NationStates

Tried to keep this fairly straight forward. The original author of PoA (East Meranopirus) and I will be working on a replacement to be passed upon this repeal. That draft will be out asap and I don't plan to move this repeal to the floor until we have a replacement draft posted on the forums. In the meantime, this repeal points out the basic flaws/issues and creates room for the replacement to be proposed.

Target proposal text = https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

Repeal: Protection of Airspace

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that Protection of Airspace possesses many flaws that actively harm the protection of airspace,

Highlighting the issue in the definition of ‘aircraft’ in that it explicitly requires sapient beings to have total control over the aircraft, thus creating a legal gray area with drones, UAVs, and auto-pilot functions of aircraft,

Dismayed at the erroneous definition of ‘airspace’ that relies on the maximum altitude of ‘airfoil based flight’ which is effectively nonmeaning and ignores the more complex considerations of flight and engine capability,

Noting that the flaws in the above definitions create issues in the definitions of ‘territorial airspace’ and ‘international airspace’ as well as the application of the resolution on an international scale,

Stating that this proposal only aims to supply a minute amount of sovereignty over domestic airspace that is most likely already present in member nations and their territories,

Concluding that this proposal is greatly hampered in application by its flawed definitions and does little to protect the airspace of member nations,

Hereby repeals....

As always, feedback is always appreciated!

OOC: What's wrong with the airspace definition? (Or the upper limit of it anyway.)

(OOC: If there is nothing in the resolution about drones and aero craft that are not fully-controlled by sapients, the simple solution would be to pass resolutions about those in addition to existing law.)

Araraukar wrote:OOC: What's wrong with the airspace definition? (Or the upper limit of it anyway.)

The statement of 'airfoil based flight' is really misleading as the vast majority of all aircraft and rockets possess airfoils of some sort. Moreso, that flight limit is based on engine capabilities and their ability to continually produce thrust in those increased altitudes. Therefore this upper limit would arbitrarily change from nation to nation instead of being consistently defined.

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: If there is nothing in the resolution about drones and aero craft that are not fully-controlled by sapients, the simple solution would be to pass resolutions about those in addition to existing law.)

Or repeal if you want to revision the original resolution. Especially when the hole is so glaring it defeats a lot of the proposal.

Kranostav wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: If there is nothing in the resolution about drones and aero craft that are not fully-controlled by sapients, the simple solution would be to pass resolutions about those in addition to existing law.)

Or repeal if you want to revision the original resolution. Especially when the hole is so glaring it defeats a lot of the proposal.

The topic of drones is complex enough and separated enough politically and situationally from the subject of normal aircraft that there's certainly room to give it its own resolution. How those devices interact with other WA nations would surely fall within the GA's concern. GAR#464 doesn't need to be repealed for that discussion to take place.

Kranostav wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: What's wrong with the airspace definition? (Or the upper limit of it anyway.)

The statement of 'airfoil based flight' is really misleading as the vast majority of all aircraft and rockets possess airfoils of some sort. Moreso, that flight limit is based on engine capabilities and their ability to continually produce thrust in those increased altitudes. Therefore this upper limit would arbitrarily change from nation to nation instead of being consistently defined.

OOC: It's not based on engine capabilities, it's based on the airfoil's capabilities. It doesn't say "rockets" because rockets don't stay in the air based on airflow over wings. They stay in the air based on the way they provide constant push (and when they stop providing push, they'll start to fall, usually in a ballistic arc, unless they've gotten up to orbital speeds, in which case they'll continue to fall but end up in orbit). Airplanes on the other hand, rely on the airflow around the wings to stay airborne, the push from the motors just makes the air flow faster, thus enabling heavier payloads on the wings. There are motorless planes, called gliders, too, in case you'd like to argue that motors make a plane.

Refuge Isle wrote:

Kranostav wrote:Or repeal if you want to revision the original resolution. Especially when the hole is so glaring it defeats a lot of the proposal.

The topic of drones is complex enough and separated enough politically and situationally from the subject of normal aircraft that there's certainly room to give it its own resolution. How those devices interact with other WA nations would surely fall within the GA's concern. GAR#464 doesn't need to be repealed for that discussion to take place.

(OOC: I fully agree with this. Although having to have two resolutions to deal with a topic easily handled by one isn’t ideal, it is easier than a fairly-pointless repeal and replace.)

Araraukar wrote:

Kranostav wrote:The statement of 'airfoil based flight' is really misleading as the vast majority of all aircraft and rockets possess airfoils of some sort. Moreso, that flight limit is based on engine capabilities and their ability to continually produce thrust in those increased altitudes. Therefore this upper limit would arbitrarily change from nation to nation instead of being consistently defined.

OOC: It's not based on engine capabilities, it's based on the airfoil's capabilities. It doesn't say "rockets" because rockets don't stay in the air based on airflow over wings. They stay in the air based on the way they provide constant push (and when they stop providing push, they'll start to fall, usually in a ballistic arc, unless they've gotten up to orbital speeds, in which case they'll continue to fall but end up in orbit). Airplanes on the other hand, rely on the airflow around the wings to stay airborne, the push from the motors just makes the air flow faster, thus enabling heavier payloads on the wings. There are motorless planes, called gliders, too, in case you'd like to argue that motors make a plane.

Im not defining it on the capability of engines, however engine capability is a major factor in an aircraft's ability to stay airborne, so much so that turbojet engines 'upper limit' is when the density of the air (and lack of oxygen) becomes too little for useful and efficient work (thrust) to be produced via compression and subsequent combustion.

It doesn't say "rockets" because rockets don't stay in the air based on airflow over wings. They stay in the air based on the way they provide constant push (and when they stop providing push, they'll start to fall, usually in a ballistic arc, unless they've gotten up to orbital speeds, in which case they'll continue to fall but end up in orbit).

I am well aware of how rockets work
However 'airfoil based flight' is non meaning. The ability of those aircraft to fly lies in the engine; two aircraft with similar airfoil characteristics can behave totally differently when considering their other factors. Sure, airfoils provide lift and drag characteristics however those are only a second though to that of the speed at which the aircraft is moving and AoA.

Airplanes on the other hand, rely on the airflow around the wings to stay airborne, the push from the motors just makes the air flow faster, thus enabling heavier payloads on the wings. There are motorless planes, called gliders, too, in case you'd like to argue that motors make a plane.

Again, well aware
But I would contest that there is a major difference between airplanes and gliders. So much so that legislation could very well differ on how to treat them.
However I wouldn't mean to define an aircraft as having a motor or not. But rather define the airspace generally as the atmosphere above the territory of a nation. (and aircraft as those vehicles that reside within that level of flight for the entirety of their flight)

Afterthought: Yes I see the distinction you are trying to make between planes and rockets here. In case it wasn't patently obvious I was disagreeing in that rockets do also employ airfoils (in a physically similar way yet different in application). Therefore the whole, 'airfoil based flight' item is not satisfactory, and thus a better definition (as given above) would allow for a distinction between the two. All of this is ignoring the 'a sapient is totally under control of it' problem with aircraft which is disqualifying to begin with as that cuts out many aircraft IRL.

Refuge Isle wrote:

Kranostav wrote:Or repeal if you want to revision the original resolution. Especially when the hole is so glaring it defeats a lot of the proposal.

The topic of drones is complex enough and separated enough politically and situationally from the subject of normal aircraft that there's certainly room to give it its own resolution. How those devices interact with other WA nations would surely fall within the GA's concern. GAR#464 doesn't need to be repealed for that discussion to take place.

My target is not drones, however all aircraft that fly within the atmosphere (non space). Drones is just a great example of how this proposal doesn't address many items that inhibit the airspace it attempts to address.

Might be turning this into a complimentary proposal on its own if support isnt really there tbh. Just giving a bump to see!

Kranostav wrote:Might be turning this into a complimentary proposal on its own if support isnt really there tbh. Just giving a bump to see!

Pass a resolution about drones instead of repealing.

Kranostav wrote:Might be turning this into a complimentary proposal on its own if support isnt really there tbh. Just giving a bump to see!

(OOC: That seems to be the best option, from my perspective.)

Kranostav wrote:My target is not drones, however all aircraft that fly within the atmosphere (non space). Drones is just a great example of how this proposal doesn't address many items that inhibit the airspace it attempts to address.

It's better to make a resolution about drones than to repeal the entirety of this resolution simply on a few inconsistencies. I am actually inspired to make a resolution about this, given that I own a few drones myself IRL and know the dangers and risks posed by them.

Kranostav wrote:Highlighting the issue in the definition of ‘aircraft’ in that it explicitly requires sapient beings to have total control over the aircraft, thus creating a legal gray area with ... auto-pilot functions of aircraft,

OOC: If you're really going to repeal the target, ^this should likely be your primary focus, because in RL that'd be like all commercial civilian aircraft...