numeration of clauses, having two clauses under the number 2.

[Kaboomlandia]

Just a thing, I would like you (Kaboomlandia) to add something about emergency equipment under clause 2 (actualy 3). I am open to discuss details of it later/once added, if added. You have also messed up the numeration of clauses, having two clauses under the number 2.

Fixed.

[Bears Armed]

Well this is a MT proposal.

But if it passes then it would apply to all member nations, regardless of their technological abilities & limitations...

Speaking of rotary crafts, they tend not to fly internationally.

I was thinking mainly of situations where they might be used for [relatively] short journeys to destinations that might not have room to spare for landing fixed-wing craft: islands (in, for a RL example, the West Indies), micro-states {e.g. Monaco, Vatican City), offshore oil rigs that are actually in a neighbouring nation's waters, and so on.

[Kaboomlandia]

Well this is a MT proposal.

But if it passes then it would apply to all member nations, regardless of their technological abilities & limitations...

Speaking of rotary crafts, they tend not to fly internationally.

I was thinking mainly of situations where they might be used for [relatively] short journeys to destinations that might not have room to spare for landing fixed-wing craft: islands (in, for a RL example, the West Indies), micro-states {e.g. Monaco, Vatican City), offshore oil rigs that are actually in a neighbouring nation's waters, and so on.

Yeah, I'm more thinking that helicopters wouldn't necessarily have the same safety standards as airliners.

Also, after a careful look at the categories, I'm putting this under Social Justice, Mild. I judge this to be the best fit for this proposal.

[Separatist Peoples]

But if it passes then it would apply to all member nations, regardless of their technological abilities & limitations...

I was thinking mainly of situations where they might be used for [relatively] short journeys to destinations that might not have room to spare for landing fixed-wing craft: islands (in, for a RL example, the West Indies), micro-states {e.g. Monaco, Vatican City), offshore oil rigs that are actually in a neighbouring nation's waters, and so on.

Yeah, I'm more thinking that helicopters wouldn't necessarily have the same safety standards as airliners.

Also, after a careful look at the categories, I'm putting this under Social Justice, Mild. I judge this to be the best fit for this proposal.

"How does this reduce income inequality or improve welfare?"

[Whovian Tardisia]

Why are dirigibles (I assume this means blimps and the like) exempt? Is it due to their speed or size? We see no reason as to why blimps should not contain the same safety features as airliners.

[Kaboomlandia]

Yeah, I'm more thinking that helicopters wouldn't necessarily have the same safety standards as airliners.

Also, after a careful look at the categories, I'm putting this under Social Justice, Mild. I judge this to be the best fit for this proposal.

"How does this reduce income inequality or improve welfare?"

It reduces economic freedoms by increasing economic regulations on airlines.

[Wrapper]

"How does this reduce income inequality or improve welfare?"

It reduces economic freedoms by increasing economic regulations on airlines.

Which has nothing to do with income inequality or welfare, as far as we can tell.

[Separatist Peoples]

"How does this reduce income inequality or improve welfare?"

It reduces economic freedoms by increasing economic regulations on airlines.

"That's not what the Social Justice category is for. The category is for reducing income inequality and improving welfare. This does neither."

[Vancouvia]

Follow your dreams, Kabloom, whatever category you decide I'm sure is the right one

[Kaboomlandia]

Follow your dreams, Kabloom, whatever category you decide I'm sure is the right one

I'm looking for a category that's legal, not necessarily one I think is right.

[John Turner]

Follow your dreams, Kabloom, whatever category you decide I'm sure is the right one

This coming from the General of the Rubber Stamp Brigade.

[Vancouvia]

Follow your dreams, Kabloom, whatever category you decide I'm sure is the right one

This coming from the General of the Rubber Stamp Brigade.

Don't you have some nukes to legislate on, General Nukes?

[Separatist Peoples]

This coming from the General of the Rubber Stamp Brigade.

Don't you have some nukes to legislate on, General Nukes?

"Right, ambassador. When you succeed at giving useful or even legal advice, feel free to get in the United Federation of Canada's face," Bell laughs. "If you thought I was sharp with you..."

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: This one is quite a stretch, but you could argue that the introduction of regulations on airlines increases welfare by raising the private cost of air accidents to correspond with the general level of social cost.

[Vancouvia]

Don't you have some nukes to legislate on, General Nukes?

"Right, ambassador. When you succeed at giving useful or even legal advice, feel free to get in the United Federation of Canada's face," Bell laughs. "If you thought I was sharp with you..."

"Gonna have to ask you to buzz off here, wasn't talking to you," said EMPEROR CAESAR KING

[Kaboomlandia]

Hey, more regulations = more lives saved by fewer incidents.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Gonna have to ask you to buzz off here, wasn't talking to you," said EMPEROR CAESAR KING

"No. Your consistent failure to be correct isn't going to be ignored."

Hey, more regulations = more lives saved by fewer incidents.

"Which isn't relevant to the category requirements."