08-24-2005, 01:20 AM
Tycholand wrote in response to me:
Quote: Quote: 2. These standards shall be reviewed at least every five years, and may be reviewed earlier in response to transportation mishaps or technological advances. [/quote]
Maybe add that all known possible defects and malfunctions to these craft and how to avoid them should be added to the list?[/quote]
Yes, this is a good idea. There are probably a few other things both you and I have forgotten to add, but the longer the list the more likely it will be seen as a well-thought out proposal.
Quote: Quote: ?
3. At least every three years and after every major modification, the UNCAA will certify which ports, airports, spaceports, watercraft, aircraft and spacecraft are in compliance with its regulations.? [/quote]
I would say every 1 or 2 years. Otherwise travel-companies who have't made any modifications or whatever might cause an accident with their craft.[/quote]
I was trying for the longest period possible for the requirement to accomodate different situations, e.g., DataGenesis' spacecraft might be en route to Mars. If it landed there it might not be able to take off again for years until it was certified. However, two years might be more reasonable for all but spacecraft. I can go with that.
Quote: Quote: ?
Any nation along a route may deny certified or uncertified craft free passage through national waters or national airspace, emergency landing or docking rights, or both. [/quote]
Scrap the emergency landing from there. You should be able to make an emergency landing wherever you want. [/quote]
This is from section 4, relating to the filing of routes. Every nation has the sovereign right to choose what or who can travel through or land on its territory. Every travel company has the right to know before it takes off that its flight plan cannot be changed mid-trip. This section forces nations to make its intentions known beforehand and stick to its promises.
It also makes the distinction between certified and uncertified aircraft. If a nation randomly or punitively denies transit or landing rights to certified aircraft, it should leave itself open to retaliation. I.e., if my planes are in compliance with the UNCTA and you ban them, then I'm free to ban your planes. However, you say only UNCTA certified ships are permitted to dock in your port and so you ban my uncertified (and possibly unsafe) ship, I can't penalize you because you made your decision according to safety not restraint of trade.
Quote: Quote: ?
6. In an emergency, UNCAA certified craft may attempt to dock or land at any civilian or military port, airport or spaceport after follwing UNCAA procedures for notifying military authorities of such an emergency.[/quote]
The last "military" should be in brackets.[/quote]
Yes, this is wrong. How about just leaving it out? "notifiying authorities of" reads better than adding brackets or "civilian and/or."
Quote: May also add that each country should have a Civillian Transportation Safety Board, which must have access to all maintenance logs, craft and ports and airports in that country. The CTSB has the power to prevent any craft from leaving a port.
So it could look something like this:
12. Each country will have their own Civillian Transportation Safety Board, CTSB.
13. The tasks of the CTSB are;
a. Evalues all plans made by craft crossing their nation's boundries, and has the power to reject these planes.
b. May provide extra control, next to the normal port mechanical controls, for spacecraft, aircraft or watercraft at ports for possible malfunctions.
c. Has the power to prevent any craft entering or departing a port.
d. Evaluates all emergency-facilities and plans at ports. [/quote]
I would leave this to each nation as part of its soverign rights. They can call their national agency anything they want, or even avoid having an agency at all. (Hear that, Anarchies?
) However, the UNCTA will want to inspect maintenance and safety records as it is empowered to do. If there is no individual or agency to provide these, the craft will be uncertified with all that entails. So a nation can decide on its own, but that decision has costs.
It also seems that the CTSBs are taking over the role of the UNCTA, especially with 13a and 13d. The right in 13c runs contrary to the rest of the act, namely if a nation accepts a flight plan filed with it, it must accept a landing unless the UNCTA rules otherwise. What would have happened on Sept. 11, 2001 if RL Canada had excercised these same sovereign rights at the same time the RL USA had? There'd be a lot of swimming passengers.
I'm sure there are many other comments, and Grosseschnauzer in particular was wanting to minimise the creation of another UN agency (I say just substitute "Safety" for "Authority" in the title, because little time is spent describing the agency itself). I hope future suggestions are all as helpful and constructive as yours, H.E. the Ambassador.
Quote: Quote: 2. These standards shall be reviewed at least every five years, and may be reviewed earlier in response to transportation mishaps or technological advances. [/quote]
Maybe add that all known possible defects and malfunctions to these craft and how to avoid them should be added to the list?[/quote]
Yes, this is a good idea. There are probably a few other things both you and I have forgotten to add, but the longer the list the more likely it will be seen as a well-thought out proposal.
Quote: Quote: ?
3. At least every three years and after every major modification, the UNCAA will certify which ports, airports, spaceports, watercraft, aircraft and spacecraft are in compliance with its regulations.? [/quote]
I would say every 1 or 2 years. Otherwise travel-companies who have't made any modifications or whatever might cause an accident with their craft.[/quote]
I was trying for the longest period possible for the requirement to accomodate different situations, e.g., DataGenesis' spacecraft might be en route to Mars. If it landed there it might not be able to take off again for years until it was certified. However, two years might be more reasonable for all but spacecraft. I can go with that.
Quote: Quote: ?
Any nation along a route may deny certified or uncertified craft free passage through national waters or national airspace, emergency landing or docking rights, or both. [/quote]
Scrap the emergency landing from there. You should be able to make an emergency landing wherever you want. [/quote]
This is from section 4, relating to the filing of routes. Every nation has the sovereign right to choose what or who can travel through or land on its territory. Every travel company has the right to know before it takes off that its flight plan cannot be changed mid-trip. This section forces nations to make its intentions known beforehand and stick to its promises.
It also makes the distinction between certified and uncertified aircraft. If a nation randomly or punitively denies transit or landing rights to certified aircraft, it should leave itself open to retaliation. I.e., if my planes are in compliance with the UNCTA and you ban them, then I'm free to ban your planes. However, you say only UNCTA certified ships are permitted to dock in your port and so you ban my uncertified (and possibly unsafe) ship, I can't penalize you because you made your decision according to safety not restraint of trade.
Quote: Quote: ?
6. In an emergency, UNCAA certified craft may attempt to dock or land at any civilian or military port, airport or spaceport after follwing UNCAA procedures for notifying military authorities of such an emergency.[/quote]
The last "military" should be in brackets.[/quote]
Yes, this is wrong. How about just leaving it out? "notifiying authorities of" reads better than adding brackets or "civilian and/or."
Quote: May also add that each country should have a Civillian Transportation Safety Board, which must have access to all maintenance logs, craft and ports and airports in that country. The CTSB has the power to prevent any craft from leaving a port.
So it could look something like this:
12. Each country will have their own Civillian Transportation Safety Board, CTSB.
13. The tasks of the CTSB are;
a. Evalues all plans made by craft crossing their nation's boundries, and has the power to reject these planes.
b. May provide extra control, next to the normal port mechanical controls, for spacecraft, aircraft or watercraft at ports for possible malfunctions.
c. Has the power to prevent any craft entering or departing a port.
d. Evaluates all emergency-facilities and plans at ports. [/quote]
I would leave this to each nation as part of its soverign rights. They can call their national agency anything they want, or even avoid having an agency at all. (Hear that, Anarchies?
) However, the UNCTA will want to inspect maintenance and safety records as it is empowered to do. If there is no individual or agency to provide these, the craft will be uncertified with all that entails. So a nation can decide on its own, but that decision has costs.It also seems that the CTSBs are taking over the role of the UNCTA, especially with 13a and 13d. The right in 13c runs contrary to the rest of the act, namely if a nation accepts a flight plan filed with it, it must accept a landing unless the UNCTA rules otherwise. What would have happened on Sept. 11, 2001 if RL Canada had excercised these same sovereign rights at the same time the RL USA had? There'd be a lot of swimming passengers.
I'm sure there are many other comments, and Grosseschnauzer in particular was wanting to minimise the creation of another UN agency (I say just substitute "Safety" for "Authority" in the title, because little time is spent describing the agency itself). I hope future suggestions are all as helpful and constructive as yours, H.E. the Ambassador.