[DRAFT] Unmanned Aerial Vehicles [formerly DRONES]

[Grays Harbor]

This definition of "drone" appears that it would include hobbyist RC aircraft. Is that intentional? Personally, I find this whole "OMG IT'S A DROOOONE!!!" hubbub to be utter nonsense, and this draft, so far anyhow, to be utterly purposeless.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: I don't mean to argue with a Mod, of course, but I do not believe this to be good advice. For one thing, it's already been mentioned that it's a completely unnatural way of writing legislation. For another thing, I doubt that most regulars even follow that advice themselves (heck, some regulars have admitted that they don't follow that advice!). Finally, if you have a really good idea for a resolution but aren't quite sure which category to put it in, wouldn't it be better to post a draft here rather than to leave it tucked away because of supposed "shoehorning"?

True, it is better. We do want players to post their drafts here. Writing without a category is all right, however, it doesn't mean the draft will actually belong in one category. There is always the potential for it to overlap. By confining the focus, category overlap can be avoided.

OOC: Makes sense to me. I do wish the advice wasn't parroted nearly as much, however.

IC: Fairburn: Eh, what's this?

Neville: A proposal merely titled 'DRONES'.

Fairburn: It's in all-caps? It must be important. (reads draft) Scratch that. It's not important.

Neville: It's not that bad.

Fairburn: Ah, yes, the greats of WA legislation. Charter of Civil Rights, Restrictions on Child Labor, The Prisoners of War Accord...DRONES.

Neville: (sighs) We suggest that this proposal's title is modified.

[Droomeristan]

True, it is better. We do want players to post their drafts here. Writing without a category is all right, however, it doesn't mean the draft will actually belong in one category. There is always the potential for it to overlap. By confining the focus, category overlap can be avoided.

OOC: Makes sense to me. I do wish the advice wasn't parroted nearly as much, however.

IC: Fairburn: Eh, what's this?

Neville: A proposal merely titled 'DRONES'.

Fairburn: It's in all-caps? It must be important. (reads draft) Scratch that. It's not important.

Neville: It's not that bad.

Fairburn: Ah, yes, the greats of WA legislation. Charter of Civil Rights, Restrictions on Child Labor, The Prisoners of War Accord...DRONES.

Neville: (sighs) We suggest that this proposal's title is modified.

Yes, the title revision committee is scheduled to meet again soon and will put forth its changes. The title "Defining Drones" had to be changed due to the nature of this draft no longer merely defining.

[Droomeristan]

This definition of "drone" appears that it would include hobbyist RC aircraft. Is that intentional? Personally, I find this whole "OMG IT'S A DROOOONE!!!" hubbub to be utter nonsense, and this draft, so far anyhow, to be utterly purposeless.

Will clarify drone as "unmanned aerial vehicle", see definition:

A UAV is defined as a "powered, aerial vehicle that does not carry a human operator, uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift, can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely, can be expendable or recoverable, and can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload"

[Separatist Peoples]

"How does GAR#34 not cover the target legislative area here?"

[Droomeristan]

"How does GAR#34 not cover the target legislative area here?"

Because there is not necessarily transport of persons or cargo.

[Separatist Peoples]

"How does GAR#34 not cover the target legislative area here?"

Because there is not necessarily transport of persons or cargo.

2) CHARGES the ITSC to enact regulations pertaining to the safety, communications, markings & signals, distress signals, loading limits, emergency protocols, the provision of life saving equipment, mechanical inspection protocol, standards of accident investigation, and search & rescue procedures for international shipping, aviation, and railways

"Drones fly. Ergo, they fall under aviation, which means nations have access, if nothing else, to a system of statutory regulations that no doubt define them. Even if they didn't, a system of definitions in the absence of legislative action is pointless."

[Droomeristan]

Because there is not necessarily transport of persons or cargo.

2) CHARGES the ITSC to enact regulations pertaining to the safety, communications, markings & signals, distress signals, loading limits, emergency protocols, the provision of life saving equipment, mechanical inspection protocol, standards of accident investigation, and search & rescue procedures for international shipping, aviation, and railways

"Drones fly. Ergo, they fall under aviation, which means nations have access, if nothing else, to a system of statutory regulations that no doubt define them. Even if they didn't, a system of definitions in the absence of legislative action is pointless."

Legislation is being written into the resolution. Drones pose a unique risk and interest because they are so easily accessible.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Drones fly. Ergo, they fall under aviation, which means nations have access, if nothing else, to a system of statutory regulations that no doubt define them. Even if they didn't, a system of definitions in the absence of legislative action is pointless."

Legislation is being written into the resolution. Drones pose a unique risk and interest because they are so easily accessible.

"Even if they did, which I cannot agree with, they are still aviation, and therefore covered under extant law."

[Calladan]

There might be a specific reason you left this out, but there appears to be a lack of definition for government and (more specifically) military drones. Was that deliberate?

Ah, yes. Military drones were specifically excluded because they constitute a whole other classification issue (I use the world "classification" in terms of taxonomical, not sensitivity). Regulating private enterprise and private ownership is much easier to do on a broad scale than impeding and trying to regulate individual member nations' military programs. And, with there being a plethora of military-related resolutions already, we believe that those rules of engagement and other military and war-rules will have sufficient control of military drones. While there are no resolutions regarding military drones, all the resolutions regarding military rules and actions will logically extend to drones and drone use in a military capacity will be regulated by them.

So, short answer, no military drones will be affected or targeted by this resolution.

However, there in the future may become the issue of a private drone company contracting with governments to use their drones for military purposes, and in that case, how to classify that drone? As a private company's drone and regulate it as such? Or as a military drone and let the military rules affect it? Droomeristan is not too concerned with that distinction at this point.

Would you be surprised to learn that a quick search of "Passed GA Resolutions" returned the following :-

drone : 0 results
drones : 0 results
flight : 2 results (one to do with "flight risks" and the other to do with international trade.
unmanned : 0 results

I am not doubting your answer - just providing some background as to why I asked the question. because it appeared that there are no resolutions dealing with drones/unmanned vehicles.

And while I can understand the supposition that "all resolutions regarding military rules will extend to drone use" and that "drone use in a military capacity will be regulated by them", I am not entirely convinced that that is true.

However I will accept it at face value, at least for now.

[Calladan]

Legislation is being written into the resolution. Drones pose a unique risk and interest because they are so easily accessible.

"Even if they did, which I cannot agree with, they are still aviation, and therefore covered under extant law."

I have to agree - if military drones are covered under existing military laws, why are civilian drones not covered under existing civilian laws?

[Droomeristan]

Legislation is being written into the resolution. Drones pose a unique risk and interest because they are so easily accessible.

"Even if they did, which I cannot agree with, they are still aviation, and therefore covered under extant law."

But they are not aviation at the same time. Because of their small size and low flight, they can be absent from radar technology and to the naked eye, and therefore would be hard to monitor using standard aviation technology.

[Calladan]

"Even if they did, which I cannot agree with, they are still aviation, and therefore covered under extant law."

But they are not aviation at the same time. Because of their small size and low flight, they can be absent from radar technology and to the naked eye, and therefore would be hard to monitor using standard aviation technology.

But couldn't the same be said of RC helicopters? And if you fit out an RC copter with a camera, what differentiates it from a drone/UAV?

I am not trying to be difficult (trust me - if I were trying, I would be WAY better at it ) but I think whatever definition you find that classifies it as something OTHER than aviation related, you will find RC copters/planes/pterodactyls will fall into that definition as well.

[Kilimantonian]

"I do believe this resolution would be a good addition to the current legislation regarding aircraft. Regarding Ambassador Bell's reservations on contradiction or duplication with GAR #34 and #342, it appears that these are specifically aimed towards manned aerial vehicles. Thus, I believe a resolution is required to clear up any confusion regarding the operation of UAVs, and also how their operation over international airspace must be conducted. Nevertheless, I have some suggestions as to what might be added to this draft.

1. Requirements or qualifications for UAV operators
2. Legislation on UAV operation in international airspace
3. Clarification regarding RC planes, helicopters etc. and possible exclusion from this legislation
4. Lower and upper payload limits that determine how qualified the operator must be, and whether civilian operators are allowed to possess them

Other than that, I believe this resolution could really go somewhere... of course, we will also have to find a suitable category and strength."

[Excidium Planetis]

And the Civilian Aircraft Accord seems to apply to specifically the "transportation of civilians." Drones are not related to that in any way as no beings are being transported within the aircraft.

"Are there?" Schultz, who always seems to somehow be in the same spot, watching from the corner of the room, asks. "On Reckoner we have unmanned civilian transport aircraft. They counts as UAVs by your definition, and are covered by Civilian Aircraft Accord."

Blackbourne, who has since entered the room, states, "Pardon me, but before I can express support of this resolution, I must know why you consider this to be an international issue meriting WA legislation."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Even if they did, which I cannot agree with, they are still aviation, and therefore covered under extant law."

But they are not aviation at the same time. Because of their small size and low flight, they can be absent from radar technology and to the naked eye, and therefore would be hard to monitor using standard aviation technology.

"That does not make them any less "civilian aviation" for the purposes of law. It just makes them different in size."

[Excidium Planetis]

But they are not aviation at the same time. Because of their small size and low flight, they can be absent from radar technology and to the naked eye, and therefore would be hard to monitor using standard aviation technology.

"That does not make them any less "civilian aviation" for the purposes of law. It just makes them different in size."

Schultz loses her very short mental battle to maintain her dignity, and gives in to her urge to comment. "Hey, size matters."

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Teran Saber: "The Confederacy finds issue with one of the assertions and two of the resolution clauses of this proposal. To break it down:"

Convinced that non-military UAVs pose an international threat to air space use of individual nations and a potential breach of privacy to nations and their citizens,

"Most WA member nations already have laws protecting the privacy of their citizens and national security. This is a non-issue and legislation that specifically restricts UAVs in this regard is redundant and unnecessary. I'm sure tacking an additional charge on top of a violation of privacy simply because the culprit used a drone to commit the crime would seem silly if you give it some thought."

Appeals member nations to create a licensing and registration system for UAVs and their owners/operators,

"Many nations have their own model aviation associations that represent UAV operator communities. These associations have guidelines regarding placing identification info, such as a name and contact info, somewhere on the airframe of the UAV. As for requiring a license, your definitions are broad enough that a toy RC multicopter counts as a UAV. Would children have to be licensed too? Because that would be ridiculous."

Requires all member nations to adhere to and adopt these definitions for use in any relevant legislation pertaining to non-military UAVs,

"Again, these definitions are incredibly broad. Under them, anything operated via remote or autonomous control that has the potential to take off the ground under its own power is considered the same, from a small toy indoor RC helicopter to the largest unmanned SSTO cargo shuttles. Because of this, it is possible to, either accidentally or intentionally, completely ban the former via legislation for the latter."

"As a result, the Greater Siriusian Domain cannot support this proposal as written. Furthermore, we cannot see how this is an international issue, as some nations have not reached the necessary level of technology to even bother with this, while others find conventional UAVs to be completely obsolete."

[Imperium Anglorum]

IIRC, Kaboom wanted to do something along this line some time ago. Would be beneficial to look at his attempt.

[Kaboomlandia]

IIRC, Kaboom wanted to do something along this line some time ago. Would be beneficial to look at his attempt.

I'll see if I can dig it up for OP. I completely forgot about it until you reminded me; haven't touched that draft in a year.

It might be unusable, though. I didn't do much on it before dropping it for my mercury draft.

EDIT: Found it, but the draft is terrible. Trust me, you don't want to use it.