[Draft] Standards on Air Traffic Control

[Imperium Anglorum]

I gotta say, I disagree with you on both accounts here. I don't necessarily see how the "good faith" section applies to this, because, as far as I can tell, this hasn't been legislated on prior to this. As for micromanagement, I don't think that this is asking for too much, and it's all in the name of more open communications and safer provisions, especially in times of emergency or of heavy airway traffic.

How could it possibly be good faith compliance not to do the things this clause requires, even if the clause were not present?

As for the different subdivisions, it's written the way it is for simplicity's sake. Theoretically, these different subdivisions can all be one group of people contributing at the same time, or it can be several different subsections of ATC, it all depends on the density of the area, and, even then, it can vary from area to area. It is, for all practical purposes, impossible to summarize in 5000 characters the many different forms that ATC can take over 22,000 different nations. I feel that it's reasonable to assume that all the different subdivisions will be able to easily communicate with each other, thus being on the same "communications channel."

I understand that there are multiple subdivisions. Why are they all based in airports? I mean, if we go over to here (I can be bored at work too), Eurocontrol isn't located at Heathrow, it's located at Brussels. When the plane is flying outside of Heathrow's airspace, in southern England, but not at cruising altitude, it isn't attached to an airport anymore, it's attached to London Terminal Control Centre in Southampton. When the plane reaches cruising altitude, it is transferred to the London Area Control Centre. These centres all do different things and are probably better off not all attached to airports. This becomes especially important if transmission direction is used to identify the sender, which could cause confusion.

Your proposal attaches them all to airports. Recognising the difference between traffic control at the on-the-ground level, near-an-airport level, below-cruising-altitude level, and cruising-altitude level is probably decently important. I can't say I'm an expert on ATC systems, but the divisions between them likely exist for some compelling reason which shouldn't be blithely ignored.

---

Also, while we're here, let's ban flying drones near airports.

[Morover]

I gotta say, I disagree with you on both accounts here. I don't necessarily see how the "good faith" section applies to this, because, as far as I can tell, this hasn't been legislated on prior to this. As for micromanagement, I don't think that this is asking for too much, and it's all in the name of more open communications and safer provisions, especially in times of emergency or of heavy airway traffic.

How could it possibly be good faith compliance not to do the things this clause requires, even if the clause were not present?

Oh, my bad, I completely misunderstood what you were saying there. My apologies, I believed you were talking about "good faith" meaning good faith on prior resolutions. I can see where you're coming from here, but still disagree that it can be removed, as it really is the centerplace of this proposal. The only thing that really could really be brought into question about doing essentially the same thing is clause 4b. Even then, though, I feel that clause 4b works better when supplementary to clause 2, as opposed to being essentially the same thing. I don't know if that makes any sense, but it's what I was going for, at least.

As for the different subdivisions, it's written the way it is for simplicity's sake. Theoretically, these different subdivisions can all be one group of people contributing at the same time, or it can be several different subsections of ATC, it all depends on the density of the area, and, even then, it can vary from area to area. It is, for all practical purposes, impossible to summarize in 5000 characters the many different forms that ATC can take over 22,000 different nations. I feel that it's reasonable to assume that all the different subdivisions will be able to easily communicate with each other, thus being on the same "communications channel."

I understand that there are multiple subdivisions. Why are they all based in airports? I mean, if we go over to here (I can be bored at work too), Eurocontrol isn't located at Heathrow, it's located at Brussels. When the plane is flying outside of Heathrow's airspace, in southern England, but not at cruising altitude, it isn't attached to an airport anymore, it's attached to London Terminal Control Centre in Southampton. When the plane reaches cruising altitude, it is transferred to the London Area Control Centre. These centres all do different things and are probably better off not all attached to airports. This becomes especially important if transmission direction is used to identify the sender, which could cause confusion.

Your proposal attaches them all to airports. Recognising the difference between traffic control at the on-the-ground level, near-an-airport level, below-cruising-altitude level, and cruising-altitude level is probably decently important. I can't say I'm an expert on ATC systems, but the divisions between them likely exist for some compelling reason which shouldn't be blithely ignored.

---

Also, while we're here, let's ban flying drones near airports.

I actually saw that video pop up in my recommended a few days after I posted this thread, and meant to watch it, and just haven't gotten around to it.

So, I definitely can say that you make total sense here in saying that I should exclude the attachment of regional airspace to airports, but I don't quite know how to do it off the top of my head. It's definitely possible, due to clause 4c, which allows the ITSC to create borders for regional airspace, I just don't know how to word it. I'll come up with a solution as soon as I can.

[Imperium Anglorum]

How could it possibly be good faith compliance not to do the things this clause requires, even if the clause were not present?

Oh, my bad, I completely misunderstood what you were saying there. My apologies, I believed you were talking about "good faith" meaning good faith on prior resolutions. I can see where you're coming from here, but still disagree that it can be removed, as it really is the centerplace of this proposal. The only thing that really could really be brought into question about doing essentially the same thing is clause 4b. Even then, though, I feel that clause 4b works better when supplementary to clause 2, as opposed to being essentially the same thing. I don't know if that makes any sense, but it's what I was going for, at least.

The only reason to have the clause is if nations could comply in good faith with the whole resolution without doing the things noted in the clause. Otherwise, the clause has no effect. Can you tell me of a situation wherein the clause has effect given the rest of the resolution? Otherwise, I'm included towards surplusage.

[Morover]

Oh, my bad, I completely misunderstood what you were saying there. My apologies, I believed you were talking about "good faith" meaning good faith on prior resolutions. I can see where you're coming from here, but still disagree that it can be removed, as it really is the centerplace of this proposal. The only thing that really could really be brought into question about doing essentially the same thing is clause 4b. Even then, though, I feel that clause 4b works better when supplementary to clause 2, as opposed to being essentially the same thing. I don't know if that makes any sense, but it's what I was going for, at least.

The only reason to have the clause is if nations could comply in good faith with the whole resolution without doing the things noted in the clause. Otherwise, the clause has no effect. Can you tell me of a situation wherein the clause has effect given the rest of the resolution? Otherwise, I'm included towards surplusage.

See, my issue with removing it is that clause 4b then has no accurate definition of what defines "sufficient." While this isn't necessarily a problem and can be easily fixed, I believe that the way it is currently written keeps interpretations of it airtight, and prevents accidental noncompliance, which is something we should be focused on.

Regardless, I'll consider it and may remove the clause with some slight changes to 4b. Thanks for your feedback.

[Morover]

OOC: Alrighty, so I changed the definition of regional airspace a bit to disconnect it from airports themselves, and also changed up the wording of "communications channel" to hopefully be easier understood.

Additionally, I have decided to not remove the clause which requires staffing in all regional airspace, because I believe that the clause 4b (the one that could possibly make it redundant) focuses more on airports than airspace. Furthermore, even if 4b did affect airspace as a whole, clause 2 would set parameters for "sufficient," thus making it still necessary. I could probably combine the two somehow, but I believe that it's more understandable as-is, which should hopefully prevent any "accidental noncompliance," as I'll call it.

[Morover]

"I've made minor edits - this isn't quite done, and could still use quite a bit of tweaking. I've tried to make the definitions sufficient enough to cover as much gray area as possible."

OOC: I've re-read my conversation with IA in this thread and still believe that clause 2 is necessary, or at least some variation of it. I could theoretically add a subclause D to clause 4 with something along the lines of "setting minimum staffing requirements for regional airspace which must be adhered to" - though I'd like to reduce the clunkiness of it. I do want some more feedback before changing that, however.

I also think that 1(b) could use some work, though the general point behind it remains solid. I do want to move on from the "communications channel" idea - though I don't entirely know how to do that.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Could clause 2 maybe gain the addition of "when aircraft can legally be in the designated airspace". Because, like, if you close the airspace for the night, there's no need to have someone on standby either.

[Morover]

OOC: Could clause 2 maybe gain the addition of "when aircraft can legally be in the designated airspace". Because, like, if you close the airspace for the night, there's no need to have someone on standby either.

OOC: Done. I also added clause 3, which I feel is a necessary addition given the change to clause 2.

[WayNeacTia]

Clauses 5 and 6 appear to directly contradict clause 6 of the Civilian Aircraft Accord which leaves nations with the sole authority of making and enforcing regulations when it comes to civil aircraft.

[Morover]

Clauses 5 and 6 appear to directly contradict clause 6 of the Civilian Aircraft Accord which leaves nations with the sole authority of making and enforcing regulations when it comes to civil aircraft.

"Not so, though I can see the confusion. ATC isn't necessary to operate a civilian aircraft - that is a pilot's job. ATC is more responsible for the management of a multitude of aircrafts."

OOC: I'd agree with my ambassadorial staff IC, honestly. Of course, it's ultimately up to GenSec but I think it's a non-issue.

[Araraukar]

Clauses 5 and 6 appear to directly contradict clause 6 of the Civilian Aircraft Accord which leaves nations with the sole authority of making and enforcing regulations when it comes to civil aircraft.

OOC: Like Morover said, the difference is between aircraft (as in, the physical planes and flying them) and air traffic (all the planes in the air as a whole). Think of the difference as there being laws about what features a car (and what skills its driver) must have to be allowed to be driven in public, and the managing of rush hour traffic.

[Morover]

OOC: Bumping this to stimulate some discussion. Looking to submit before the year ends, so some further critiques would be nice.

[Morover]

OOC: I'll be submitting this in around 48 hours unless some issue comes up in the meantime.

[Maowi]

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
[list=a][*]air traffic control (henceforth known as ATC) as an individual or group of individuals responsible for the management of regional airspace, as well as the safe landing and takeoff of an aircraft, and

"This phrasing could be reworked for clarity. I would remove the the first comma; its presence suggests "an individual or group of individuals ... as well as the safe landing" as opposed to "the management ... as well as the safe landing" - to be honest, it would probably be less ambiguous if you were also to replace "as well as" with "and". Also remove the article preceding "aircraft". The collective noun sounds better to me.

[*]regional airspace as any area or group of areas in which a vehicle capable of flight are permitted to fly which share a local channel of communication.

"Replace the "are" with "is", or else make "vehicle" plural.

Requires all member-nations to effectively communicate, to the best of their abilities, the timing and reason behind any closing of regional airspace for any reason to all active-duty regional ATC staff, pilots who can be reasonably assumed to be affected by the closing of the regional airspace, or any other individual whom the closing of the regional airspace may affect.

"Some of this is superfluous and could be removed without losing meaning and simultaneously making the whole clause easier to read. I have underlined the part in question. I also have reservations about the last clause of the sentence. Perhaps the addition of "directly" prior to "affect" may allow member nations to take a slightly less burdensome reading of the clause. As an example, the closing of airspace may affect nearby residents who would otherwise have to endure the noise pollution from passing aeroplanes - and, with all due respect, I'm not going to be arguing to my fellows back home that we ought to force ourselves to send out notification to any and all people with the potential to be affected. However, I would add to this clause a requirement for such communication to take place as soon after the making of the decision as possible.

[*]Requires that all ATC personnel, when on-duty, to remain sufficiently rested and nourished as to perform their duties effectively.

"Remove the first "to" and add "so" before the "as"."

[*]Expands the duties of the International Transport Safety Committee (henceforth known as ITSC) to include the following:
[list=a][*]Setting regulations on the training of ATC staff,

"Perhaps it would be safer to specify at least generically what the training of ATC staff ought to prepare them for?

"This seems well-thought-out; Maowi finds itself in support, overall."

[Morover]

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
[list=a][*]air traffic control (henceforth known as ATC) as an individual or group of individuals responsible for the management of regional airspace, as well as the safe landing and takeoff of an aircraft, and

"This phrasing could be reworked for clarity. I would remove the the first comma; its presence suggests "an individual or group of individuals ... as well as the safe landing" as opposed to "the management ... as well as the safe landing" - to be honest, it would probably be less ambiguous if you were also to replace "as well as" with "and". Also remove the article preceding "aircraft". The collective noun sounds better to me.

"Fixed."

[*]regional airspace as any area or group of areas in which a vehicle capable of flight are permitted to fly which share a local channel of communication.

"Replace the "are" with "is", or else make "vehicle" plural.

"We have made 'vehicle' plural."

Requires all member-nations to effectively communicate, to the best of their abilities, the timing and reason behind any closing of regional airspace for any reason to all active-duty regional ATC staff, pilots who can be reasonably assumed to be affected by the closing of the regional airspace, or any other individual whom the closing of the regional airspace may affect.

"Some of this is superfluous and could be removed without losing meaning and simultaneously making the whole clause easier to read. I have underlined the part in question. I also have reservations about the last clause of the sentence. Perhaps the addition of "directly" prior to "affect" may allow member nations to take a slightly less burdensome reading of the clause. As an example, the closing of airspace may affect nearby residents who would otherwise have to endure the noise pollution from passing aeroplanes - and, with all due respect, I'm not going to be arguing to my fellows back home that we ought to force ourselves to send out notification to any and all people with the potential to be affected. However, I would add to this clause a requirement for such communication to take place as soon after the making of the decision as possible.

"Yes, I would agree with this thought. I've fixed all of these concerns, thank you."

[*]Requires that all ATC personnel, when on-duty, to remain sufficiently rested and nourished as to perform their duties effectively.

"Remove the first "to" and add "so" before the "as"."

"Fixed."

[*]Expands the duties of the International Transport Safety Committee (henceforth known as ITSC) to include the following:
[list=a][*]Setting regulations on the training of ATC staff,

"Perhaps it would be safer to specify at least generically what the training of ATC staff ought to prepare them for?

"Yes, I would agree with that thought. I'll add some brief guidelines which will hopefully add some clarification."

"This seems well-thought-out; Maowi finds itself in support, overall."

"Thank you for your support, ambassador."

[Kelssek]

air traffic control (henceforth known as ATC) as an individual or group of individuals responsible for the management of regional airspace and the safe landing and takeoff an aircraft

Controllers are not and cannot be responsible for safe landing and takeoff of aircraft. That's the pilot's job.

any area or group of areas in which vehicles capable of flight are permitted to fly which share a local channel of communication.

This is a seriously convoluted and confusing definition. What is the word "regional" meant to do here? Is the entire country's airspace "a group of areas"? Could we then technically have one ATC on duty in the entire country and satisfy this proposal? Do we need to assign an ATC to direct the local park because kids are flying drones there and are within shouting range of each other?

Requires for there to be one or more conscious, sapient, qualified ATC employee(s) on-duty within regional airspace at all times when aircraft are legally permitted to be in the airspace.

For countries like ours with large, sparsely-populated areas of uncontrolled airspace, this is both highly burdensome and unnecessary for safety. The ambassador seems to be under the impression that all airfields and airspace are always busy all the time and need constant monitoring. This is not the case, many private, isolated, or rural airfields have such a low traffic volume that an ATC provides no safety benefit. The alternative of banning flights when no ATC is on duty is much worse - what if a medical evacuation flight needs to depart?

Furthermore, pilots are entirely capable of safely coordinating themselves under Visual Flight Rules in uncontrolled airspace. When they depart or approach an uncontrolled airport (or one where the tower is closed for the day), we have clear procedures for pilots to report and coordinate themselves on the Common Traffic Advisory Frequency. This document is just one informative example, representative of standard procedures found around the multiverse, that I'd invite the ambassador to consult.

Requires all member-nations to effectively communicate, to the best of their abilities and as promptly as possible, the timing and reason behind any closing of regional airspace to all active-duty regional ATC staff, pilots who can be reasonably assumed to be affected by the closing of the regional airspace, or any other individual whom the closing of the regional airspace may directly affect.

There's nothing outright wrong here, but I do note that it's curious to single out this issue to legislate upon, and there also seems to be a curious assumption that only the government decides to close airspace, and not the ATC authority themselves.

ensuring all airports maintain sufficient staffing at all times, and

Does the WA really need to be regulating how many baggage handlers and check-in agents there must be? And are airports implicitly required to be open 24 hours now?

defining borders for regional airspace

National aviation authorities and/or air traffic control organizations are quite capable of deciding that for themselves.

[Morover]

OOC: Unfortunately I haven't been able to respond to the critiques. I overestimated my free time. I will submit this sometime soon, though, so continue to comment if possible.

Kelssek - I will respond to your critiques and make changes regarding them as soon as I possibly can.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Unfortunately I haven't been able to respond to the critiques. I overestimated my free time. I will submit this sometime soon, though, so continue to comment if possible.

Kelssek - I will respond to your critiques and make changes regarding them as soon as I possibly can.

OOC: I'll wait for you to edit based on Kelssek's comments first, rather than repeat much of what they said.

[Morover]

"Hello, ambassadors. Thank you for your patience in my prolonged leave of absence. In the time I have been gone, I have consulted with an expert on the subject - I am not one myself, unfortunately. However, I should caution that amid the current ruin running amuck in my nation, I will likely be on my own from hereon, so bear with me."

air traffic control (henceforth known as ATC) as an individual or group of individuals responsible for the management of regional airspace and the safe landing and takeoff an aircraft

Controllers are not and cannot be responsible for safe landing and takeoff of aircraft. That's the pilot's job.

"Yes, you would be correct. I have made a tweak to the wording, in order to more accurately achieve what I wish to happen."

any area or group of areas in which vehicles capable of flight are permitted to fly which share a local channel of communication.

This is a seriously convoluted and confusing definition. What is the word "regional" meant to do here? Is the entire country's airspace "a group of areas"? Could we then technically have one ATC on duty in the entire country and satisfy this proposal? Do we need to assign an ATC to direct the local park because kids are flying drones there and are within shouting range of each other?

"This was supposed to be resolved by 5(c) - more on that later - but I can also see how it can cause confusion. I've edited it to hopefully clarify some things, in order to better define it as rough guidelines for which the ITSC to follow."

Requires for there to be one or more conscious, sapient, qualified ATC employee(s) on-duty within regional airspace at all times when aircraft are legally permitted to be in the airspace.

For countries like ours with large, sparsely-populated areas of uncontrolled airspace, this is both highly burdensome and unnecessary for safety. The ambassador seems to be under the impression that all airfields and airspace are always busy all the time and need constant monitoring. This is not the case, many private, isolated, or rural airfields have such a low traffic volume that an ATC provides no safety benefit. The alternative of banning flights when no ATC is on duty is much worse - what if a medical evacuation flight needs to depart?

"So, I'm not going to change anything right away because I've realized that my intention has not been entirely communicated clearly, I don't think. I intended for the 'airspace' to be a much broader area than the traditional very local airspace (OOC: I don't know the technical term for it, but a real-life example of what I'm aiming for is oceanic airspace, such as Gander airspace, etc. I assume someone here has a bit better information than me and my half an hour of googling on this subject, so some help would be appreciated. Honestly, maybe my point did get across and I'm just being foolish - if that's the case, let me know). If I can't clarify accurately I'll rewrite a bit of this proposal so as to still accomplish my goals without being so demanding."

Requires all member-nations to effectively communicate, to the best of their abilities and as promptly as possible, the timing and reason behind any closing of regional airspace to all active-duty regional ATC staff, pilots who can be reasonably assumed to be affected by the closing of the regional airspace, or any other individual whom the closing of the regional airspace may directly affect.

There's nothing outright wrong here, but I do note that it's curious to single out this issue to legislate upon, and there also seems to be a curious assumption that only the government decides to close airspace, and not the ATC authority themselves.

"Yes, you're correct that a government is not the only group who can shut down airspace - but I also didn't say that. I said the government needed to be the one to communicate the closing, as I find them the best suited to either directly do it or delegate someone to do it."

ensuring all airports maintain sufficient staffing at all times, and

Does the WA really need to be regulating how many baggage handlers and check-in agents there must be? And are airports implicitly required to be open 24 hours now?

"Changed to more accurately have the WA regulate the ATC on-duty, as opposed to all staff."

defining borders for regional airspace

National aviation authorities and/or air traffic control organizations are quite capable of deciding that for themselves.

"I'm going to hold off on this issue as well, until I can at least get the definition of regional airspace to what I want it to be."

[Terttia]

Wouldn’t this best be under the area of effect: transportation, instead of safety? The proposal’s text mostly regulates air traffic control which directs planes (transportation).

[Morover]

Wouldn’t this best be under the area of effect: transportation, instead of safety? The proposal’s text mostly regulates air traffic control which directs planes (transportation).

OOC: You're probably right, though it could probably be made into either. I'll switch it over to the transportation AoE.