NationStates

Araraukar wrote:

East Meranopirus wrote:I'll say this: In the proposal the lower limit for territorial airspace is not defined

OOC: This is what I tried to ask before but apparently too subtly; how can you have a lower limit for national airspace? Doesn't it automatically start where the ground of water surface ends? Like, how can you have a "not-national" space between the ground and national airspace?

If I go into a mine, 2 miles underground, and throw a paper airplane 3 metres across the mineshaft. Is that airspace?

Imperium Anglorum wrote:If I go into a mine, 2 miles underground, and throw a paper airplane 3 metres across the mineshaft. Is that airspace?

OOC: Above ground surface =/= underground.

Araraukar wrote:

East Meranopirus wrote:I'll say this: In the proposal the lower limit for territorial airspace is not defined

OOC: This is what I tried to ask before but apparently too subtly; how can you have a lower limit for national airspace? Doesn't it automatically start where the ground of water surface ends? Like, how can you have a "not-national" space between the ground and national airspace?

I left it up to the individual nations for the lower limit. If they don't define it as anything above the surface, which is what I would do, the part that's not airspace will simply be ground/water territory that's dealt with the same way as the surface (hence why you can sell air space rights to some properties), not a separate "not-airspace".

Araraukar wrote:

East Meranopirus wrote:I'll say this: In the proposal the lower limit for territorial airspace is not defined

OOC: This is what I tried to ask before but apparently too subtly; how can you have a lower limit for national airspace? Doesn't it automatically start where the ground of water surface ends? Like, how can you have a "not-national" space between the ground and national airspace?

(OOC: In RL there’s a lower limit to airspace, to prevent blatantly ridiculous things like a paper aeroplane being considered a nonpowered vehicle. The UK has a lower limit of 54 metres, whereas the US has a much higher 700 metres.)

Kenmoria wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: This is what I tried to ask before but apparently too subtly; how can you have a lower limit for national airspace? Doesn't it automatically start where the ground of water surface ends? Like, how can you have a "not-national" space between the ground and national airspace?

(OOC: In RL there’s a lower limit to airspace, to prevent blatantly ridiculous things like a paper aeroplane being considered a nonpowered vehicle. The UK has a lower limit of 54 metres, whereas the US has a much higher 700 metres.)

Yeah, I know, but it's left to the members states in this one so there's no accusations of micromanaging or reducing sovereignty.

East Meranopirus wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: In RL there’s a lower limit to airspace, to prevent blatantly ridiculous things like a paper aeroplane being considered a nonpowered vehicle. The UK has a lower limit of 54 metres, whereas the US has a much higher 700 metres.)

Yeah, I know, but it's left to the members states in this one so there's no accusations of micromanaging or reducing sovereignty.

(OOC: That’s what I was trying to promote. Different nations, such as the UK and the US in my example, have different airspace limits to go around different landmarks and terrains.)

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Though I would suggest changing "Prohibits any member nation from exercising control over international airspace." in clause 6 to "Prohibits any member nation from exercising control over international airspace, unless required by an existing treaty." I mean, if we're treating NS as being real, it's reasonable to expect that non-WA nations and WA nations that exist on the same planet would have some kind of duties (air traffic control near their own airspace mostly) regarding international airspace, like they do in RL.

OOC
The proposal also needs to take existing GA resolutions into account: For example, the clause in GAR#20 that "urges and authorises" member nations to act against international piracy would cover action against 'sky pirates'...

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
The proposal also needs to take existing GA resolutions into account: For example, the clause in GAR#20 that "urges and authorises" member nations to act against international piracy would cover action against 'sky pirates'...

TF? Sky pirates? No one told me they exist

Anyway, this proposal doesn't say you can't engage militarily in international airspace, only that you can't exercise control, so it should be fine, right?

“I think your definition of ‘aircraft’ is overly vague. It would include, for instance: drones, handgliders, and paper aeroplanes. All of these are objects that are controlled by sapients.”

TF? Sky pirates? No one told me they exist

Has the ambassador ever heard of hijacking?

I'm very confused what exactly you're referring to with the surface dimensions, since no one has had a problem with that and I see that as the least problematic part.

Ultimately this is about the multiple problems with section 4. Let's back up here:

• Why does the lower limit have to be defined by reference to "stationary landmarks", as opposed to a specified height?
• If that lower limit is not the surface of the ground or water, what is the space between the surface and the lower limit of international airspace, which by definition is outside of national territory, and is now defined as not being international airspace either?
• The issue that you might inadvertently be banning the use of geographic coordinates to define state territorial boundaries does not arise if you address the first two points so I will hold off on that for now.

(OOC: In RL there’s a lower limit to airspace, to prevent blatantly ridiculous things like a paper aeroplane being considered a nonpowered vehicle. The UK has a lower limit of 54 metres, whereas the US has a much higher 700 metres.)

[OOC]
I do not know where you could have gotten such an understanding because nothing in that is factual. Airspace in both those countries begins at the surface and goes upwards from there, both in the context of property and air traffic control.

The question of whether a paper airplane is an aircraft has nothing to do with the concept of airspace. It is a completely separate issue (and it's not as obvious as you seem to think).[/OOC]

Kelssek wrote:[OOC]
I do not know where you could have gotten such an understanding because nothing in that is factual. Airspace in both those countries begins at the surface and goes upwards from there, both in the context of property and air traffic control.

The question of whether a paper airplane is an aircraft has nothing to do with the concept of airspace. It is a completely separate issue (and it's not as obvious as you seem to think).[/OOC]

(OOC: Although the example of a paper aeroplane was perhaps worded badly, I couldn’t find any of the US air control categories that go lower than the lower limit I suggested. The UK lower limit was taken from here.)

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Although the example of a paper aeroplane was perhaps worded badly, I couldn’t find any of the US air control categories that go lower than the lower limit I suggested. The UK lower limit was taken from here.)

OOC: USA's airspace is complicated, but I would think that in busy air traffic places like airports, every centimetre above ground is considered "national airspace" in terms of extending control over it.

And even with UK that has to be "we don't bug our own civilians as long as they don't go higher than this", because there's no fucking way they'd be ok to having Russian airforces (just an example of a RL nation that has trouble respecting other nations' airspaces) flying all over UK at below 50 metres. Which was my point to begin with.

Kelssek wrote:Ultimately this is about the multiple problems with section 4. Let's back up here:

• Why does the lower limit have to be defined by reference to "stationary landmarks", as opposed to a specified height?
• If that lower limit is not the surface of the ground or water, what is the space between the surface and the lower limit of international airspace, which by definition is outside of national territory, and is now defined as not being international airspace either?
• The issue that you might inadvertently be banning the use of geographic coordinates to define state territorial boundaries does not arise if you address the first two points so I will hold off on that for now.

1. I've heard conflicting information on whether using specific measurements is a good idea or not, but from all the guides I've read, my interpretation is that it's better not to use specific heights. I'm seriously considering removing the reference to "stationary landmarks" and just say it'll be determined by the IASA, maybe say it's based on aircraft capabilities instead.
2. It'll count as land/water. Simple
3. I really don't see how it'll ban the use of geographic coordinates. All I said in the proposal is the nation's borders will determine the boundary of airspace? They can use geographic coordinates if they like, or not.

Kenmoria wrote:“I think your definition of ‘aircraft’ is overly vague. It would include, for instance: drones, handgliders, and paper aeroplanes. All of these are objects that are controlled by sapients.”

Well, I want to include drones and hangliders. As for paper aeroplanes...well, the original concern was that people can claim cruiser missiles or pterodactyls or something don't count as aircraft. Maybe I should define it as "objects that are controlled entirely by sapients", since once you throw a paper plane, it's controlled by the wind, not by you.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: USA's airspace is complicated, but I would think that in busy air traffic places like airports, every centimetre above ground is considered "national airspace" in terms of extending control over it.

And even with UK that has to be "we don't bug our own civilians as long as they don't go higher than this", because there's no fucking way they'd be ok to having Russian airforces (just an example of a RL nation that has trouble respecting other nations' airspaces) flying all over UK at below 50 metres. Which was my point to begin with.

[OOC]
This is almost right. All the airspace is down to the ground is "national airspace" in terms of a state exerting legal jurisdiction and sovereignty on it. But not all of it would be under air traffic control (in fact most of it is not, particularly in large and sparsely populated countries like Australia and Canada).

I think the misunderstanding a lot of people have is that uncontrolled airspace (class F and G) is somehow not "airspace". You are absolutely in airspace, it is simply airspace where ATC has neither authority nor responsibility. Plenty of aircraft fly in uncontrolled airspace every day and wouldn't need to talk to ATC if their entire flight takes place in class G, but the rules of the air still apply such as fixed-wing aircraft not being allowed to fly below 500ft (other than while taking off or landing, obviously).

We haven't even gotten into air defence identification zones (ADIZ) which amount to the exertion of control by states in international airspace, unreasonably ruled out by this proposal - but one thing at a time.

Two changes I've made to the proposal:
1) Under the last cause, the words "unless required by an existing treaty"
2) The definition of the lower limit of international airspace will now be "determined by the IASA, taking into consideration the stationary landmarks in the vicinity and aircraft capabilities"
Hope that will settle some doubts.

“I suggest, on a minor point, that you swap the order of clauses 3 and 4. This would be in order to collect the definitions at the beginning of the active clauses, which makes the order and flow of the proposal better.”

What is the purpose of a lower limit to international airspace now that national airspace is from ground to space?

(OOC: What’s the ‘fka’ in the title? My knowledge of acronyms is awful, but I can’t find a reference to it online.)

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: What’s the ‘fka’ in the title? My knowledge of acronyms is awful, but I can’t find a reference to it online.)

OOC:Frequently known as?

(OOC: Maybe 'formerly known as'? If I remember correctly, that was this proposal's original name. I think. Maybe. Or maybe my brain farted again...)

f.k.a. means "formerly known as", I would have put just "formerly" to avoid confusion, but it's over the character limit.

To Aclion, national airspace is not from ground to space, the lower limit is defined by nations themselves, and if they're like me, then they won't make it ground to space.

East Meranopirus wrote:f.k.a. means "formerly known as", I would have put just "formerly" to avoid confusion, but it's over the character limit.

To Aclion, national airspace is not from ground to space, the lower limit is defined by nations themselves, and if they're like me, then they won't make it ground to space.

(OOC: I will recommend just removing it then, as it doesn’t help to have prior names in the title.)

“There’s no finishing punctuation on the last clause.”

I've made some more changes to the proposal. Will submit it soon if there's no further questions.

I really don't think this is all that close to being a resolution that will pass yet. Major questions, most of which other poster have brought already up:

1) It's still not clear in the proposal why you're defining a lower limit for airspace. For national airspace, you're not really regulating it and nations could set the lower limit to be the ground. It's not clear from the text of the proposal what the regulatory ramifications are of being air below the lower limit of airspace. The same is true and even more concerning for international airspace. Now you've created another international thing that needs to be regulated but isn't here. Do you really expect a follow-up "Protection of air above the ground and below airspace" proposal?

2) You've made all non-WA nations airspace international airspace, this isn't acceptable!

3) If I sign a treaty with Examplistan that says I need to exert control over all of iternational air space it seems that I've completely gotten around the entire resolution. You need to much more clearly define what you're trying to accomplish in 6 and write it in a manner that isn't obviously exploitable.

I'm not really that interested in international airspace IRL, other nations with more expertise in international airspace have brought up issues with the practicality of the ideas behind how your regulating international airspace that you should read carefully and think about how you want to address them.

If you don't clearly address these and probably other perfectly reasonable questions that have been raised in the thread by actually altering the text of the resolution I guarantee that your resolution will not pass or if it does it will be repealed in a fortnight. You're new to the WA and you have a lot to learn rushing this to vote will only end in disappointment.

Ransium wrote:I really don't think this is all that close to being a resolution that will pass yet. Major questions, most of which other poster have brought already up:

1) It's still not clear in the proposal why you're defining a lower limit for airspace. For national airspace, you're not really regulating it and nations could set the lower limit to be the ground. It's not clear from the text of the proposal what the regulatory ramifications are of being air below the lower limit of airspace. The same is true and even more concerning for international airspace. Now you've created another international thing that needs to be regulated but isn't here. Do you really expect a follow-up "Protection of air above the ground and below airspace" proposal?

2) You've made all non-WA nations airspace international airspace, this isn't acceptable!

3) If I sign a treaty with Examplistan that says I need to exert control over all of iternational air space it seems that I've completely gotten around the entire resolution. You need to much more clearly define what you're trying to accomplish in 6 and write it in a manner that isn't obviously exploitable.

I'm not really that interested in international airspace IRL, other nations with more expertise in international airspace have brought up issues with the practicality of the ideas behind how your regulating international airspace that you should read carefully and think about how you want to address them.

If you don't clearly address these and probably other perfectly reasonable questions that have been raised in the thread by actually altering the text of the resolution I guarantee that your resolution will not pass or if it does it will be repealed in a fortnight. You're new to the WA and you have a lot to learn rushing this to vote will only end in disappointment.

1) I've stated repeatedly if it's not airspace it just counts as land/water. I even had a clause in there specifying this but you told me it was unnecessary. It's up to nations whether they want to govern it as air or as ground.

2) Mistake. I'll fix this.

3) My meaning was under WA resolutions that permit so. I communicated it incorrectly

As for the rest of the concerns about international airspace, I've basically completely left it up to the IASA at this point. Logically, most of the unclaimed territory should be ocean anyway, so in practice, most of it will probably extend to the surface.