[SUBMITTED] Repeal "Civilian Aircraft Accord"

[Ameriva]

Repeal GAR #342 Civilian Aircraft Accord
Category: Repeal | Proposed by: Ameriva

---

The General Assembly,

APPLAUDING GAR #342’s well intentioned goal of improving the operational safety of civilian aircraft,

CONCERNED, however, at several notable flaws in the resolution,

NOTING that Clause 2, section A, mandates all civilian aircraft to be provided tracking and to have communication established with a tracking station of the member nation,

TROUBLED that even aircraft that could be operating under the equivalent of “Visual Flight Rules” (during which, the pilot in command, weather conditions permitting, can navigate their aircraft by themselves at generally low altitudes, and maintain visual separation with other aircraft in the vicinity by themselves) operating in areas that are decently separated from aircraft already in contact with a tracking station would still be required to be in contact at all stages of their flight, which in already busy airspaces could prove to be extremely stressful for the controller(s) in charge of the tracking station and could lead to errors resulting in property damage and/or loss of life,

BELIEVING nevertheless that these aircraft could have flight tracking offered to them by tracking stations on request, but workload permitting and at the sole discretion of the controller(s) in charge of the tracking station,

PUZZLED at the fact that this resolution forces nations to either establish local tracking stations (such as a control tower), or extend the coverage of a higher-up tracking station down to cover small, quiet airfields with little to no traffic that could easily operate with aircraft simply calling out their intentions on a universal communications frequency, which simply does not make economic sense,

FURTHER NOTING, particularly in the case of private civilian aircraft owned by an individual, that it may not be economically or otherwise feasible to procure the avionic equipment required to be fully identified by tracking stations, such as a transponder and/or radio equipment, and the payment of potential flight tracking fees might also not be feasible,

FEELING that these impediments should not restrict civilian aircraft from being able to operate in situations where being in contact with a tracking station would not be necessary,

FURTHER BELIEVING that member nations’ aviation regulatory bodies should have the right to establish their own communications requirements and airspace types,

CONFUSED as to why this resolution instituted such unnecessarily broad communication requirements,

SINCERELY HOPING replacement legislation will be passed as soon as possible,

HEREBY repeals General Assembly Resolution #342 “Civilian Aircraft Accord”.

OOC: As an IRL holder of an American Private Pilot's License, I feel this resolution is strange, as it essentially completely outlaws flying under visual flight rules with no flight following from ATC, despite it being a totally safe practice that happens thousands of times a day worldwide, and essentially gets rid of the concept of "uncontrolled airspace". Controllers having to treat smaller VFR aircraft as larger Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft would be super stressful, especially in large busy airspaces. Of course, if you wish to fly through controlled airspace, you need to be in contact with the station that controls it and in most cases have a transponder and whatnot.

Uncontrolled airspace is beneficial as, if I was forced to do all my VFR flights as IFR, I'd pay thousands apon thousands of dollars in control fees, which would suck because fuel already aint cheap.

EDIT LOG:

EDIT1: "Nonetheless Applauding" and "Understanding" clauses removed, language refined in certain areas.
EDIT2: Refined language.
EDIT3: Changed the wording of some clauses up.
EDIT4: Refined language.

[Kenmoria]

"The "APPLAUDING" and "UNDERSTANDING" clauses are unnecessary and useless fluff, I would suggest removing them."

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

"The "APPLAUDING" and "UNDERSTANDING" clauses are unnecessary and useless fluff, I would suggest removing them."

Teran Saber: "I wouldn't. While they're unnecessary for the repeal itself, they do help focus the argument on the flaws of the resolution this seeks to repeal rather than the concept, and as such could potentially make the repeal appeal to a larger percentage of the World Assembly."

[Kranostav]

which in already busy airspaces could prove to be extremely stressful for the controller(s) in charge of the tracking station and could lead to potentially fatal mistakes

OOC: This clause had such a good thing going for it but it ended in basically saying "ATC controllers would get stressed out and mess up". Which is a fairly weak reasoning. You could position this differently.

[Ransium]

(This post comes from Ransium, the WA delegate, not the mod)

Are you planning on drafting a replacement resolution? Although I’m not against a repeal, if it truly does a poor job of what it attempts to do, we do feel the target resolution has an important overall goal.

[Ameriva]

(This post comes from Ransium, the WA delegate, not the mod)

Are you planning on drafting a replacement resolution? Although I’m not against a repeal, if it truly does a poor job of what it attempts to do, we do feel the target resolution has an important overall goal.

The Amerivan ambassador would smile and nod.

"Why yes, I am currently in the process of writing a replacement resolution, one which would carry forward the important and well-intentioned goals of the original resolution, and expand on them to ensure the operational safety of civilian aircraft is greatly improved, but leave it up to the individual nation to decide whether it wishes to force all aircraft to be in communication with it's tracking stations or provide exceptions.

But as we all know, since resolutions cannot be amended, the resolution must be repealed first, then replaced. In fact, even when the drafting of this repeal is complete, if it's not already done, I'll delay submission until my replacement resolution is good enough to present to you all for drafting."

which in already busy airspaces could prove to be extremely stressful for the controller(s) in charge of the tracking station and could lead to potentially fatal mistakes

OOC: This clause had such a good thing going for it but it ended in basically saying "ATC controllers would get stressed out and mess up". Which is a fairly weak reasoning. You could position this differently.

OOC: Thanks for letting me know, I'll come up with a replacement for it in a bit.

[Kenmoria]

"The first "that" in the "FURTHER NOTING" clause is redundant."

[Araraukar]

"Why yes, I am currently in the process of writing a replacement resolution

OOC: You'll have a higher chance of passing the repeal if you post the replacement draft here too (in its own thread), to show that you've at least given it some proper thought. But unless your replacement proposal is truly better than the existing resolution, your repeal is unlikely to have very high chances (since the target resolution is fairly inoffensive).

[Imperial Polk County]

The Amerivan ambassador would smile and nod.

"Why yes, I am currently in the process of writing a replacement resolution, one which would carry forward the important and well-intentioned goals of the original resolution, and expand on them to ensure the operational safety of civilian aircraft is greatly improved, but leave it up to the individual nation to decide whether it wishes to force all aircraft to be in communication with it's tracking stations or provide exceptions.

But as we all know, since resolutions cannot be amended, the resolution must be repealed first, then replaced. In fact, even when the drafting of this repeal is complete, if it's not already done, I'll delay submission until my replacement resolution is good enough to present to you all for drafting."

Drane nods. "You seem to be well-versed in this subject. We'll support a repeal-and-replace provided that the replacement has the same stated goals as GAR#342, the safe, secure operation of civilian aircraft."

[Ameriva]

"The first "that" in the "FURTHER NOTING" clause is redundant."

"Thank you, this will be addressed in the next draft."

"Why yes, I am currently in the process of writing a replacement resolution

OOC: You'll have a higher chance of passing the repeal if you post the replacement draft here too (in its own thread), to show that you've at least given it some proper thought. But unless your replacement proposal is truly better than the existing resolution, your repeal is unlikely to have very high chances (since the target resolution is fairly inoffensive).

OOC: I almost have an acceptable draft, I'll post it sometime in the coming days, I'll be sure to link it here aswell.

The Amerivan ambassador would smile and nod.

"Why yes, I am currently in the process of writing a replacement resolution, one which would carry forward the important and well-intentioned goals of the original resolution, and expand on them to ensure the operational safety of civilian aircraft is greatly improved, but leave it up to the individual nation to decide whether it wishes to force all aircraft to be in communication with it's tracking stations or provide exceptions.

But as we all know, since resolutions cannot be amended, the resolution must be repealed first, then replaced. In fact, even when the drafting of this repeal is complete, if it's not already done, I'll delay submission until my replacement resolution is good enough to present to you all for drafting."

Drane nods. "You seem to be well-versed in this subject. We'll support a repeal-and-replace provided that the replacement has the same stated goals as GAR#342, the safe, secure operation of civilian aircraft."

"Thank you, ambassador. We assure you that the replacement legislation will have the same goals as GAR 342, and even expand on them to make them better."

[Ameriva]

"The proposed replacement to GAR#342 is now open for drafting, I implore you all to take a look!"

OOC:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=436201

[Tinfect]

TROUBLED that, even aircraft that could be operating under the equivalent of “Visual Flight Rules” (during which, the pilot in command, weather conditions permitting, can navigate their aircraft by themselves at generally low altitudes, and maintain visual separation with other aircraft in the vicinity by themselves) operating in areas that are decently separated from aircraft already in contact with a tracking station would still be required to be in contact at all stages of their flight,

"A reasonable requirement, Ambassador." Says Feren, flanked by both of the other Imperial representatives for once, "In the event of flight complications, alterations in flight plan for one reason or another, or other such reasons one may find it necessary to be in contact with a control facility, such constant contact is both justified, and in the opinion of the Imperium quite necessary. These 'visual flight rules' are simply obsolete at best, and unacceptably dangerous by reasonable measure in the presence of instrumentation alone, nevermind contact with control facilities."

[...] which in already busy airspaces could prove to be extremely stressful for the controller(s) in charge of the tracking station and could lead to potentially fatal mistakes,

"Incompetence or staffing shortages within certain Member-States is not the concern of the World Assembly; if your Government is unable to manage its airspace effectively, that is its own failure, not justification for a repeal of sensible legislation."

BELIEVING nevertheless that these aircraft could have flight tracking offered to them by tracking stations on request, but workload permitting and at the sole discretion of the controller(s) in charge of the tracking station,

"Again, if your Government refuses to appropriately staff its control facilities so as to be able to sufficiently handle the local aerial traffic, that is not the concern of the Imperium, nor is it appropriate grounds for repeal."

PUZZLED at the fact that this resolution forces nations to either establish local tracking stations (such as a control tower), or extend the coverage of a higher-up tracking station down to cover small, quiet airfields with little to no traffic that could easily operate with aircraft simply calling out their intentions on a universal communications frequency, which simply does not make economic sense,

"Ambassador, while it may be 'uneconomical', it is a basic safety regulation that it is absolutely reasonable for the World Assembly to mandate; if only to prohibit certain governments from creating areas of unmanaged, dangerous airspace for foreign or national aircraft. In simpler terms, Ambassador, if you refuse to do something properly, you should not do it at all."

FURTHER NOTING, particularly in the case of private civilian aircraft owned by an individual, that it may not be economically or otherwise feasible to procure the avionic equipment required to be fully identified by tracking stations, such as a transponder and/or radio equipment, and the payment of potential flight tracking fees might also not be feasible,

"While the Imperium questions the sanity of the idea that 'private civilians' may be allowed to own Aircraft, we categorically object to the idea that Aircraft lacking basic and necessary avionics equipment should be allowed to operate in the first place, much less be sold."

HEREBY repeals General Assembly Resolution #342 “Civilian Aircraft Accord”.

"Consider instead, Ambassador, having your Government prohibit the flight of any and all aircraft within its territory, as it is clearly not equipped with the resources or knowledge to do so safely.

The Imperium will not support this legislation, nor any further variation upon it."

[Kenmoria]

"The first comma in the "TROUBLED" line just makes I think harder to read. In fact, the whole clause is very long and splitting it somehow would not be unappreciated."

[Ameriva]

"A reasonable requirement, Ambassador." Says Feren, flanked by both of the other Imperial representatives for once, "In the event of flight complications, alterations in flight plan for one reason or another, or other such reasons one may find it necessary to be in contact with a control facility, such constant contact is both justified, and in the opinion of the Imperium quite necessary. These 'visual flight rules' are simply obsolete at best, and unacceptably dangerous by reasonable measure in the presence of instrumentation alone, nevermind contact with control facilities."

"Should any complications come about during a flight, that aircraft can simply tune the frequency of any station as shown on the relevant terminal area chart (the publication of which would become mandatory under under our proposed replacement), and declare that it is in distress, and receive all required assistance to deal with the situation. Alterations in flightplans would not be necessary if the aircraft remains in uncontrolled airspace, as they wont be required to have one open. And should they wish to open one, they can contact the nearest tracking station to organize that.

Being in constant contact with a tracking station that controls thousands of square miles of airspace, having to announce all stages of it's pattern, simply would not make sense for a small, slow aircraft wishing to remain in the traffic pattern of a field with two aircraft movements a day, would it now?"

"Incompetence or staffing shortages within certain Member-States is not the concern of the World Assembly; if your Government is unable to manage its airspace effectively, that is its own failure, not justification for a repeal of sensible legislation."

"Our government is more than capable of effectively and safely managing our airspace, we simply would rather allocate resources from having to have control towers at small farm strips with one aircraft movement a week, elsewhere.

Aswell, we would like to alleviate busy controllers controlling hundreds of aircraft, all above 30,000 feet, from having to control single engine piston aircraft doing local hops, staying well out of the way of each other through co-ordination on a UNICOM frequency.

"Again, if your Government refuses to appropriately staff its control facilities so as to be able to sufficiently handle the local aerial traffic, that is not the concern of the Imperium, nor is it appropriate grounds for repeal."

"That is not the case, ambassador. We believe that controllers, in certain situations responsible for thousands of lives, should have the authority to refuse entry to aircraft staying in uncontrolled airspace, having the liberty to offer tracking services to these aircraft workload permitting.

"Ambassador, while it may be 'uneconomical', it is a basic safety regulation that it is absolutely reasonable for the World Assembly to mandate; if only to prohibit certain governments from creating areas of unmanaged, dangerous airspace for foreign or national aircraft. In simpler terms, Ambassador, if you refuse to do something properly, you should not do it at all."

"The fact that you believe nations should spend millions on staffing essentially abandoned airstrips is laughable, ambassador."

"While the Imperium questions the sanity of the idea that 'private civilians' may be allowed to own Aircraft, we categorically object to the idea that Aircraft lacking basic and necessary avionics equipment should be allowed to operate in the first place, much less be sold."

"The absurdity of this comment should speak for itself."

"Consider instead, Ambassador, having your Government prohibit the flight of any and all aircraft within its territory, as it is clearly not equipped with the resources or knowledge to do so safely.

"That's very ironic coming from someone who has no clue about what they are talking about, ambassador.


OOC: No matter how well staffed a sector is, it does not necessarily mean that the controller of that sector wont be super busy at times.

For a real life example, I've tried to request a crossing of the class "bravo" Los Angeles controlled airspace from a sector of Socal Approach via published procedures during rush hour into LAX, but was rejected and told to remain clear of controlled airspace because the controller was guiding so many aircraft down, in fact it took me a decent while of time just to get a gap so I could key in and request to transition the airspace.

[Tinfect]

"Should any complications come about during a flight, that aircraft can simply tune the frequency of any station as shown on the relevant terminal area chart (the publication of which would become mandatory under under our proposed replacement), and declare that it is in distress, and receive all required assistance to deal with the situation. Alterations in flightplans would not be necessary if the aircraft remains in uncontrolled airspace, as they wont be required to have one open. And should they wish to open one, they can contact the nearest tracking station to organize that.

"An unnecessary additional step, Ambassador. Constant contact and reporting minimizes risks and ensures that aircraft and control personnel are informed of any necessary information at all times."

Being in constant contact with a tracking station that controls thousands of square miles of airspace, having to announce all stages of it's pattern, simply would not make sense for a small, slow aircraft wishing to remain in the traffic pattern of a field with two aircraft movements a day, would it now?"

"Ambassador, do explain why the size and potential velocity of an aircraft should have any bearing on its applicability to safety standards? Uncontrolled aircraft pose a risk to any other aircraft in their vicinity, and to allow them is simply absurd in the face of the vastly superior solution of simply controlling all air traffic and eliminating the problem at its source."

"Our government is more than capable of effectively and safely managing our airspace, we simply would rather allocate resources from having to have control towers at small farm strips with one aircraft movement a week, elsewhere.[i/]

"Then simply decommission the local control facility and assign its usage to another, more central facility. Alternatively, decommission the disused airstrip entirely and move the aircraft to another facility. This problem is entirely of your own making."

[i]As well, we would like to alleviate busy controllers controlling hundreds of aircraft, all above 30,000 feet, from having to control single engine piston aircraft doing local hops, staying well out of the way of each other through co-ordination on a UNICOM frequency.

"Then eliminate unnecessary air traffic; I assure you, Ambassador, there is absolutely nothing done by those smaller craft that could not be more efficiently done by smaller numbers of more appropriately sized craft, apart from, of course, Military Duties. Alternatively, expand your control facilities; again, this problem appears to be entirely one of your own making."

"That is not the case, ambassador. We believe that controllers, in certain situations responsible for thousands of lives, should have the authority to refuse entry to aircraft staying in uncontrolled airspace, having the liberty to offer tracking services to these aircraft workload permitting.

"Ambassador, the solution to this concern is the same as it has always been; eliminate dangerous uncontrolled airspace, and expand control facilities; or simply the latter, such that facilities do not see it necessary to withhold control from an aircraft. This 'liberty' to refuse control services is tantamount to allowing Military Personnel the free dereliction of duty."

"The fact that you believe nations should spend millions on staffing essentially abandoned airstrips is laughable, ambassador."

"Given your statements, Ambassador, that appears to be the position of your Government; the Imperium, on the other hand, manages its infrastructure without such difficulties."

"The absurdity of this comment should speak for itself."

"Really then, Ambassador? What, exactly, is absurd about prohibiting Civilian elements from holding ownership of high-velocity flight-capable vehicles capable of a massive degree of damage should they be used by malicious or underqualified personnel? Certainly your Government does not allow its citizens ownership of a Tank, or Artillery Piece?"

OOC: No matter how well staffed a sector is, it does not necessarily mean that the controller of that sector wont be super busy at times.

OOC:
That rather sounds like a sign that the sector in question is insufficiently staffed at peak hours; in any case, that doesn't really help your argument.

For a real life example, I've tried to request a crossing of the class "bravo" Los Angeles controlled airspace from a sector of Socal Approach via published procedures during rush hour into LAX, but was rejected and told to remain clear of controlled airspace because the controller was guiding so many aircraft down, in fact it took me a decent while of time just to get a gap so I could key in and request to transition the airspace.

Given that US Air Traffic Control is, if memory serves, chronically understaffed, you may want to consider not using them as an example.

[The First German Order]

"A reasonable requirement, Ambassador." Says Feren, flanked by both of the other Imperial representatives for once, "In the event of flight complications, alterations in flight plan for one reason or another, or other such reasons one may find it necessary to be in contact with a control facility, such constant contact is both justified, and in the opinion of the Imperium quite necessary. These 'visual flight rules' are simply obsolete at best, and unacceptably dangerous by reasonable measure in the presence of instrumentation alone, nevermind contact with control facilities."

"Should any complications come about during a flight, that aircraft can simply tune the frequency of any station as shown on the relevant terminal area chart (the publication of which would become mandatory under under our proposed replacement), and declare that it is in distress, and receive all required assistance to deal with the situation. Alterations in flightplans would not be necessary if the aircraft remains in uncontrolled airspace, as they wont be required to have one open. And should they wish to open one, they can contact the nearest tracking station to organize that. -
(see original post for full message)

OOC: Just a question, but who's to say they'll 100% definitely be given assistance?

[Ameriva]

OOC: Apologies about the delay in response, RL issues.

IC:

"An unnecessary additional step, Ambassador. Constant contact and reporting minimizes risks and ensures that aircraft and control personnel are informed of any necessary information at all times."

"Not necessarily, ambassador. If that is the case in your nation, good for you, nothing would be forced to change under our proposed replacement legislation, however other nations will be able to take advantage of instituting VFR."

"Ambassador, do explain why the size and potential velocity of an aircraft should have any bearing on its applicability to safety standards? Uncontrolled aircraft pose a risk to any other aircraft in their vicinity, and to allow them is simply absurd in the face of the vastly superior solution of simply controlling all air traffic and eliminating the problem at its source."

"Something I can think of off the top of my head is wake turbulence, ambassador. The bigger the aircraft, the larger the turbulence it leaves in it's wake. Therefore, separation of, in cases, several minutes, has to be applied between larger and smaller aircraft, otherwise small aircraft could be severely destabilized or flipped over and enter a stall.

Therefore, yes, aircraft of different sizes and potential velocities should be treated differently by controllers. I vehemently object to your classification of forced communication at all times as a 'safety standard'."

"Then simply decommission the local control facility and assign its usage to another, more central facility. Alternatively, decommission the disused airstrip entirely and move the aircraft to another facility. This problem is entirely of your own making."

"This is not always possible, ambassador. It's important for local controllers to be able to see the active runways they are controlling, so they can see the traffic pattern and traffic moving around on the ground. Aswell, communication methods could have higher chances of reading out the wrong information on an aircraft the further away from the receiver the transmitter is (of course were talking potentially thousands of miles of separation, but centralizing all local controllers could lead to this scenario."

"Then eliminate unnecessary air traffic; I assure you, Ambassador, there is absolutely nothing done by those smaller craft that could not be more efficiently done by smaller numbers of more appropriately sized craft, apart from, of course, Military Duties. Alternatively, expand your control facilities; again, this problem appears to be entirely one of your own making."

"Not in the case of private aircraft ownership and the initial training of pilots on smaller aircraft to grasp the basic fundamentals of flight before being tasked with the lives of thousands of lives and millions if not billions of NSD worth of property."

"Ambassador, the solution to this concern is the same as it has always been; eliminate dangerous uncontrolled airspace, and expand control facilities; or simply the latter, such that facilities do not see it necessary to withhold control from an aircraft. This 'liberty' to refuse control services is tantamount to allowing Military Personnel the free dereliction of duty."

"Your comparison makes no sense, ambassador. How is a controller asking a small aircraft in uncontrolled airspace to remain clear when the controller is busy guiding bigger IFR aircraft for a bit whilst the workload clears up enough for VFR aircraft to get service, tantamount to betraying ones country?"

"Given your statements, Ambassador, that appears to be the position of your Government; the Imperium, on the other hand, manages its infrastructure without such difficulties."

The Amerivan ambassador would laugh out loud.

"Why no, ambassador. We wish to get rid of these unnecessary stations. It does appear to be the position of your government, however. And I would like to remind you, whilst it's nice the Imperium's system works fine in your nation, the Imperium is not representative of all world assembly member states.

Nothing would necessarily change in any nation under the replacement, either, as civil aviation bodies can classify all national airspace as controlled and be done with it. It simply would give exceptions to us who wish to have uncontrolled airspace in certain circumstances, the right to do so."

"Really then, Ambassador? What, exactly, is absurd about prohibiting Civilian elements from holding ownership of high-velocity flight-capable vehicles capable of a massive degree of damage should they be used by malicious or underqualified personnel? Certainly your Government does not allow its citizens ownership of a Tank, or Artillery Piece?"

"Nothing. I personally hold an Amerivan Private Pilot's License, and own a small, single engine piston aircraft. Flying this small aircraft has enabled me to develop my basic aviation skills, which would have been useful to fly bigger airliners for the Amerivan Airforce, that being my initial career choice, but that didn't work out for me so I ended up going into diplomacy and now I'm stuck here arguing with you, ambassador. But enough of my personal story.

Using our nation as an example, to pilot anything larger than a small piston aircraft that could at most kill yourself, the small amounts of passengers that can fit in such a small aircraft, and maybe a few unlucky individuals on the ground, you are required to get a Commercial Pilot's License, which has the requirement of having a job as a commercial pilot in training at a registered passenger or cargo airline.

The point is, your national civil aviation board is responsible for making sure malicious or underqualified personnel don't gain access to civilian aircraft, through licensing, or other enforcement means. Or, as you appear to have done, simply ban private ownership of civilian aircraft, which although we feel is absurd, wont change have to change under this repeal nor the replacement resolution."

OOC:
That rather sounds like a sign that the sector in question is insufficiently staffed at peak hours; in any case, that doesn't really help your argument.

OOC: You can only split a sector up so many times, otherwise controllers would have to handoff aircraft to each other essentially every minute or so in smaller busy airspaces, which is a nuisance and very unnecessary.

Given that US Air Traffic Control is, if memory serves, chronically understaffed, you may want to consider not using them as an example.

OOC: SoCal Approach is well staffed for example. There were 9 sectors active when I attempted to cross LAX. The problem is, as previously mentioned, you can only cut up sectors so much before I'd have to contact a different station every minute. And when I did eventually get my crossing later that evening, I had to switch frequencies many times in the 30 nautical miles it took to cross the airspace, which was not fun as I had to take my attention from flying the aircraft down to my radio to dial in and switch over the frequency.

Despite the USA Today usually being a questionable source at best, even if the allegations are true, they are against ARTCC center controllers, who control airspace of 18,000 feet up to 60,000 feet, which is the end of civilian airspace. Aircraft flying under VFR in uncontrolled airspace essentially never come into contact with center, as to fly above 18,000 feet, you need to be IFR. VFR aircraft usually contact TRACON controllers, who control everything past local controllers up to 18,000 feet, and US TRACONs are well staffed. Hell, in the middle of the night there are more than 2 TRACON controllers active at the big US International "Class B" airports, based on nightly traffic to that airport.

Therefore, yes, I stand by using the US as an example. No matter how much you staff busy airspaces, they still get really busy, and it's unfeasible to keep staffing them more and more.

[Ameriva]

"Should any complications come about during a flight, that aircraft can simply tune the frequency of any station as shown on the relevant terminal area chart (the publication of which would become mandatory under under our proposed replacement), and declare that it is in distress, and receive all required assistance to deal with the situation. Alterations in flightplans would not be necessary if the aircraft remains in uncontrolled airspace, as they wont be required to have one open. And should they wish to open one, they can contact the nearest tracking station to organize that. -
(see original post for full message)

OOC: Just a question, but who's to say they'll 100% definitely be given assistance?

OOC: The World Assembly, as you are required under GAR #342 to do exactly that.

IC:

"Thank you very much for your input, everybody, the majority of it has been incorporated into the fifth draft.

Should the conditions persist, we will look at submitting in the next 48 hours or so."

[The First German Order]

OOC: Just a question, but who's to say they'll 100% definitely be given assistance?

OOC: The World Assembly, as you are required under GAR #342 to do exactly that.

IC:

"Thank you very much for your input, everybody, the majority of it has been incorporated into the fifth draft.

Should the conditions persist, we will look at submitting in the next 48 hours or so."

OOC: I mean the ATC. Who says that the ATC will 100% always give assistance?

[Ameriva]

OOC: The World Assembly, as you are required under GAR #342 to do exactly that.

IC:

"Thank you very much for your input, everybody, the majority of it has been incorporated into the fifth draft.

Should the conditions persist, we will look at submitting in the next 48 hours or so."

OOC: I mean the ATC. Who says that the ATC will 100% always give assistance?

OOC: ATC is required to do so under World Assembly law. Should they not offer assistance to an aircraft in distress, that means you are in violation of world assembly law, and at the mercy of the compliance commission.

[The First German Order]

OOC: I mean the ATC. Who says that the ATC will 100% always give assistance?

OOC: ATC is required to do so under World Assembly law. Should they not offer assistance to an aircraft in distress, that means you are in violation of world assembly law, and at the mercy of the compliance commission.

OOC: Which can do pretty much nothing seeing as a nation can’t be kicked out of the WA for breaking a WA law.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Which can do pretty much nothing seeing as a nation can’t be kicked out of the WA for breaking a WA law.

OOC: But considering player noncompliance can't be dealt with GA proposals anyway, it's kinda useless to bring it up as an argument.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Which can do pretty much nothing seeing as a nation can’t be kicked out of the WA for breaking a WA law.

OOC: But considering player noncompliance can't be dealt with GA proposals anyway, it's kinda useless to bring it up as an argument.

Really? I have a ruling that contradicts that statement.

[Araraukar]

Really? I have a ruling that contradicts that statement.

OOC: I said player noncompliance. No GA resolution can ever kick people out of WA or force them to roleplay in a certain way.