The General Assembly,
APPLAUDING GAR #342’s well intentioned goal of improving the operational safety of civilian aircraft,
CONCERNED, however, at several notable flaws in the resolution,
NOTING that Clause 2, section A, mandates all civilian aircraft to be provided tracking and to have communication established with a tracking station of the member nation,
TROUBLED that even aircraft that could be operating under the equivalent of “Visual Flight Rules” (during which, the pilot in command, weather conditions permitting, can navigate their aircraft by themselves at generally low altitudes, and maintain visual separation with other aircraft in the vicinity by themselves) operating in areas that are decently separated from aircraft already in contact with a tracking station would still be required to be in contact at all stages of their flight, which in already busy airspaces could prove to be extremely stressful for the controller(s) in charge of the tracking station and could lead to errors resulting in property damage and/or loss of life,
BELIEVING nevertheless that these aircraft could have flight tracking offered to them by tracking stations on request, but workload permitting and at the sole discretion of the controller(s) in charge of the tracking station,
PUZZLED at the fact that this resolution forces nations to either establish local tracking stations (such as a control tower), or extend the coverage of a higher-up tracking station down to cover small, quiet airfields with little to no traffic that could easily operate with aircraft simply calling out their intentions on a universal communications frequency, which simply does not make economic sense,
FURTHER NOTING, particularly in the case of private civilian aircraft owned by an individual, that it may not be economically or otherwise feasible to procure the avionic equipment required to be fully identified by tracking stations, such as a transponder and/or radio equipment, and the payment of potential flight tracking fees might also not be feasible,
FEELING that these impediments should not restrict civilian aircraft from being able to operate in situations where being in contact with a tracking station would not be necessary,
FURTHER BELIEVING that member nations’ aviation regulatory bodies should have the right to establish their own communications requirements and airspace types,
CONFUSED as to why this resolution instituted such unnecessarily broad communication requirements,
SINCERELY HOPING replacement legislation will be passed as soon as possible,
HEREBY repeals General Assembly Resolution #342 “Civilian Aircraft Accord”.
OOC: As an IRL holder of an American Private Pilot's License, I feel this resolution is strange, as it essentially completely outlaws flying under visual flight rules with no flight following from ATC, despite it being a totally safe practice that happens thousands of times a day worldwide, and essentially gets rid of the concept of "uncontrolled airspace". Controllers having to treat smaller VFR aircraft as larger Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft would be super stressful, especially in large busy airspaces. Of course, if you wish to fly through controlled airspace, you need to be in contact with the station that controls it and in most cases have a transponder and whatnot.
Uncontrolled airspace is beneficial as, if I was forced to do all my VFR flights as IFR, I'd pay thousands apon thousands of dollars in control fees, which would suck because fuel already aint cheap.
EDIT LOG:
EDIT1: "Nonetheless Applauding" and "Understanding" clauses removed, language refined in certain areas.
EDIT2: Refined language.
EDIT3: Changed the wording of some clauses up.
EDIT4: Refined language.