[SCRAPPED] Airspace Safety Act

[Drew Durrnil]

/bump

[Kenmoria]

“Firstly, there is no good reason to end the opening line with a semicolon rather than a comma, nor is there a need to have it, or the ‘hereby’, formatted with both italicisation and bolding. Secondly, and debatably more importantly, I have a content issue with the exception in clause 3, which, incidentally, should use ‘cannot’ rather than ‘can not’, where it excludes items which ‘are meant to ultimately benefit the carrier’.

Lots of rather dangerous things are for the ultimate benefit of the carrier. An assassin slipping a poison into someone's drink will possibly receive a hefty paycheck, as well as recognition by an authority, which can be rather a good benefit for him or her. The same holds true for firearms, assuming that the person firing them is sufficiently inconspicuous to avoid detection, or a whole array of sabotaging equipment.”

[Araraukar]

OOC post. Just quick few notes.

Believing that passengers of all aircraft should be and feel safe and protected;

Wishing to establish universal standards for aircraft safety;

Preamble needs work. There are already basic requirements for airtravel safety. You need to specify what problem you're trying to solve here.

An "aircraft" as a vehicle that is capable of moving via airspace on its propulsion;

"On its propulsion" sounds like it's missing a word. "On its own propulsion"? Also, that means that gliders aren't?

A "pilot" as an individual trained to be operating and/or navigating an aircraft;
A "manned aircraft" as an aircraft housing a sapient being, whether it be a pilot or a passenger;

Dictionary defnitions, unnecessary.

An "airport" as a strip of land specifically made for the taking off, taxiing, and landing of aircraft;

Ok, is this some language issue? Because the strip of land to land and take off is an airstrip or runway. "Airport" includes all the buildings and often the exclusion zone around the runway (to keep people from wandering onto it and endangering themselves and the aircraft) and commonly at least also the runway itself. If you only mean the runway and taxiing roads, then use "airstrip" or "runway", if you mean everything else that people commonly associate with airports, then you need to change your definition.

An "air marshal" as a sapient being employed by a government institution to defend the passengers or cargo of an aircraft; and

Personally I'd feel much more unsafe with an armed person on the plane than not, so I don't quite get the point of the air marshals, though I appreciate that this might be an American/European POV difference. I don't generally consider guns to improve anyone's safety in any way. But why "air marshal" specifically? Why not air sheriff? Plane police? (Alliteration fun, why not.) The struck-out bit could be replaced with "an official tasked". Though it should probably say what they're supposed to protect them from?

An "aircraft incident" as an abnormality in an aircraft or in the flying of an aircraft that disrupts the normal routines of said aircraft;

No. Bad definition. An incident is an event, not a fault. And "normal routine" is what exactly? Whose normal routine? Normal routine doing what?

Establishes the World Assembly Aviation Commission (henceforth referred to as the WAAC), which is tasked with the following;

1. Assisting national aviation agencies in registering and cataloguing airports;
2. Listing the necessary basic and emergency supplies needed for all airports; and
3. Enforcing the actions stated below;

...why do airports need to be registered and catalogued? What/who are they registered by? "Supplies" are important but infrastructure isn't? And just listing does what good exactly? And how is a committee going to enforce any of the following? You can't have WA police.

Prohibits the following in aircraft (unless the item(s) can not be removed and/or are meant to ultimately benefit the carrier or subject);

You use "in" and "on" both. Pick one. Or use "aboard". And what subject?

On all aircraft;

1. Any drugs or poisons (excepting drugs or poisons meant for a use that would ultimately benefit the carrier or subject) that can impair an individual's ability to communicate or otherwise perform essential human actions such as moving and eating;
2. Anything that is manufactured for the main purpose of impairing the normal functionings or flight patterns of said aircraft;

Again, what "subject"? And wtf is this obsession with "drugs or poisons"? Do medications count as either? What about if a plane is a cropduster meant to carry and distribute pesticide? Many pesticides can in large doses kill people too, so they'd definitely count as poisons. Why are moving and eating considered more important than communication? Don't you know how many crashes are due to communication errors??? And you're forbidding military planes from carrying anti-aircraft weapons.

On all passenger aircraft;

1. Any item that is intended to harm or kill, such as firearms and bombs (unless the armed person in question is an air marshal);
2. Any item that is manufactured for the main purpose of exacerbating an attack intended to harm or kill someone;

So the air marshall both can and can't have a weapon (latter bit has no exception), and nobody can have any knives or scissors or bugspray even in the cargo hold luggage. And military personnel are not allowed to have weapons, and military planes are not allowed to carry weapons or bombs or ammunition.

All aircraft incidents must be reported to the WAAC immediately by the pilot for mandatory investigation by the WAAC, except if;

Wouldn't it be more important for the pilot to report such to the air traffic control? I don't want a pilot talking on radio to some random commmittee when he should be more concerned about ensuring the plane doesn't crash! How is this going to make airtravel safer?!?!?

The pilot of an aircraft is unable to adequately communicate with the WAAC, in which a crew member of said aircraft able to communicate with the WAAC shall report the incident;

I don't want the flight attendants to be talking on radio to some bureaucrats either, if they should be preparing the cabin for emergency landing and helping to evacuate passengers!!!!

All crew members on an aircraft are unable to adequately communicate with the WAAC, in which a passenger of said aircraft able to communicate with the WAAC shall report the incident;

WHAT THE ACTUAL SHITTY FUCK HAVE YOU BEEN SNORTING????

There is no one on an aircraft that can adequately communicate with the WAAC, in which the nation's aviation authority shall report the incident;

And given apparently mild turbulence counts as an incident, your committee will be swamped with unnecessary crap and be completely useless.

The nation does not have an aviation authority, in which the nearest nation with an aviation authority of their own shall report the incident, at the subject nation's consent;

Which is the subject nation? And if their consent is needed then what good is this supposed to be? SERIOUSLY, what the hell are you even trying to do with the proposal?

All manned aircraft without a self-sufficient autopilot or a remote pilot must have a copilot, if the WAAC concludes that the aircraft needs one based on size and mechanical constraints;

...what? Why? If a copilot is needed to operate the aircraft then doesn't that mean it can't be operated without one?

All manned aircraft must have a first-aid kit and at least one emergency exit or another form of aircraft emergency evacuation; and

Holy fucking hell watch even just one episode of Aircraft Investigations or even listen to the safey briefing on a flight. I'm sure you can find videos online. First-aid kits have NOTHING to do with evacuations. If the two are meant to be unrelated, then why a single first-aid kit for hundreds of passengers? Why only first-aid kit?

All airports must have the necessary supplies and land for the taxiing, taking off, and landing of an aircraft, as listed by the WAAC.

I'm sure I've asked this before. WHAT ARE THE "SUPPLIES" HERE? Give me a list as an example. In your own words. Not an edit to the proposal but in a reply.

[Outer Sparta]

Concur with Ara. This proposal needs a major rework or else it wouldn't be viable at all.

[Drew Durrnil]

“Firstly, there is no good reason to end the opening line with a semicolon rather than a comma, nor is there a need to have it, or the ‘hereby’, formatted with both italicisation and bolding. Secondly, and debatably more importantly, I have a content issue with the exception in clause 3, which, incidentally, should use ‘cannot’ rather than ‘can not’, where it excludes items which ‘are meant to ultimately benefit the carrier’.

Lots of rather dangerous things are for the ultimate benefit of the carrier. An assassin slipping a poison into someone's drink will possibly receive a hefty paycheck, as well as recognition by an authority, which can be rather a good benefit for him or her. The same holds true for firearms, assuming that the person firing them is sufficiently inconspicuous to avoid detection, or a whole array of sabotaging equipment.”

1. fixed
2. reworded to avoid loophole

[WayNeacTia]

viewtopic.php?p=26911575#p26911575

I see a few contadictions.

[Drew Durrnil]

OOC post. Just quick few notes.

Believing that passengers of all aircraft should be and feel safe and protected;

Wishing to establish universal standards for aircraft safety;

1. Preamble needs work. There are already basic requirements for airtravel safety. You need to specify what problem you're trying to solve here.

An "aircraft" as a vehicle that is capable of moving via airspace on its propulsion;

2. "On its propulsion" sounds like it's missing a word. "On its own propulsion"? Also, that means that gliders aren't?

A "pilot" as an individual trained to be operating and/or navigating an aircraft;
A "manned aircraft" as an aircraft housing a sapient being, whether it be a pilot or a passenger;

3. Dictionary defnitions, unnecessary.

An "airport" as a strip of land specifically made for the taking off, taxiing, and landing of aircraft;

4. Ok, is this some language issue? Because the strip of land to land and take off is an airstrip or runway. "Airport" includes all the buildings and often the exclusion zone around the runway (to keep people from wandering onto it and endangering themselves and the aircraft) and commonly at least also the runway itself. If you only mean the runway and taxiing roads, then use "airstrip" or "runway", if you mean everything else that people commonly associate with airports, then you need to change your definition.

An "air marshal" as a sapient being employed by a government institution to defend the passengers or cargo of an aircraft; and

5. Personally I'd feel much more unsafe with an armed person on the plane than not, so I don't quite get the point of the air marshals, though I appreciate that this might be an American/European POV difference. I don't generally consider guns to improve anyone's safety in any way. But why "air marshal" specifically? Why not air sheriff? Plane police? (Alliteration fun, why not.) The struck-out bit could be replaced with "an official tasked". Though it should probably say what they're supposed to protect them from?

An "aircraft incident" as an abnormality in an aircraft or in the flying of an aircraft that disrupts the normal routines of said aircraft;

6. No. Bad definition. An incident is an event, not a fault. And "normal routine" is what exactly? Whose normal routine? Normal routine doing what?

[*]Establishes the World Assembly Aviation Commission (henceforth referred to as the WAAC), which is tasked with the following;

1. Assisting national aviation agencies in registering and cataloguing airports;
2. Listing the necessary basic and emergency supplies needed for all airports; and
3. Enforcing the actions stated below;

7. ...why do airports need to be registered and catalogued? What/who are they registered by? "Supplies" are important but infrastructure isn't? And just listing does what good exactly? And how is a committee going to enforce any of the following? You can't have WA police.

Prohibits the following in aircraft (unless the item(s) can not be removed and/or are meant to ultimately benefit the carrier or subject);

8. You use "in" and "on" both. Pick one. Or use "aboard". And what subject?

On all aircraft;

1. Any drugs or poisons (excepting drugs or poisons meant for a use that would ultimately benefit the carrier or subject) that can impair an individual's ability to communicate or otherwise perform essential human actions such as moving and eating;
2. Anything that is manufactured for the main purpose of impairing the normal functionings or flight patterns of said aircraft;

9. Again, what "subject"? And wtf is this obsession with "drugs or poisons"? Do medications count as either? What about if a plane is a cropduster meant to carry and distribute pesticide? Many pesticides can in large doses kill people too, so they'd definitely count as poisons. Why are moving and eating considered more important than communication? Don't you know how many crashes are due to communication errors??? And you're forbidding military planes from carrying anti-aircraft weapons.

On all passenger aircraft;

1. Any item that is intended to harm or kill, such as firearms and bombs (unless the armed person in question is an air marshal);
2. Any item that is manufactured for the main purpose of exacerbating an attack intended to harm or kill someone;

10. So the air marshall both can and can't have a weapon (latter bit has no exception), and nobody can have any knives or scissors or bugspray even in the cargo hold luggage. And military personnel are not allowed to have weapons, and military planes are not allowed to carry weapons or bombs or ammunition.

All aircraft incidents must be reported to the WAAC immediately by the pilot for mandatory investigation by the WAAC, except if;

11. Wouldn't it be more important for the pilot to report such to the air traffic control? I don't want a pilot talking on radio to some random commmittee when he should be more concerned about ensuring the plane doesn't crash! How is this going to make airtravel safer?!?!?

The pilot of an aircraft is unable to adequately communicate with the WAAC, in which a crew member of said aircraft able to communicate with the WAAC shall report the incident;

12. I don't want the flight attendants to be talking on radio to some bureaucrats either, if they should be preparing the cabin for emergency landing and helping to evacuate passengers!!!!

All crew members on an aircraft are unable to adequately communicate with the WAAC, in which a passenger of said aircraft able to communicate with the WAAC shall report the incident;

13. WHAT THE ACTUAL SHITTY FUCK HAVE YOU BEEN SNORTING????

There is no one on an aircraft that can adequately communicate with the WAAC, in which the nation's aviation authority shall report the incident;

14. And given apparently mild turbulence counts as an incident, your committee will be swamped with unnecessary crap and be completely useless.

The nation does not have an aviation authority, in which the nearest nation with an aviation authority of their own shall report the incident, at the subject nation's consent;

15. Which is the subject nation? And if their consent is needed then what good is this supposed to be? SERIOUSLY, what the hell are you even trying to do with the proposal?

All manned aircraft without a self-sufficient autopilot or a remote pilot must have a copilot, if the WAAC concludes that the aircraft needs one based on size and mechanical constraints;

16. ...what? Why? If a copilot is needed to operate the aircraft then doesn't that mean it can't be operated without one?

All manned aircraft must have a first-aid kit and at least one emergency exit or another form of aircraft emergency evacuation; and

17. Holy fucking hell watch even just one episode of Aircraft Investigations or even listen to the safey briefing on a flight. I'm sure you can find videos online. First-aid kits have NOTHING to do with evacuations. If the two are meant to be unrelated, then why a single first-aid kit for hundreds of passengers? Why only first-aid kit?

All airports must have the necessary supplies and land for the taxiing, taking off, and landing of an aircraft, as listed by the WAAC.

18. I'm sure I've asked this before. WHAT ARE THE "SUPPLIES" HERE? Give me a list as an example. In your own words. Not an edit to the proposal but in a reply.

ooc:
1. added some context and fixed
2. fixed
3. removed
4. changed to "airstrip"
5a. I just prefer the term "Air Marshal", that's all.
5b. changed
5c. I personally don't care
6. changed the definition to avoid this issue
7. removed per Wayneactia's pointers as they were illegal
8. fixed
9. fixed and reconfigured some stuff to patch the loophole
10. changed
11-14. removed and added a new clause in its place
15. removed
16. they were meant to be unrelated, and loopholes patched
17. removed (violating contradiction rule with ga 342, thanks wayneactia)
also the supplies:
good lighting
quality strip of concrete
ground support and maintenance vehicles/equipment
refueling facilities/equipment
taxiways
a way to enter/exit the airstrip

[Araraukar]

OOC: Add numbers to the quote if you're referring to certain points with numbered replies. And spoiler the long quote if you're not. Also, your listed things are infrastructure and equipment, not supplies.

[Trellania]

Dame Allania Trueblood and her mysterious, unnamed, dark-haired assistant wander in.

"I told you this wasn't the cafeteria," she says to her assistant.

"But the sign said..." he began.

"The signs lie. This place was designed by the mad and the damned," she responds.

The pair stop, then lean over and read the proposal. Then they both stand up, turn their backs to the table, and begin to loudly whisper.

"Isn't this an amendment to a previous resolution?" Dame Allania asks.

"And did you notice they mandate an emergency exit, but no parachutes? What if the passengers need to evacuate while in the air?" her assistant responds.

"Doesn't it also forbid the air transport of certain chemicals entirely?" Dame Allania rejoins.

"What is the WAAC going to do with the radar data? Roll it into a cigar and-" the assistant begins.

"Not in front of the diplomats! They're too young to hear about such things!" the knight protests.

The pair turn back around and, without any whispering, Dame Allania says, "I don't see how this adds anything of value not already covered by existing legislation."

OOC: I had an entirely different reply, but it was lost due to Araraukar's comment of "WHAT THE ACTUAL SHITTY FUCK HAVE YOU BEEN SNORTING????"

[WayNeacTia]

Still contradicts #342.

[Drew Durrnil]

putting this temporarily on hold

[Drew Durrnil]

scrapped for duplication with GA #342