[LAST CALL] Drone Regulation Act

[Youssath]

I am sure you do realize that official documents need to be written in their own national language

OOC: I'll get back to you on rest of it later, but is ^that enforced by a resolution?

OOC: Nope, not really. But generally, if you have your own native language and all, shouldn't you use that when it comes to official documentation so that your own population knows what's up in the document?

And the closest thing I can find is GAR #122, and it's not even that close towards clarifying your question.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Nope, not really. But generally, if you have your own native language and all, shouldn't you use that when it comes to official documentation so that your own population knows what's up in the document?

OOC: Oh, so we're not talking about the tourists now? Yeah, for one's own people, there's at least one if not two resolutions that require laws to be made easily available.

[Youssath]

OOC: Nope, not really. But generally, if you have your own native language and all, shouldn't you use that when it comes to official documentation so that your own population knows what's up in the document?

OOC: Oh, so we're not talking about the tourists now? Yeah, for one's own people, there's at least one if not two resolutions that require laws to be made easily available.

OOC: Well, if tourists want to apply for a UAV permit, I am certainly sure they are going to have a nightmare when dealing with the language itself to begin with. Look at Japan's drone permits, it's horrendous to even begin without a translator.

[Youssath]

“Clauses 2c to 2e still don’t flow correctly. Is 4b optional or mandatory? Clause 4 proper contains ‘suggests that’, but subclause ‘b’ has ‘must’.”

Also, just for a heads up, I've added your nation into the contributions list at the end of the resolution. Thanks for helping me out with the resolution!

[Greater vakolicci haven]

"We have a few problems with this. The Haven has a lot of...very large cities, and congestion in these cities becomes a problem. One of the ways we have alleviated this problem is by not just allowing but encouraging larger companies to make deliveries to consumers via UAV. Around the skies of Iros or Sondestadt you will see thousands of drones in flight; this reduces traffic on the road and has not led to any fatalities. What is wrong with this?"

[Kenmoria]

“I’ve put some feedback on the draft in red pen.”

Drone Regulation Act

Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Safety | Proposed by: Youssath

---

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING the developments on UAVs as a reliable medium for deliveries and transportation;

NOTING the accessibility of UAVs to the general population, and the lack of any legislation to regulate this market;

EXPRESSING concerns over the usage of UAVs for malicious intent such as terrorist operations or compromising key installations;

FEARING that inadequate training or preparations by UAV pilots can pose serious risks during flight; I think ‘operation’ sounds more appropriate here than ‘flight’, since flight is associated more with larger vehicles.

ENSURING that all parties using UAVs are accountable for their UAVs while remaining compliant to national law; ‘Ensuring’ isn’t a traditional preambulatory verb. Perhaps you could have ‘Hoping to ensure’ or something similar.

CALLING for more legislation on this market in order to establish a solid precedent for future resolutions;

HEREBY,
1. Defines the following terminologies with regards to this resolution:

1. An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is an aircraft without a sapient pilot onboard, and it requires a consistent input by a UAV pilot or is run autonomously by algorithms. You should have ‘that’ rather than ‘it’ here.
2. An UAV pilot is an individual who demonstrates a reasonable expertise on flight operations of UAVs for recreational, research or business purposes. Are there any purposes other than recreational, research or business? If there are, then why are you excluding them? If not, it would be simpler to say ‘for any purpose’, or omit the last part entirely.
3. A no-fly zone is an area where UAVs are not permitted to fly, subject to national law. I query whether it is national law, if some of those zones are established in accordance with WA directives.

2. Mandates for:

1. Introducing compulsory registration on all UAVs heavier than 300 grams upon its sale or construction to the civilian population to ensure accountability on all UAV activities, Registration where? In member nations, or in the GA?
2. Introduction of a one-time compulsory training workshop and mental assessment for all current UAV pilots, where the costs shall be paid privately or by the state, to ensure proper training on the usage and safety protocols on UAVs, Your definition of UAV pilot includes ‘demonstrates a reasonable expertise’, so why do people with expertise on the matter require training?
3. All civilian and military airports and heliports must set up a 5km no-fly zone on all UAVs along with geo-fencing to prevent the flight of UAVs near larger aircraft, Even ones that are closed?
4. Any key installations or government buildings, by each nation's own laws, are encouraged to set up no-fly zones, to the nation's authority, along with geofencing to ensure national security,
5. All civilian UAVs must comply with International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) standards and regulations such that it remains compliant on air safety; You can remove ‘such that it remains compliant’, as you already have ‘must comply’ in the clause.

3. Orders that:

1. UAVs should only be encouraged to fly in good weather conditions such that safe flight can be maintained within the UAV's capacity, Although this clause makes grammatical sense, I’m unsure whom the mandate targets. Governments most likely wouldn’t be encouraging UAVs at all.
2. UAVs are discouraged from flying over crowds or key events in order to ensure public safety unless for journalistic purposes,
3. UAVs are not allowed to discharge, drop, suspend any item or substance from the aircraft at all times, This means that UAVs are allowed to suspend items, so long as they don’t do it at all times. I think you meant ‘at any time’ instead.
4. UAVs are also discouraged from carrying any items on the aircraft unless relevant permits have been granted and the UAV is manufactured to hold the item; I don’t think it is practical for UAVs to be manufactured to hold specific items, so perhaps ‘to hold items’, as a general mandate, would be more appropriate.

4. Suggests that if a UAV's flight plan involves flying over no-fly zones: The definition of ‘no-fly zones’ is an area where UAVs cannot fly, so legislation should be as simple as disallowing UAVs completely.

1. Member nations must ask for official documentation about the UAV and its flight, including but not limited to: detailed flight plan, time and date of flight, UAV specifications and model, UAV customizations, UAV pilot(s) documentations, safety measures and any relevant flight permits,
2. Member nations must reject any official application to fly over no-fly zones if the UAV poses a detrimental risk to both sapients or aircraft due to major UAV customization or that the UAV is deemed unairworthy, You should have ‘either’ instead of ‘both’.
3. Flight plans should be approved only after compliance with the criteria for UAVs to fly within its no-fly zones as stipulated under the nation's laws;

5. Calls for all member nations to take every appropriate effort pertaining to the situation at hand in taking down errant UAVs or its pilots by any means necessary, especially if the violating UAV transpasses national boundaries or is compromising national security or public safety; In this clause, is ‘Calls for’ intended to be a recommendation or an obligation?

6. Requires all member nations to properly define zones for safe UAV usage within its own airspace such that it does not violate ITSC regulations or endangers sapients or aircraft alike; ‘Nor’ would be preferable to ‘or’ in the phrase ‘regulations or endagers’.

7. Also requires all member nations to start commencing legislation on UAV laws and its interpretations, so that there will not be any legal issues within the developing topic of UAVs;

8. Bans the sale of military-purpose UAVs or any part thereof relevant to its construction to the civilian population to ensure public safety and national security; Any part thereof? Including batteries? Or LED lights?

9. Recommends that all businesses in the manufacturing, distribution, selling or usage of all UAVs to take reasonable steps to ensure the reliability of civilian UAVs and that it must remain compliant to all ITSC regulations;

10. Clarifies that military-purpose UAVs possessed specifically by the military do not have to comply with the compulsory registration of its UAVs or the UAV regulations and its no-fly zones since this resolution is aimed towards the civilian population and that sensitive information such as UAV specifications and flight plan must be protected in order not to compromise national security; This should end with a full stop rather than a semicolon, since it is the end of the legislation.

Contributions by Kenmoria

[Tinfect]

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING the developments on UAVs as a reliable medium for deliveries and transportation;

NOTING the accessibility of UAVs to the general population, and the lack of any legislation to regulate this market;

EXPRESSING concerns over the usage of UAVs for malicious intent such as terrorist operations or compromising key installations;

FEARING that inadequate training or preparations by UAV pilots can pose serious risks during flight;

ENSURING that all parties using UAVs are accountable for their UAVs while remaining compliant to national law;

CALLING for more legislation on this market in order to establish a solid precedent for future resolutions;

HEREBY,
1. Defines the following terminologies with regards to this resolution:

1. An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is an aircraft without a sapient pilot onboard, and it requires a consistent input by a UAV pilot or is run autonomously by algorithms.
2. An UAV pilot is an individual who demonstrates a reasonable expertise on flight operations of UAVs for recreational, research or business purposes.
3. A no-fly zone is an area where UAVs are not permitted to fly, subject to national law.

2. Mandates for:

1. Introducing compulsory registration on all UAVs heavier than 300 grams upon its sale or construction to the civilian population to ensure accountability on all UAV activities,
2. Introduction of a one-time compulsory training workshop and mental assessment for all current UAV pilots, where the costs shall be paid privately or by the state, to ensure proper training on the usage and safety protocols on UAVs,
3. All civilian and military airports and heliports must set up a 5km no-fly zone on all UAVs along with geo-fencing to prevent the flight of UAVs near larger aircraft,
4. Any key installations or government buildings, by each nation's own laws, are encouraged to set up no-fly zones, to the nation's authority, along with geofencing to ensure national security,
5. All civilian UAVs must comply with International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) standards and regulations such that it remains compliant on air safety;

3. Orders that:

1. UAVs should only be encouraged to fly in good weather conditions such that safe flight can be maintained within the UAV's capacity,
2. UAVs are discouraged from flying over crowds or key events in order to ensure public safety unless for journalistic purposes,
3. UAVs are not allowed to discharge, drop, suspend any item or substance from the aircraft at all times,
4. UAVs are also discouraged from carrying any items on the aircraft unless relevant permits have been granted and the UAV is manufactured to hold the item;

4. Suggests that if a UAV's flight plan involves flying over no-fly zones:

1. Member nations must ask for official documentation about the UAV and its flight, including but not limited to: detailed flight plan, time and date of flight, UAV specifications and model, UAV customizations, UAV pilot(s) documentations, safety measures and any relevant flight permits,
2. Member nations must reject any official application to fly over no-fly zones if the UAV poses a detrimental risk to both sapients or aircraft due to major UAV customization or that the UAV is deemed unairworthy,
3. Flight plans should be approved only after compliance with the criteria for UAVs to fly within its no-fly zones as stipulated under the nation's laws;

5. Calls for all member nations to take every appropriate effort pertaining to the situation at hand in taking down errant UAVs or its pilots by any means necessary, especially if the violating UAV transpasses national boundaries or is compromising national security or public safety;

6. Requires all member nations to properly define zones for safe UAV usage within its own airspace such that it does not violate ITSC regulations or endangers sapients or aircraft alike;

7. Also requires all member nations to start commencing legislation on UAV laws and its interpretations, so that there will not be any legal issues within the developing topic of UAVs;

8. Bans the sale of military-purpose UAVs or any part thereof relevant to its construction to the civilian population to ensure public safety and national security;

9. Recommends that all businesses in the manufacturing, distribution, selling or usage of all UAVs to take reasonable steps to ensure the reliability of civilian UAVs and that it must remain compliant to all ITSC regulations;

10. Clarifies that military-purpose UAVs possessed specifically by the military do not have to comply with the compulsory registration of its UAVs or the UAV regulations and its no-fly zones since this resolution is aimed towards the civilian population and that sensitive information such as UAV specifications and flight plan must be protected in order not to compromise national security;

"The Imperium does not allow the civilian ownership of surveillance or reconnaissance technologies," said Marsev, whose words were punctuated by a crack of thunder. He turned to a nearby aide and confiscated their music player. "Ahem. If your government has difficulties regarding the availability of such devices to the citizenry, this sounds like a distinctly national issue. In short, the Imperium sees absolutely no justification for international law on such an utterly trivial subject matter.

In length; the first concern of the Imperium is the requirement of an additional training course. Imperial pilots of such craft are exclusively Military or otherwise specifically trained and authorized Imperial personnel. The craft in question include strike-bombers, gunships, and research craft carrying highly sensitive equipment. There are regular drills and inspections and all manner of checks and analysis; withdrawing a quite substantial portion of the Imperial military and intelligence personnel so as to fulfill some... poorly considered mandate regarding yet additional training and a 'mental assessment' is not merely absurd on its face, but would leave our defenses weakened in a time of war. This, simply, is unacceptable.

The second concern is that 'no-fly zones'. The Imperium will not prohibit our own craft from utilizing facilities designed for the purpose of receiving and deploying aircraft. This requirement appears to be designed exclusively for smaller surveillance or reconnaissance drones, which the draft fails to distinguish from proper aircraft.

The third, lies in the third of your 'orders'; this would prevent military craft or, otherwise, from deploying munitions, or research materials. I should not have to explain why this is a concern.

Finally, clauses six and seven; we see little reason to set up 'zones' for civilian craft that do not exist; the latter, is an absurdity. If the issue were relevant to Member-States, it would likely already be in the process. If it is not, there is little need for a mandate require vague 'legislation' of unspecific goal, such merely wastes the time of Member-States legislatures."

[Youssath]

“I’ve put some feedback on the draft in red pen.”

Drone Regulation Act

Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Safety | Proposed by: Youssath

---

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING the developments on UAVs as a reliable medium for deliveries and transportation;

NOTING the accessibility of UAVs to the general population, and the lack of any legislation to regulate this market;

EXPRESSING concerns over the usage of UAVs for malicious intent such as terrorist operations or compromising key installations;

FEARING that inadequate training or preparations by UAV pilots can pose serious risks during flight; I think ‘operation’ sounds more appropriate here than ‘flight’, since flight is associated more with larger vehicles.

ENSURING that all parties using UAVs are accountable for their UAVs while remaining compliant to national law; ‘Ensuring’ isn’t a traditional preambulatory verb. Perhaps you could have ‘Hoping to ensure’ or something similar.

CALLING for more legislation on this market in order to establish a solid precedent for future resolutions;

HEREBY,
1. Defines the following terminologies with regards to this resolution:

1. An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is an aircraft without a sapient pilot onboard, and it requires a consistent input by a UAV pilot or is run autonomously by algorithms. You should have ‘that’ rather than ‘it’ here.
2. An UAV pilot is an individual who demonstrates a reasonable expertise on flight operations of UAVs for recreational, research or business purposes. Are there any purposes other than recreational, research or business? If there are, then why are you excluding them? If not, it would be simpler to say ‘for any purpose’, or omit the last part entirely.
3. A no-fly zone is an area where UAVs are not permitted to fly, subject to national law. I query whether it is national law, if some of those zones are established in accordance with WA directives.

2. Mandates for:

1. Introducing compulsory registration on all UAVs heavier than 300 grams upon its sale or construction to the civilian population to ensure accountability on all UAV activities, Registration where? In member nations, or in the GA?
2. Introduction of a one-time compulsory training workshop and mental assessment for all current UAV pilots, where the costs shall be paid privately or by the state, to ensure proper training on the usage and safety protocols on UAVs, Your definition of UAV pilot includes ‘demonstrates a reasonable expertise’, so why do people with expertise on the matter require training?
3. All civilian and military airports and heliports must set up a 5km no-fly zone on all UAVs along with geo-fencing to prevent the flight of UAVs near larger aircraft, Even ones that are closed?
4. Any key installations or government buildings, by each nation's own laws, are encouraged to set up no-fly zones, to the nation's authority, along with geofencing to ensure national security,
5. All civilian UAVs must comply with International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) standards and regulations such that it remains compliant on air safety; You can remove ‘such that it remains compliant’, as you already have ‘must comply’ in the clause.

3. Orders that:

1. UAVs should only be encouraged to fly in good weather conditions such that safe flight can be maintained within the UAV's capacity, Although this clause makes grammatical sense, I’m unsure whom the mandate targets. Governments most likely wouldn’t be encouraging UAVs at all.
2. UAVs are discouraged from flying over crowds or key events in order to ensure public safety unless for journalistic purposes,
3. UAVs are not allowed to discharge, drop, suspend any item or substance from the aircraft at all times, This means that UAVs are allowed to suspend items, so long as they don’t do it at all times. I think you meant ‘at any time’ instead.
4. UAVs are also discouraged from carrying any items on the aircraft unless relevant permits have been granted and the UAV is manufactured to hold the item; I don’t think it is practical for UAVs to be manufactured to hold specific items, so perhaps ‘to hold items’, as a general mandate, would be more appropriate.

4. Suggests that if a UAV's flight plan involves flying over no-fly zones: The definition of ‘no-fly zones’ is an area where UAVs cannot fly, so legislation should be as simple as disallowing UAVs completely.

1. Member nations must ask for official documentation about the UAV and its flight, including but not limited to: detailed flight plan, time and date of flight, UAV specifications and model, UAV customizations, UAV pilot(s) documentations, safety measures and any relevant flight permits,
2. Member nations must reject any official application to fly over no-fly zones if the UAV poses a detrimental risk to both sapients or aircraft due to major UAV customization or that the UAV is deemed unairworthy, You should have ‘either’ instead of ‘both’.
3. Flight plans should be approved only after compliance with the criteria for UAVs to fly within its no-fly zones as stipulated under the nation's laws;

5. Calls for all member nations to take every appropriate effort pertaining to the situation at hand in taking down errant UAVs or its pilots by any means necessary, especially if the violating UAV transpasses national boundaries or is compromising national security or public safety; In this clause, is ‘Calls for’ intended to be a recommendation or an obligation?

6. Requires all member nations to properly define zones for safe UAV usage within its own airspace such that it does not violate ITSC regulations or endangers sapients or aircraft alike; ‘Nor’ would be preferable to ‘or’ in the phrase ‘regulations or endagers’.

7. Also requires all member nations to start commencing legislation on UAV laws and its interpretations, so that there will not be any legal issues within the developing topic of UAVs;

8. Bans the sale of military-purpose UAVs or any part thereof relevant to its construction to the civilian population to ensure public safety and national security; Any part thereof? Including batteries? Or LED lights?

9. Recommends that all businesses in the manufacturing, distribution, selling or usage of all UAVs to take reasonable steps to ensure the reliability of civilian UAVs and that it must remain compliant to all ITSC regulations;

10. Clarifies that military-purpose UAVs possessed specifically by the military do not have to comply with the compulsory registration of its UAVs or the UAV regulations and its no-fly zones since this resolution is aimed towards the civilian population and that sensitive information such as UAV specifications and flight plan must be protected in order not to compromise national security; This should end with a full stop rather than a semicolon, since it is the end of the legislation.

Contributions by Kenmoria

I have taken your feedback into consideration and have drafted the third version of this resolution. Will also be naming you as the co-author for this resolution since you have helped provide valuable feedback on this resolution.

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING the developments on UAVs as a reliable medium for deliveries and transportation;

NOTING the accessibility of UAVs to the general population, and the lack of any legislation to regulate this market;

EXPRESSING concerns over the usage of UAVs for malicious intent such as terrorist operations or compromising key installations;

FEARING that inadequate training or preparations by UAV pilots can pose serious risks during flight;

ENSURING that all parties using UAVs are accountable for their UAVs while remaining compliant to national law;

CALLING for more legislation on this market in order to establish a solid precedent for future resolutions;

HEREBY,
1. Defines the following terminologies with regards to this resolution:

1. An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is an aircraft without a sapient pilot onboard, and it requires a consistent input by a UAV pilot or is run autonomously by algorithms.
2. An UAV pilot is an individual who demonstrates a reasonable expertise on flight operations of UAVs for recreational, research or business purposes.
3. A no-fly zone is an area where UAVs are not permitted to fly, subject to national law.

2. Mandates for:

1. Introducing compulsory registration on all UAVs heavier than 300 grams upon its sale or construction to the civilian population to ensure accountability on all UAV activities,
2. Introduction of a one-time compulsory training workshop and mental assessment for all current UAV pilots, where the costs shall be paid privately or by the state, to ensure proper training on the usage and safety protocols on UAVs,
3. All civilian and military airports and heliports must set up a 5km no-fly zone on all UAVs along with geo-fencing to prevent the flight of UAVs near larger aircraft,
4. Any key installations or government buildings, by each nation's own laws, are encouraged to set up no-fly zones, to the nation's authority, along with geofencing to ensure national security,
5. All civilian UAVs must comply with International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) standards and regulations such that it remains compliant on air safety;

3. Orders that:

1. UAVs should only be encouraged to fly in good weather conditions such that safe flight can be maintained within the UAV's capacity,
2. UAVs are discouraged from flying over crowds or key events in order to ensure public safety unless for journalistic purposes,
3. UAVs are not allowed to discharge, drop, suspend any item or substance from the aircraft at all times,
4. UAVs are also discouraged from carrying any items on the aircraft unless relevant permits have been granted and the UAV is manufactured to hold the item;

4. Suggests that if a UAV's flight plan involves flying over no-fly zones:

1. Member nations must ask for official documentation about the UAV and its flight, including but not limited to: detailed flight plan, time and date of flight, UAV specifications and model, UAV customizations, UAV pilot(s) documentations, safety measures and any relevant flight permits,
2. Member nations must reject any official application to fly over no-fly zones if the UAV poses a detrimental risk to both sapients or aircraft due to major UAV customization or that the UAV is deemed unairworthy,
3. Flight plans should be approved only after compliance with the criteria for UAVs to fly within its no-fly zones as stipulated under the nation's laws;

5. Calls for all member nations to take every appropriate effort pertaining to the situation at hand in taking down errant UAVs or its pilots by any means necessary, especially if the violating UAV transpasses national boundaries or is compromising national security or public safety;

6. Requires all member nations to properly define zones for safe UAV usage within its own airspace such that it does not violate ITSC regulations or endangers sapients or aircraft alike;

7. Also requires all member nations to start commencing legislation on UAV laws and its interpretations, so that there will not be any legal issues within the developing topic of UAVs;

8. Bans the sale of military-purpose UAVs or any part thereof relevant to its construction to the civilian population to ensure public safety and national security;

9. Recommends that all businesses in the manufacturing, distribution, selling or usage of all UAVs to take reasonable steps to ensure the reliability of civilian UAVs and that it must remain compliant to all ITSC regulations;

10. Clarifies that military-purpose UAVs possessed specifically by the military do not have to comply with the compulsory registration of its UAVs or the UAV regulations and its no-fly zones since this resolution is aimed towards the civilian population and that sensitive information such as UAV specifications and flight plan must be protected in order not to compromise national security;

"The Imperium does not allow the civilian ownership of surveillance or reconnaissance technologies," said Marsev, whose words were punctuated by a crack of thunder. He turned to a nearby aide and confiscated their music player. "Ahem. If your government has difficulties regarding the availability of such devices to the citizenry, this sounds like a distinctly national issue. In short, the Imperium sees absolutely no justification for international law on such an utterly trivial subject matter.

In length; the first concern of the Imperium is the requirement of an additional training course. Imperial pilots of such craft are exclusively Military or otherwise specifically trained and authorized Imperial personnel. The craft in question include strike-bombers, gunships, and research craft carrying highly sensitive equipment. There are regular drills and inspections and all manner of checks and analysis; withdrawing a quite substantial portion of the Imperial military and intelligence personnel so as to fulfill some... poorly considered mandate regarding yet additional training and a 'mental assessment' is not merely absurd on its face, but would leave our defenses weakened in a time of war. This, simply, is unacceptable.

The second concern is that 'no-fly zones'. The Imperium will not prohibit our own craft from utilizing facilities designed for the purpose of receiving and deploying aircraft. This requirement appears to be designed exclusively for smaller surveillance or reconnaissance drones, which the draft fails to distinguish from proper aircraft.

The third, lies in the third of your 'orders'; this would prevent military craft or, otherwise, from deploying munitions, or research materials. I should not have to explain why this is a concern.

Finally, clauses six and seven; we see little reason to set up 'zones' for civilian craft that do not exist; the latter, is an absurdity. If the issue were relevant to Member-States, it would likely already be in the process. If it is not, there is little need for a mandate require vague 'legislation' of unspecific goal, such merely wastes the time of Member-States legislatures."

"Ambassador Marsev." The Youssathian Ambassador said, as he raised an eyebrow over the Imperial ambassador's puzzling statements on this resolution draft. "As much as I want to agree with you that the subject of UAVs should be kept at a national level, the problem is evident; UAVs have the capacity to create an international issue if we don't set up standards for the international community to follow. Frankly, if a bill on data protection and the promotion of scientific education can be debated on in this very chamber, I don't see any reason why a topic like UAVs - which have more damaging consequences by nature - shouldn't be discussed here. If your country does not permit the use of civilian UAVs and drones, then honestly I don't see how this resolution can affect you, given the existence of Clause 10 of this resolution."

"In response to your concerns over the mandatory training course and mental assessments, you can be assured that our delegation has removed the requirement as of now. Given the definitions of an 'UAV pilot' and that he or she must demonstrate a reasonable expertise on the flight operations of a UAV, we see no reason for the additional training course and mental assessment given the credible expertise of the pilot. Furthermore, this clause has sparked controversy amongst all of the ambassadors here, which is why we have decided to remove it altogether."

"As for your second concern, we have taken in your suggestions and introduced the term of the 'civilian UAV'. However, we have kept the interpretation of the size of a UAV open, since a UAV is still a UAV and it can come in various sizes. Hopefully, this will address the concerns you may have, even though Clause 10 has effectively guaranteed the exclusion of military aircraft to this resolution."

"Regarding your third concern, I would like to redirect you towards Clause 10 of this resolution, which effectively states that 'military-purpose UAVs possessed specifically by the military do not have to comply with ... UAV regulations". Hence, military aircraft are exempt from this order. Furthermore, the existence of Clause 3c is there because it is known that suspending items attached to the UAV by rope or cable will undermine the flight stability of the UAV, especially given poor weather conditions. However, it is explicitly stated that UAVs are allowed to carry items on the aircraft if the UAV is manufactured to hold items. Honestly, if you want to deliver items to a destination, land first unless you are a military aircraft. It is so much safer to do so rather than creating a safety breach within aviation laws."

"Finally, to your last concern, we leave it up to your judicatory laws to determine the legality of UAVs in general. If your country bans UAVs or drones, this resolution should not affect you at all, especially given Clause 10 of this resolution. However, if drones and UAVs are permitted, we expect a decent minimum standard to be established among all member nations for the betterment of air safety. The reason why Clause 6 and 7 exist is to ensure that governments are prepared in the event of any UAV-related aviation crises and that they will not be caught off-guard with the lack of legislation or regulation in this market."

[Araraukar]

OOC post.

With somewhat more awake brain (and NationStates not being down for a change), having a go at the problematic/puzzling things OOCly.

UAVs

Basic rule of using shorthand terms: write out the whole words before using the shorthand. I know you do that in the proper definitions, but until then, you really should use the actual words and not "UAV", or use different wordings not depending on those particular ones. Also, your proposal title uses "drone", but from what I can see, you're wanting to legislate on anything remote-controlled/autonomous that flies, which encompasses much, much more than simple drones. So consider title change as well. You have 52 or 54 marks that you can use for the proposal title, so you have space to make it more precise.

UNDERSTANDING the developments on UAVs as a reliable medium for deliveries and transportation;

This clashes with the whole concept of the proposal; if you're calling them a reliable medium for deliveries and transportation, why the horrible amount of limitations for using them?

NOTING the accessibility of UAVs to the general population, and the lack of any legislation to regulate this market;

You mean lack of international legislation. In RL many nations where drones are a thing, have legislation that restricts their use (even if not specifically drone use, then at least general rules on airspace and such). Also, you should really explain in the preamble why you feel international legislation is necessary.

EXPRESSING concerns over the usage of UAVs for malicious intent such as terrorist operations or compromising key installations;

What are "key installations"? This?

FEARING that inadequate training or preparations by UAV pilots can pose serious risks during operation;

Risks to what? Being filmed and having their "fell into a river when trying to save the drone copter I accidentally landed in the water" fail posted online?

HOPING to ensure that all parties using UAVs are accountable for their UAVs while remaining compliant to national law;

...if they're compliant with (with, not to) national laws on the matter, why is international law necessary in the first place?

CALLING for more legislation on this market in order to establish a solid precedent for future resolutions;

What issues have you left out, then, that would need more legislation on the issue? Also, why "market"? What market?

1. Defines the following terminologies with regards to this resolution:

Could just read "Defines, for the purposes of this resolution", making the subclauses part of a continuous sentence instead of stand-alone sentences.

An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is an aircraft without a sapient pilot onboard, and that requires a consistent input by a UAV pilot or is run autonomously by algorithms.

What is "consistent input"? And what is autonomous? If I program a drone to fly a certain route, is it sapiently controlled or autonomous or neither? Do weather balloons count, if they have onboard systems that will release the lifting bag at a certain altitude and open the parachute to return the probe safely to the ground? Howabout rockets with any kind of onboard computer guidance? Also, I suggest using "flown" instead of "run", since we're talking about flying objects.

An UAV pilot is an individual who demonstrates a reasonable expertise on flight operations of UAVs for any purposes.

...so not "anyone who can fly a drone"? As was pointed out already, if this is your definition, then there shouldn't be any issues such as you mention in the preamble. But what about the bumbling newbies? How do they go from "never touched anything remote-controlled in my life" to "expert on drones for any purposes". And speaking of that last bit, it seems like you're wanting this definition to only apply on people capable of flying ANY kind of UAV for ANY kind of purpose. Which would likely, in RL, mean that it applied to no-one.

A no-fly zone is an area where civilian UAVs are not permitted to fly, subjective to national law and WA directives.

WA resolutions are not directives.

2. Mandates for:

This doesn't work for the sentence structure. I suggest breaking the subclauses of this into their own separate clauses.

Introducing mandatory registration on all UAVs heavier than 300 grams in member nations upon its sale or assembly to the civilian population to ensure accountability on all UAV activities,

Why the random weight limit? And also "assembly to the civilian population" doesn't work for grammar purposes. *looks at Kenmoria* Also, where is it registered? Who manages the register? What must the registration data include? What happens if a private individual sells their machine to another private individual?

All open civilian and military airports and heliports must set up a 5km no-fly zone on all UAVs along with geo-fencing to prevent the flight of UAVs near larger aircraft,

What the hell is "geo-fencing"? And why is this a mandate? What if an airport or heliport exists specifically for the purpose of training UAV pilots? Or is privately owned and operated? And 5 km is a bit radical, considering how close to people's houses an airport can be - flying a drone in your own backyard shouldn't be a crime simply because it's within 5 km of an airport. I would seriously just leave the establishment of no-fly zones to the nations themselves, and at most require drone pilots to obey the local no-fly zone rules.

Though given that you're specifically not restricting this to drones but are including all UAVs, what of (somewhat future tech, but perhaps not horribly far in the future) pilotless airplanes that fit your definition (the algorithm bit) and are specifically designed to do the same jobs as existing RL piloted aircraft? Banning them from using airports or heliports is... well, insane, and defeats the whole purpose of having them to begin with.

Any key installations or government buildings, by each nation's own laws, are encouraged to set up no-fly zones, to the nation's authority, along with geofencing to ensure national security,

Again, what the hell is geofencing, or key installations, and why are you mandating the encouragement to set up no-fly zones, if they're to be national laws? Like, this one doesn't make any sense.

All civilian UAVs must comply with International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) standards and regulations on air safety;

Which are...? This is basically a House of Cards violation, because if the other resolution is repealed, the standards and regulations cease to exist. Also, why involve the committee or pre-existing systems at all, when you're literally trying to use this proposal to write up the rules for drones, because the pre-existing resolution(s) don't do it?

3. Orders that:

Same here with grammar issues.

Self-assembled UAVs should only be encouraged to fly in good weather conditions such that safe flight can be maintained within the UAV's capacity,

What are good weather conditions, what is safe flight and what capacity? Also, why only self-assembled ones? This is a safety thing so it should apply to all drones.

UAVs are discouraged from flying over crowds or key events in order to ensure public safety unless for journalistic purposes,

Why only journalistic purposes? What if the event organizer wants to record video of the event? Camera drones are commonly professionally used these days for all kinds of events.

UAVs are not allowed to discharge, drop or suspend any item or substance from the aircraft at any time,

...so no ejecting the rotor to deploy the parachute? Why is it better to have a several hundred kilograms heavy drone helicopter fall uncontrollably, than a dozen kilograms rotor? Also, this would make making deliveries impossible. Additionally would make crop dusting, firefighting and camera drones history, as well as many other, much more specific applications, since "discharging/dropping/suspending things" from drones is generally speaking the whole point for having them beyond pure fun of flying something in your own backyard.

UAVs are also discouraged from carrying any items on the aircraft unless relevant permits have been granted and the UAV is manufactured to hold items;

What permits? And what if the UAV is self-assembled from components? And can you later modify one to hold items or not?

4. Suggests

Suggests: must, does not work grammatically.

if a civilian UAV's flight plan involves flying over no-fly zones:

Given that the definition of no-fly zones is "where civilian UAVs are not permitted to fly", this makes no sense and is an internal contradiction. Either change the no-fly zone definition, or simply make this clause read something like "Allows member nations to permit civilian UAVs into no-fly zones, as long as safety regulations, as set by the national or local authorities, are followed", because the amount of micromanagement in this clause is... massive.

5. Recommends for all member nations to take every appropriate effort pertaining to the situation at hand in taking down errant UAVs or its pilots by any means necessary, especially if the violating UAV transpasses national boundaries or is compromising national security or public safety;

"Taking down ... pilots by any means necessary" sounds like shooting the pilots without even giving them a chance to bring their drone back to the ground and surrender to the authorities. Also, why are UAVs crossing national boundaries such a problem here, when you haven't mentioned it at all up until now? And what does "errant" mean, here?

6. Requires all member nations to properly define zones for safe UAV usage within its own airspace such that it does not violate ITSC regulations or endangers sapients or aircraft alike;

"Endanger" instead of "endangers", but if a nation has declared its entire airspace as no-fly zone for drones, does this require they must allow to be flown anyway? And again, referring to regulations without spelling out the regulations, does nothing.

7. Also requires all member nations to start commencing legislation on UAV laws and its interpretations, so that there will not be any legal issues within the developing topic of UAVs;

...I don't even know why this is here. "Commencing legislation on laws" does not make sense, and if you have plural of laws, you want "their", not "its". And it's impossible for there "not be any legal issues" with any kind of legislation, given that the world is not static. And what "developing topic"? What about nations that already have working and effective laws on flying drones in place?

8. Bans the sale of military-purpose UAVs or any military-grade part thereof relevant to its construction to the civilian population to ensure public safety and national security;

Define "military-grade". Regular video console controllers are used by actual military submarines for the handling of the periscope, in actual Real Life, because they were a much cheaper alternative to the purpose-built hardware. Does that make X-box controllers "military-grade"? And if the military uses a camera drone that is identical in its capabilities and functioning to a civilian one, why should they be banned from surplus selling when they're starting to use a better model? The parts issue was pointed out already, as "military-grade" batteries and LEDs and whatnot, are often the exact same as used in civilian products (and are actually used by military because they already exist and are thus easy and cheap to obtain).

9. Recommends that all businesses in the manufacturing, distribution, selling or usage of all UAVs to take reasonable steps to ensure the reliability of civilian UAVs and that it must remain compliant to all ITSC regulations;

Same thing about the regulations as before, and what does "reliability" mean? How is a supermarket supposed to ensure the reliability, if the manufacturer is the one that's made errors?

10. Clarifies that military-purpose UAVs

Just change the UAV definition to include the word "civilian", and you can make this as simple as "Clarifies that this resolution does not affect military UAVs in any way."

[Youssath]

Basic rule of using shorthand terms: write out the whole words before using the shorthand. I know you do that in the proper definitions, but until then, you really should use the actual words and not "UAV", or use different wordings not depending on those particular ones. Also, your proposal title uses "drone", but from what I can see, you're wanting to legislate on anything remote-controlled/autonomous that flies, which encompasses much, much more than simple drones. So consider title change as well. You have 52 or 54 marks that you can use for the proposal title, so you have space to make it more precise.

I wanted to use the actual words, but I would have went beyond the 5000 character limit (it was an arse to cut words in the resolution)...
Also, I will change the proposal title since you are correct on that point. Perhaps, "Unmanned Aircraft Regulatory Act", "UAV Safety Accord" or "Convention on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles"? Let me know what you think is best!

This clashes with the whole concept of the proposal; if you're calling them a reliable medium for deliveries and transportation, why the horrible amount of limitations for using them?

It's more of acknowledging the benefits of what UAVs can do in this world. I was thinking about excluding this statement altogether, but since these are in the preliminary statements, I guess it should be alright to at least acknowledge and provide a holistic overview on UAVs to provide a convincing overall argument?

You mean lack of international legislation. In RL many nations where drones are a thing, have legislation that restricts their use (even if not specifically drone use, then at least general rules on airspace and such). Also, you should really explain in the preamble why you feel international legislation is necessary.

Right, I will add in "international" legislation to the preamble findings and rewrite a bit on the statement.

What are "key installations"? This?

What the hell is that LOL

Risks to what? Being filmed and having their "fell into a river when trying to save the drone copter I accidentally landed in the water" fail posted online?

I will add in the factor on "aviation safety" into that statement. Good point.

...if they're compliant with (with, not to) national laws on the matter, why is international law necessary in the first place?

I will sort out the preliminary findings on this point. Basically, the reason why international laws are needed is to provide a uniform basic level of procedures for both locals and foreigners to follow and to promote air safety through the responsible usage of UAVs.

What issues have you left out, then, that would need more legislation on the issue? Also, why "market"? What market?

This is the first resolution on UAVs in the General Assembly, as such I am advocating for a strong UAV regulatory resolution as the precedent so that future resolutions need not be about minor amendments towards UAV regulations.

Could just read "Defines, for the purposes of this resolution", making the subclauses part of a continuous sentence instead of stand-alone sentences.

Aye, I will be amending that shortly!

What is "consistent input"? And what is autonomous? If I program a drone to fly a certain route, is it sapiently controlled or autonomous or neither? Do weather balloons count, if they have onboard systems that will release the lifting bag at a certain altitude and open the parachute to return the probe safely to the ground? Howabout rockets with any kind of onboard computer guidance? Also, I suggest using "flown" instead of "run", since we're talking about flying objects.

The wording "consistent" has always bugged me. If you have flown a UAV or a drone for that matter, you will realize that human input is often required to keep the UAV steady in its current position (due to weather conditions), but for the matter of more sophisticated UAVs, it is simply a mixture between the two. I will see to it whether I can provide more clarity towards the term "consistent", since not all drones are the same.
If you program a drone to fly a certain route, that's algorithms. Having a weather balloon that will release the lifting bag at a certain altitude and open its parachute given the correct circumstances is exactly what algorithms do, since it's basically a set of instructions or processes to be followed in calculations or problem-solving operations (if altitude <= 500 and speed <= 20: release_lifting_bag(altitude, speed, position)).

...so not "anyone who can fly a drone"? As was pointed out already, if this is your definition, then there shouldn't be any issues such as you mention in the preamble. But what about the bumbling newbies? How do they go from "never touched anything remote-controlled in my life" to "expert on drones for any purposes". And speaking of that last bit, it seems like you're wanting this definition to only apply on people capable of flying ANY kind of UAV for ANY kind of purpose. Which would likely, in RL, mean that it applied to no-one.

If the definition of UAV pilot were to include anyone who can fly a drone, then basically literally you will only need two hands and some really basic control understanding on how UAVs operate (which is literally, push up to increase throttle), not to mention whether the person is even interested in flying a drone in the first place. This will literally be inclusive of the entire population and as a result, I will have to introduce a mandatory training course and mental assessment for these "UAV pilots" once more (which is deeply unpopular here, mind ya). Hence, I have coined the phrase "demonstrates a reasonable expertise" such that the term "reasonable" will take into account of the pilot's flight history, skill capacity and knowledge on aerodynamics. For example, if a user fly a drone and proceed to crash it immediately afterwards, he ain't no pilot - and it is extremely unlikely that he will even know how to make his drone to be a risk for everyone if he doesn't even know how to even operate it.

WA resolutions are not directives.

Bad choice of wording. I will amend that.

This doesn't work for the sentence structure. I suggest breaking the subclauses of this into their own separate clauses.

It's erroneous, which I agree with you. I will be fixing that at a later draft since this resolution still requires a lot of furnishing and feedback from everyone here still.

Why the random weight limit? And also "assembly to the civilian population" doesn't work for grammar purposes. *looks at Kenmoria* Also, where is it registered? Who manages the register? What must the registration data include? What happens if a private individual sells their machine to another private individual?

300 grams is barely enough to ensure that if a UAV does get sucked into an aircraft or its propellers, there will not any serious damage sustained towards its critical parts (engine, propellers etc). The weight is derived from the weight of birds, which ranges from 250g - 600g, and just as birds do sometimes die as they get sucked into engines and don't cause serious damage - drones below 300g (not above, since drones contain metal parts, a huge no-no) should be fairly reasonable and considerate enough for both parties to agree on an international standard.
Aye, rewording is still a pain in the arse. I will fix that.

If you want me to answer for Kenmoria, I will tell you that the registration of drones and its contents will be left up to the state to determine what is necessary (it's their airspace, after all). If an individual sells their drone to another individual or if ownership of the drone is passed to another, we will leave it up to the state to determine the appropriate response to that (or else, people will simply complain that this resolution violates national sovereignty, ugh).

What the hell is "geo-fencing"? And why is this a mandate? What if an airport or heliport exists specifically for the purpose of training UAV pilots? Or is privately owned and operated? And 5 km is a bit radical, considering how close to people's houses an airport can be - flying a drone in your own backyard shouldn't be a crime simply because it's within 5 km of an airport. I would seriously just leave the establishment of no-fly zones to the nations themselves, and at most require drone pilots to obey the local no-fly zone rules.

Though given that you're specifically not restricting this to drones but are including all UAVs, what of (somewhat future tech, but perhaps not horribly far in the future) pilotless airplanes that fit your definition (the algorithm bit) and are specifically designed to do the same jobs as existing RL piloted aircraft? Banning them from using airports or heliports is... well, insane, and defeats the whole purpose of having them to begin with.

I will put this up for both airports and heliports, regardless of its purpose or whatsoever, because if you fly a drone near a public aviation area (commerical airport, private airport or whatsoever), you better have some permissions to do so near the area. Aircrafts are absolutely not allowed to be near each other in proximity or be in a collision course with one another at any point of time, which is why I will remain stubborn on this fact that geo-fencing (can be removed by the airport itself, but I will leave that to another resolution of another time since that exceeds my character limit here) must still be mandated on all airports and heliports at any given point in time.

Given the capabilities of drones, the reason why flying a drone in your own backyard should be illegal is because we do not want to promote a culture or practice where people start flying drones near airports. Drones can pose a significant aviation risk towards aircraft, and as a result it's better to be safe than sorry by banning it altogether rather than causing an international scene with numerous loss of life just because "people should fly drones near their backyards". I'm sorry about that, but I am staunchly supportive of geo-fencing and a 5km no-fly zone at all airports until I see a convincing counter-argument towards this point.

With regards to the future tech inquiries, when the day comes where UAVs can specifically do the same jobs as what an existing RL piloted aircraft can do, I will be more than happy to call for a repealment of this resolution as a whole. Laws aren't kept forever, and I am sure you can agree that with the times we must adapt on how we approach problems.

Again, what the hell is geofencing, or key installations, and why are you mandating the encouragement to set up no-fly zones, if they're to be national laws? Like, this one doesn't make any sense.

This will be left up to the member nation itself. It is fine if you want drones to be flying near government buildings and all, but I will leave this up to every nation to interpret as to how they wish (again, the national sovereignty issue. People already think that this resolution is too "encroaching" on aviation domestic affairs).

Which are...? This is basically a House of Cards violation, because if the other resolution is repealed, the standards and regulations cease to exist. Also, why involve the committee or pre-existing systems at all, when you're literally trying to use this proposal to write up the rules for drones, because the pre-existing resolution(s) don't do it?

If what you are saying is true, then GAR #464, GAR #439 and GAR #83 would be illegal in that sense as well. And yet, they are still passed?

Same here with grammar issues.

Yup, I am onto weeding those out. Will fix those tomorrow or the day after.

What are good weather conditions, what is safe flight and what capacity? Also, why only self-assembled ones? This is a safety thing so it should apply to all drones.

Self-assembled drones are at higher risk of not being able to sustain safe flight throughout the time of operation due to the lack of a standardized safety protocol upon its assembly (some people assemble drones for fun with a $10 budget, others with a complex design up to $1 000). Furthermore, Clause 9 effectively covers that drones must be of good condition and airworthiness.

Why only journalistic purposes? What if the event organizer wants to record video of the event? Camera drones are commonly professionally used these days for all kinds of events.

Get the relevant permits then. Papers please! (Clause 4)

...so no ejecting the rotor to deploy the parachute? Why is it better to have a several hundred kilograms heavy drone helicopter fall uncontrollably, than a dozen kilograms rotor?

From that very statement, I am now questioning whether did you even flew and crashed a drone before...

Also, this would make making deliveries impossible. Additionally would make crop dusting, firefighting and camera drones history, as well as many other, much more specific applications, since "discharging/dropping/suspending things" from drones is generally speaking the whole point for having them beyond pure fun of flying something in your own backyard.

Good point on the crop dusting. I will add "except for agricultural purposes" into the resolution.
As for firefighting drones, I say it's incredibly useless to fight a fire given the A) limited payload of what the drone can carry, B) if payload is not an issue (drone is connected with a hose or something), it would be a HUGE issue on flight stability (any movements on that hose = certain death of the drone) and C) not only do you need drones to be able to withstand that heavy load (which will generate heat in its rotors to provide lift), it will also need to withstand high temperatures (because it's a fire) and your drone will probably melt down before it can even do its work.

And oh, if you put a cooling system on that, you are going to be carrying a huge ton of equipment that has the plausibility of crashing right into the fire altogether. So no thanks, fight the fire the conventional way, please.

What permits? And what if the UAV is self-assembled from components? And can you later modify one to hold items or not?

I will leave it up to the nation's interpretation to do as they wish on this matter since I have used the term "discouraged". However, several recommendations have been suggested (must be manufactured to hold items, relevant permits up to each nation's standards), but it's simply a recommendation.

Suggests: must, does not work grammatically.

Hmm, alright. I will amend that soon.

Given that the definition of no-fly zones is "where civilian UAVs are not permitted to fly", this makes no sense and is an internal contradiction. Either change the no-fly zone definition, or simply make this clause read something like "Allows member nations to permit civilian UAVs into no-fly zones, as long as safety regulations, as set by the national or local authorities, are followed", because the amount of micromanagement in this clause is... massive.

Aye, but the definition of the no-fly zones also includes "subject to national laws and WA resolutions".

"Taking down ... pilots by any means necessary" sounds like shooting the pilots without even giving them a chance to bring their drone back to the ground and surrender to the authorities. Also, why are UAVs crossing national boundaries such a problem here, when you haven't mentioned it at all up until now? And what does "errant" mean, here?

This is because the only way to solve errant UAVs are by electromagnetic interference (a huge NO in airports or anywhere with critical communication compartments), catching it physically with a net (you will need time to prepare for this, and by the time you have deployed your "police" drone, the errant UAV would have noticed and flew away quickly) or by shooting at it (even a huge NO, just no). Everything sucks here, which is why I have mentioned previously "to take every appropriate effort pertaining to the situation at hand". It's also difficult to track down errant pilots as well given the various methodologies of communication (if the drone is run autonomously, then where is the computer that is giving instructions?).

Also, exactly what do you mean that "why are UAVs crossing national boundaries such a problem here"? Do you mean that illegal aircraft violating another's airspace is not a problem to begin with? Isn't that illegal by nature?

"Endanger" instead of "endangers", but if a nation has declared its entire airspace as no-fly zone for drones, does this require they must allow to be flown anyway? And again, referring to regulations without spelling out the regulations, does nothing.

...I don't even know why this is here. "Commencing legislation on laws" does not make sense, and if you have plural of laws, you want "their", not "its". And it's impossible for there "not be any legal issues" with any kind of legislation, given that the world is not static. And what "developing topic"? What about nations that already have working and effective laws on flying drones in place?

As I have told Tinfect before, it's mostly to ensure that governments are prepared in the event of any UAV-related aviation crises and that they will not be caught off-guard with the lack of legislation or regulation in this market.

Also, regarding the grammatical mistakes, I will be fixing it shortly.

Define "military-grade". Regular video console controllers are used by actual military submarines for the handling of the periscope, in actual Real Life, because they were a much cheaper alternative to the purpose-built hardware. Does that make X-box controllers "military-grade"? And if the military uses a camera drone that is identical in its capabilities and functioning to a civilian one, why should they be banned from surplus selling when they're starting to use a better model? The parts issue was pointed out already, as "military-grade" batteries and LEDs and whatnot, are often the exact same as used in civilian products (and are actually used by military because they already exist and are thus easy and cheap to obtain).

As stated before, I will leave it to the nation's interpretation to determine what is military-grade and classified compartments instead of nitpicking every single compartment of a UAV. Some countries may sell "military-grade" batteries (considered by Country A to be military-grade, but Country B does not consider them to be even military-grade) to the open market, so does that mean that everything within a UAV should be classified down? How about the paint of the UAV or its emblem? I will leave it solely to the member nation's interpretations to determine what they think should be "banned".

Same thing about the regulations as before, and what does "reliability" mean? How is a supermarket supposed to ensure the reliability, if the manufacturer is the one that's made errors?

Basic quality checks, ensuring that you don't sell broken pieces of drone to a customer? It's mostly just to ensure that the drone remains intact and is still fully airworthy for flight.

Just change the UAV definition to include the word "civilian", and you can make this as simple as "Clarifies that this resolution does not affect military UAVs in any way."

It does seem like this is a good solution, I will be amending it in due time. Thanks!

[Araraukar]

I wanted to use the actual words, but I would have went beyond the 5000 character limit (it was an arse to cut words in the resolution)...

OOC: If you do the streamlining and dropping of micromanagement as I suggested, you should be left with plenty of space.

Also, I will change the proposal title since you are correct on that point. Perhaps, "Unmanned Aircraft Regulatory Act", "UAV Safety Accord" or "Convention on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles"? Let me know what you think is best!

Of those, the first. Don't use the shorthand in the title.

It's more of acknowledging the benefits of what UAVs can do in this world. I was thinking about excluding this statement altogether, but since these are in the preliminary statements, I guess it should be alright to at least acknowledge and provide a holistic overview on UAVs to provide a convincing overall argument?

Not entirely sure what you mean by holistic overview, but it just seems odd to basically go "These are really great because of X and Y, so now I'm going to regulate them to death so they can't be used for X and Y".

What are "key installations"? This?

What the hell is that LOL

It's an artistic installation using old keys as one of the materials. I literally found it by putting "key installation" in Google image search.

Basically, the reason why international laws are needed is to provide a uniform basic level of procedures for both locals and foreigners to follow and to promote air safety through the responsible usage of UAVs.

Your proposal (in the form I commented on) doesn't say anything about responsible usage, though. It simply regulates their use to death. Also, foreigners coming to a nation need to abide by that nation's laws and it's their job to find out what those laws are, and the nations' job to make the laws easy to find. I don't quite see how a uniform "one size fits all" micromanagement nightmare is supposed to make things better. Especially as there are going to be local restrictions and such that they have to find out about anyway.

This is the first resolution on UAVs in the General Assembly, as such I am advocating for a strong UAV regulatory resolution as the precedent so that future resolutions need not be about minor amendments towards UAV regulations.

...but doesn't that mean that there won't be room for further legislation?

Having a weather balloon that will release the lifting bag at a certain altitude and open its parachute given the correct circumstances is exactly what algorithms do

Then you're going to have even more problems, since once you let go of a weather balloon, you don't have any kind of control over where it goes, and if unexpected wind conditions push it into a restricted airspace, that shouldn't make you a criminal in the eyes of international law.

Hence, I have coined the phrase "demonstrates a reasonable expertise" such that the term "reasonable" will take into account of the pilot's flight history, skill capacity and knowledge on aerodynamics. For example, if a user fly a drone and proceed to crash it immediately afterwards, he ain't no pilot - and it is extremely unlikely that he will even know how to make his drone to be a risk for everyone if he doesn't even know how to even operate it.

So how is he going to get from there to "pilot", if he's not allowed to practice? All drone pilots start from somewhere.

I think you might have an easier time if you separated hobbyists (who fly them just for fun/personal pleasure) from professionals (who fly them for a living). The regulations for hobbyists should be as simple as "don't put other people or their property into serious danger", whereas professionals (who tend to fly bigger and heavier things) could have more requirements of skill and knowledge. That would let you train as a hobbyist, if you wanted to become a professional.

300 grams is barely enough to ensure that if a UAV does get sucked into an aircraft or its propellers

But wasn't the point not to fly them somewhere that that would be a thing that could reasonably happen? You're basically burning the candle from both ends, and should likely choose only one. Either regulate the machines themselves, or regulate their use, don't do both in one resolution, because they're very different issues. (Have you thought of splitting this into two separate resolutions? Maybe actually doing the division on the hobbyist/professional divide?)

If you want me to answer for Kenmoria

I more meant that he can help with the grammar.

(or else, people will simply complain that this resolution violates national sovereignty, ugh).

It already does, hugely.

I will put this up for both airports and heliports, regardless of its purpose or whatsoever, because if you fly a drone near a public aviation area (commerical airport, private airport or whatsoever), you better have some permissions to do so near the area.

Then make that the requirement to fly drones near airports rather than completely banning it! Especially as has been pointed out ad infinitum, some airports may exist FOR the purpose of UAV training and use!

which is why I will remain stubborn on this fact that geo-fencing

What the fuck is geo-fencing?

Given the capabilities of drones, the reason why flying a drone in your own backyard should be illegal is because we do not want to promote a culture or practice where people start flying drones near airports.

I think it would make much more sense to promote a culture of "you can fly it only on your own property, below (whatever height limit you put on commercial aviation over residential areas)".

"people should fly drones near their backyards"

In, not near.

I am staunchly supportive of geo-fencing

Which is what exactly?

a 5km no-fly zone at all airports

Why that distance?

With regards to the future tech inquiries, when the day comes where UAVs can specifically do the same jobs as what an existing RL piloted aircraft can do, I will be more than happy to call for a repealment of this resolution as a whole.

Such already exist in NationStates, though. That's what Tinfect's reply illustrates. NS =/= RL. The problem of unilaterally banning something that's already in use just because in your reality it isn't, undermines your arguments. This is why I keep trying to tell you leave leeway for nations to decide more things for themselves.

I am sure you can agree that with the times we must adapt on how we approach problems.

Can you? (See above.)

This will be left up to the member nation itself. It is fine if you want drones to be flying near government buildings and all, but I will leave this up to every nation to interpret as to how they wish

Given that aside from the insanity regarding airports and heliports, you're leaving the no-fly zones up to nations to decide, you could save space simply deleting that, since if you don't regulate on it, the nations are free to do as they want.

People already think that this resolution is too "encroaching" on aviation domestic affairs.

In case you haven't noticed, I do too.

If what you are saying is true, then GAR #464, GAR #439 and GAR #83 would be illegal in that sense as well.

Where do any of those rely on pre-existing regulations? Just using the same committee is totally fine, but referring to regulations without spelling out said regulations, is the problem here.

Self-assembled drones are at higher risk of not being able to sustain safe flight throughout the time of operation due to the lack of a standardized safety protocol upon its assembly (some people assemble drones for fun with a $10 budget, others with a complex design up to $1 000).

...so if I buy a commercial drone that requires me to screw on its legs or propellers or such, is that a self-assembled drone? Because a commercial "building kit" (where you have to attach things on your own) is what I first thought on this, not self-built ones.

Get the relevant permits then. Papers please! (Clause 4)

But clause 4 only talks about no-fly zones?

From that very statement, I am now questioning whether did you even flew and crashed a drone before...

Wish I could afford one. My sister-in-law occasionally operates a proper professional camera drone, an acquaintance is a rabid hobbyist of minidrones, I've watched lots of documentaries on the subject, and in general am interested in aviation. Does crashing a regular toy radio-controlled airplane into a bush count?

So no thanks, fight the fire the conventional way, please.

...you're forgetting you're not trying to legislate only for plastic little drones, right? You're trying to legislate on all unmanned flying devices. And fire suppression (forest fires especially) is one of the things that drones (think unmanned airplanes/helicopters) would be advantageous on.

What about camera drones? Or delivery ones?

but it's simply a recommendation.

WA resolutions shouldn't have vague/confusing recommendations.

Aye, but the definition of the no-fly zones also includes "subject to national laws and WA resolutions".

Yes. And?

or by shooting at it (even a huge NO, just no)

To be fair, shooting the drone down would be preferable to shooting the pilot (in which case the drone might, depending on type, simply keep on flying, possibly causing danger as it did so).

Everything sucks here

If we're talking about small hobbyist drones, there are actually people in RL training tame hawks to attack those, when they're flown where they shouldn't. That sounds more awesome than sucky.

errant pilots

So what counts as errant?

(if the drone is run autonomously, then where is the computer that is giving instructions?)

Onboard the device, hence, again, shooting the drone down would likely be the easiest option.

Also, exactly what do you mean that "why are UAVs crossing national boundaries such a problem here"? Do you mean that illegal aircraft violating another's airspace is not a problem to begin with? Isn't that illegal by nature?

But would it be illegal? You're making this law for all of WA. If two WA nations share a border and the pilot obeys the WA regulations you've set out here, why would them crossing the border be a problem? They would still be obeying the regulations you've set out. If you want to make it illegal to cross the border with a UAV (though, again, remember that you're legislating not just for RL situation but all kinds of RP situations), you need to actually make it illegal. And explain in the preamble why it would be a problem to begin with.

As I have told Tinfect before, it's mostly to ensure that governments are prepared in the event of any UAV-related aviation crises and that they will not be caught off-guard with the lack of legislation or regulation in this market.

What market? And, again, what about nations that already have such laws in place?

As stated before, I will leave it to the nation's interpretation to determine what is military-grade and classified compartments instead of nitpicking every single compartment of a UAV.

That sounds odd, given that it's a solid ban. And why are "military grade" things at the hands of civilians a problem to begin with? In RL guns are a good example; it depends entirely on what you do with it, not what the item is. This is one case where I seriously would suggest dropping the ban entirely. Let nations decide if they want to let their civilians to play with military hardware or not.

Basic quality checks, ensuring that you don't sell broken pieces of drone to a customer? It's mostly just to ensure that the drone remains intact and is still fully airworthy for flight.

And how do you do that without taking it out of the package and having a go? Most stores selling hobbyist drones have the drones in packaging that you can't easily fiddle with, for a good reason.

[Kenmoria]

If you want me to answer for Kenmoria

I more meant that he can help with the grammar.

(OOC: On this point, ‘upon its sale or assembly to’ should be ‘upon its assembly or sale to’, since ‘selling” is a transitive verb done to someone, whereas ‘assembly’ is intransitive.)

[Youssath]

I kinda left this resolution out here to mature and age a bit, but it doesn't seem that there is any active discussion on that point...

I will be submitting this to the General Assembly by tomorrow if there are no further objections to the topic at hand.

[East Meranopirus]

I kinda left this resolution out here to mature and age a bit, but it doesn't seem that there is any active discussion on that point...

I will be submitting this to the General Assembly by tomorrow if there are no further objections to the topic at hand.

Discussion tends to stagnate when the author goes inactive. Believe me, there'll be plenty more questions (but I'm not in the mood of asking them right now).
Also, a friendly heads-up, your current region isn't going to help your chances if you do submit.

[Youssath]

I kinda left this resolution out here to mature and age a bit, but it doesn't seem that there is any active discussion on that point...

I will be submitting this to the General Assembly by tomorrow if there are no further objections to the topic at hand.

Discussion tends to stagnate when the author goes inactive. Believe me, there'll be plenty more questions (but I'm not in the mood of asking them right now).
Also, a friendly heads-up, your current region isn't going to help your chances if you do submit.

Bah. If it is concerning part of the resolution that is at hand here, then I will be able to make amendments and all. It is difficult to improve on legislation if there is no way for me to rectify on the problems clearly and on the text of the resolution.

I do believe that I have previously drafted this resolution back when I was in The North Pacific, and although I agree with you that my current region may be detrimental to the passing of this resolution, I see it more as a challenge to try to get GA resolutions passed personally. If a GA resolution authored by a nation currently residing in one of the most condemned regions in NationStates is able to effectively pass this resolution, then it goes beyond saying that this resolution is popular on the international community, and regardless of standing, it still is able to be passed in the WA.

[East Meranopirus]

I do believe that I have previously drafted this resolution back when I was in The North Pacific, and although I agree with you that my current region may be detrimental to the passing of this resolution, I see it more as a challenge to try to get GA resolutions passed personally. If a GA resolution authored by a nation currently residing in one of the most condemned regions in NationStates is able to effectively pass this resolution, then it goes beyond saying that this resolution is popular on the international community, and regardless of standing, it still is able to be passed in the WA.

I just remembered your nation has a non-compliance issue as well. Another obstacle to your proposal, given WA nations wouldn't like to see their laws authored by someone who doesn't even follow them.

Overall, you can of course try with all the odds stacked against your favour. It's just that (as I'm sure you'd know) you're hardly the only one to have tried, and so far none have succeeded. And your proposal, I think, is already proving more controversial than you expected it to be. There are some fundamental objections to it that won't be solved by any amount of editing. I just don't think this is the magic pill. Of course, you're entitled to your own opinion.

[Marxist Germany]

Also, a friendly heads-up, your current region isn't going to help your chances if you do submit.

OOC: This attitude needs to be dropped. The author's region does not matter at all when deciding to vote for a resolution. Why does it matter if someone is from the CCD if youre judging a proposal?

[Youssath]

I just remembered your nation has a non-compliance issue as well. Another obstacle to your proposal, given WA nations wouldn't like to see their laws authored by someone who doesn't even follow them.

Overall, you can of course try with all the odds stacked against your favour. It's just that (as I'm sure you'd know) you're hardly the only one to have tried, and so far none have succeeded. And your proposal, I think, is already proving more controversial than you expected it to be. There are some fundamental objections to it that won't be solved by any amount of editing. I just don't think this is the magic pill. Of course, you're entitled to your own opinion.

Aye, and while I do roleplay it out with economic sanctions (money bombing, basically - basically its a hyperinflation in my country here), I have never advocated or endorsed any resolutions that undermine the stability and foundations of the World Assembly. In fact, everything written here is a contribution to the international community overall.

And yes, there are indeed some fundamental issues to the resolution, but unless a simple majority of the WA council does not see it that way - it will still be passed as international law. Of course, should this resolution fails, a greater one will be enacted from the mistakes and controversies of the previous one. I simply see this as an improvement on the expected standards from a GA resolution. Does it really matter if a popular resolution comes from an unpopular region, or that the WA nation is in creative compliance (and is RPing out?) as usual? All I am seeking here is for this resolution, separate from my history and affiliations, to be considered independently in the World Assembly, and given the circumstances - to see fit by the international community whether it is worthy enough to be added as part of a GA resolution.

[Satuga]

(OOC)

UAVs are not allowed to discharge, drop or suspend any item or substance from the aircraft at any time,
UAVs are also discouraged from carrying any items on the aircraft unless relevant permits have been granted and the UAV is manufactured to hold items;

These ones seem a bit much too me, of course if the substance proves dangerous to those below it would be outlawed, but say something like a water balloon would seem stupid to punish. My Nation also already has certain regulations on drones, as I recognize the potential dangers and privacy intrusion they can cause, so overall I would support it but that part right there just seems like a bit much to me.

[East Meranopirus]

Also, a friendly heads-up, your current region isn't going to help your chances if you do submit.

OOC: This attitude needs to be dropped. The author's region does not matter at all when deciding to vote for a resolution. Why does it matter if someone is from the CCD if youre judging a proposal?

You know very well this happens whether or not it's right. You have first hand experience.
My bad, I don't know what I was thinking last night. In your case it was your personal views and your (past) non-compliance issues. Sorry about that. That said, being in CCD certainly wouldn't help one's chances, especially if, say, Jocospor helps him campaign for it.

Aye, and while I do roleplay it out with economic sanctions (money bombing, basically - basically its a hyperinflation in my country here), I have never advocated or endorsed any resolutions that undermine the stability and foundations of the World Assembly. In fact, everything written here is a contribution to the international community overall.

Non-compliance is non-compliance, still. A sizable group of people are not gonna like it. Also it's not very easy to "advocate or endorse any resolutions that undermine the stability and foundations of the World Assembly", given that these resolutions are illegal.

All I am seeking here is for this resolution, separate from my history and affiliations, to be considered independently in the World Assembly, and given the circumstances - to see fit by the international community whether it is worthy enough to be added as part of a GA resolution.

If only things are so clear-cut like this...see above, and above.

[Youssath]

(OOC)
These ones seem a bit much too me, of course if the substance proves dangerous to those below it would be outlawed, but say something like a water balloon would seem stupid to punish. My Nation also already has certain regulations on drones, as I recognize the potential dangers and privacy intrusion they can cause, so overall I would support it but that part right there just seems like a bit much to me.

If it serves any reassurances to you, the part where this is written calls for "member nations to provide recommendations", and it is not a compulsory set of guidelines that you need to follow in order to comply with this resolution. You can attach water balloons to your drone if you wish, but don't be surprised if it sets the precedent of suspending "questionable substances" on your drone.

You know very well this happens whether or not it's right. You have first hand experience.
Non-compliance is non-compliance, still. A sizable group of people are not gonna like it. Also it's not very easy to "advocate or endorse any resolutions that undermine the stability and foundations of the World Assembly", given that these resolutions are illegal.
If only things are so clear-cut like this...see above, and above.

"You know very well this happens whether or not it's right. You have first hand experience."

OOC: I have only just met you today and you are definitely showing me what kind of character you are. You must be great in person, making assumptions and impressions out of everyone based on their status at first glance.

It seems to me that you are trying to portray yourself as a "know-it-all" in this forum, and while I will remind you that I do not bother with how long members have been in this game, I definitely will not entertain any statements like yours if you cannot find anything productive to add into the discussion.

Other than that, I think we should just proceed on with the resolution at hand rather than side-tracking here.

[East Meranopirus]

OOC: I have only just met you today and you are definitely showing me what kind of character you are. You must be great in person, making assumptions and impressions out of everyone based on their status at first glance.

It seems to me that you are trying to portray yourself as a "know-it-all" in this forum, and while I will remind you that I do not bother with how long members have been in this game, I definitely will not entertain any statements like yours if you cannot find anything productive to add into the discussion.

Other than that, I think we should just proceed on with the resolution at hand rather than side-tracking here.

Pretty sure you've met me somewhere before? Might help checking the first few posts in this thread.

I'm just being more cynical than usual today.

[Youssath]

Pretty sure you've met me somewhere before? Might help checking the first few posts in this thread.

I'm just being more cynical than usual today.

Not even a lasting impression. Leaving a single input and not replying back in the thread definitely isn't the way to leave a memorable note.

No one here in this forums will bother with what's happening IRL. Keep your affairs separate.

[Kenmoria]

“In clause 2, the first subclause doesn’t flow correctly. I suggest ‘Members nations must introduce mandatory registration on all UAVs...’. Also, in clause 1b, ‘an UAV pilot’ should be ‘a UAV pilot’.”

[Sierra Lyricalia]

All open civilian and military airports and heliports must set up a 5km no-fly zone on all UAVs along with geo-fencing to prevent the flight of UAVs near larger aircraft,

Any key installations or government buildings, by each nation's own laws, are encouraged to set up no-fly zones, to the nation's authority, along with geofencing to ensure national security,

"Ambassador, we oppose this on the grounds that it's totally unnecessary to impose a WA law on an activity that nations or even municipalities are competent to handle. But even if that weren't true, these provisions are just plain godsdamn stupid. Set aside the ludicrous expense for just a second - how are aircraft supposed to maneuver on takeoffs and landings if we're to build earth or rock fences high enough to keep drones out? Every flight would suddenly become a theme park ride as aircraft curl into their runways; and the flight delays will be unbelievable!"

"The other possibility - that you demand we build rock creatures with swords to stab, cut, and whack drones out of the sky - is even dumber and I won't dignify it with further discussion."

"Suffice to say, we will on no account support this batshit insane proposal."