Emergency Airplane Landing Rights
#1

This is something that the RL crash in Greece has me thinking about ... it may not be necessary, but if somebody ELSE wanted to work with an international topic, I think this idea might be ripe for building a draft proposal. Is there an interest in such a topic?
Reply
#2

What were you thinking of, exactly? I can imagine the crash would be a stimulator for air safety regulations, but I fear that would quickly become too detailed and technical. It couldn't have landed, what with the pilots being dead and everything...Sad
Reply
#3

I wonder if a resolution calling for more safety in general may be more worthwhile. Maybe even calling for the end of government subsidized air industries, so as to create real competetion throughout the industry.
Reply
#4

DomnoniaAug 16 2005, 02:33 PM I wonder if a resolution calling for more safety in general may be more worthwhile. Maybe even calling for the end of government subsidized air industries, so as to create real competetion throughout the industry. [/quote]
A little OOC: Hey, you beat me to that suggestion! Not fair Wink!

IC: I agree with Domnonia's suggestion, at least with the first part. I don't think it could be recommended to prescribe all UN members to end financial government support of airlines (mainly because I fear this would draw away at least some support), but I wholeheartedly support a resolution for more safety to be drafted.
Reply
#5

Well, the international focus here is two-fold: people on aircraft typically are from different nations, and planes fly through international airspace.

I was thinking of originally thinking of one idea:

1) Allowing planes in distress to automatically fly through restricted airspace and encouraging military planes to *not* fire upon them (going back to the 1980s and Soviets),

But now that some of you have chimmed in, I actually like your suggestion much better! Smile

2) Coming up with airline / international transport safety guidelines. It might seem technical, but perhaps we could adopt some minimal safety standards?
Reply
#6

I thini, drawing upon the lesson from the development of the Tsunami and Natural Disaster Resolutions, we would a need a resolution that states the principles of international aircraft safety standards and emergency procedures, and stay away from prescribing detail. (Leaving the details to the technical experts, and requiring that the technical standards be uniform and consistent.)
Reply
#7

OOC: But what if my country doesn't have planes but has starships? Tongue
Reply
#8

Following DataGenesis' excellent observation - i think this resolution should also apply to Ships or starships as well.

As they say: Any Port/Airport/Starport in a Storm. Big Grin

I know that the compassionate peoples of my nation would support a resolution giving any civilian passenger vehicle aid in an emergency situation - regardless of the nation of origin.

An international standard of minimum safety obligations for both nations and corporations would also be appropriate. It will help to encourage tourism between member nations as we all have the same safety standards. An upsurge in tourism in UN member states may encourage Non-UN members to join and further strengthen the UN.
Reply
#9

That's actually a good idea! Smile

Something like: The International Civil Aviation Act

INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING ON CIVIL AIRCRAFT AND ALL AIRPORTS:

- Civillian aircraft may land at ANY airport/airfield, including military ones, if in distress. Violation of restricted airspace is hereby allowed.
- All airports/airfields are to be fitted with the appropriate emergency handling vehicles and equipemt for an aiprort/airfield it's size.
- All airports/airfields with air traffic control must have a radar displaying heigth and position of the aircraft.
- A new bureau, the United Nations Civil Aviation Authority, the UNCAA, decides what the minimal safety-requirements for a civillian aircraft are.
- UNCAA officials have the power to ground an airplane or airplanes, and UNCAA officials have acces to ALL civillian airports/airfields.
- UNCAA also decides what the minimal bagage-screening requirements are, and has the power to close down a civillian airport/airfield if the requirements are violated. UNCAA officials are allowed to test baggage-screening at civillian airports/airfields.

There, that could be something of an outline. Smile
Reply
#10

GrosseschnauzerAug 16 2005, 08:59 AM I thini, drawing upon the lesson from the development of the Tsunami and Natural Disaster Resolutions, we would a need a resolution that states the principles of international aircraft safety standards and emergency procedures, and stay away from prescribing detail. (Leaving the details to the technical experts, and requiring that the technical standards be uniform and consistent.) [/quote]
I agree, focusing on the principles would be nice. Especially in light of the fact that a *second* aircraft crashing killing all yesterday. Sad

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4...300/4156346.stm
Reply
#11

TycholandAug 18 2005, 02:38 PM That's actually a good idea! Smile

Something like: The International Civil Aviation Act

INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING ON CIVIL AIRCRAFT AND ALL AIRPORTS:

- Civillian aircraft may land at ANY airport/airfield, including military ones, if in distress. Violation of restricted airspace is hereby allowed.
- All airports/airfields are to be fitted with the appropriate emergency handling vehicles and equipemt for an aiprort/airfield it's size.
- All airports/airfields with air traffic control must have a radar displaying heigth and position of the aircraft.
- A new bureau, the United Nations Civil Aviation Authority, the UNCAA, decides what the minimal safety-requirements for a civillian aircraft are.
- UNCAA officials have the power to ground an airplane or airplanes, and UNCAA officials have acces to ALL civillian airports/airfields.
- UNCAA also decides what the minimal bagage-screening requirements are, and has the power to close down a civillian airport/airfield if the requirements are violated. UNCAA officials are allowed to test baggage-screening at civillian airports/airfields.

There, that could be something of an outline. Smile [/quote]
I like this outline. The first point is solid, I don't see how it can really be disputed.

The second one might be refined by saying appropriate within the means of the society in question, meaning a fantasy tech society might just have an emergency goblin crew on hand to pick up debris, while Datagensis might have fireships ready to hose down folks in an emergency.

FYI: This May when I was flying to Zurich, my flight from San Francisco lost one of its two engines and we made an emergency landing *back* at SFO. I have pictures of my plane being chased by a ton of firetrucks. Smile
Reply
#12

*** EDITED to add ports as Lawtonia helpfully suggested ***

Everybody has contributed a lot to this worthwhile proposal. I like H.E. the Ambassador's suggestion for the title and DataGenesis' reminder of other modes of transportation, so how about: the The Civil Transportation Authority Act.

The principles I'm trying to defend here are:

* cooperation: if you want to enjoy the benefit, you've got to provide it as well
* minimising the loss of life when a civil craft is in danger of crashing
* ensuring that craft are operated in the most responsible manner possible by making host governments responsible for regulating their civil craft lines
* providing incentives for civil craft lines not to invoke the emergency provisions unnecessarily or deviously
* respecting national sovereignty by allowing the UN to decertify rather than ground or forcibly inspect
* respecting the possibility that nations might want to operate some or all of their landing sites outside the UNCAA regulations; that's fine, but they lose the protection of the UNCAA then


Quote: The Civil Transportation Authority Act

WHEREAS certain civil water voyages, civil space flights, and civil flights originate, pass through, pass above or terminate at different nations, and

FURTHERMORE citizens from third nations are often aboard these craft,

COGNIZANT that these craft often cross into international waters, international airspace or beyond the stratosphere, and

RECOGNISING that the safety of those aboard and on land are the concern of the nations where the craft depart from, travel above, travel through, arrive at and passengers hold citizenship, and

AWARE that safety is a shared responsibility of all parties.

THEREFORE, in the interests of promoting international travel, trade and safety by air, space and water, the NationStates United Nations

RESOLVES that the safety of civil craft travelling thorugh water, air and space between or above two or more nations is the responsibility of the United Nations' Civil Transportation Authority.


1. United Nations Civil Transportation Authority, chosen from among the membership of the UN General Assembly, shall create and publicise safety standards regarding travel by civilian watercraft, civilian aircraft and civilian spacecraft between UN nations.? These technical standards shall be created by experts under the direction of the UNCAA and may include such items as:

* type, number and position of lifeboats
* docking, refuelling and other port procedures
* number, length and position of runways or launchpads
* type, number and procedures for air traffic control and navigation aids?
* baggage, on-board crew, on-ground crew and passenger screening procedures
* type and number of on-ground and in-flight firefighting equipment
* number and arrangement seating and storage compartments
* flight crew training, staffing numbers and certification
* type and storage of fuel
* what constitutes a major modifcation or an emergency.

2. These standards shall be reviewed at least every five years, and may be reviewed earlier in response to transportation mishaps or technological advances.

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.? The UNCAA status of each watercraft, aircraft and spacecraft shall be publicised for all UN nations and citizens.

4. Each certified and uncertified craft on an international trip must file a plan with every nation along its proposed route.? 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.? This denial may apply generally or on a case by case basis.? Where an uncertified craft has been denied passage, landing or both, no retaliatory denial against the denying nation may be levelled.? Certified craft may not be denied passage or landing once underway, except during a UNCAA emergency.

5. The UNCAA status of each port, airport and spaceport shall be available to UN nations and citizens.? Any nation or individual port, airport or spaceport authority may deny landing rights to an uncertified craft.? This denial may apply generally or on a case by case basis.

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.

7. Following a successful docking or landing at a civilian facility, the receiving nation or authority may recoup its expenses.? Costs, based on UNCAA rates, shall be paid by the owner of the craft or the nation in which it is based.

8. Following an unsuccessful docking or landing at a civilian facility, the receiving nation or authority may recoup its losses and expenses based on the cost of reconstruction, indemnification for injury and loss of life, and expenses incurred until the crash.? Costs shall be paid by the owner of the craft or the nation in which it is based.

9. Following a successful docking or landing at a military facility, the receiving nation may impound the craft and its cargo, and levy a charge no greater than the cost of the craft which made the emergency landing.  Neither crew nor passengers may imprisoned for this act.

10. Following an unsuccessful docking or landing at a military facility, the receiving nation may impound the craft and its cargo, and levy a charge no greater than ten times the cost of the craft which crashed, plus indemnification for injury and loss of life.? Costs shall be paid by the owner of the craft or the nation in which it is based.

11. A civil craft may not be intentionally damaged or destroyed by military means once it broadcasts its UNCAA emergency status.? The owner of the craft of the nation in which it is based may levy a charge no greater than ten times the cost of the craft which was destroyed, plus indemnification for injury and loss of life against the violator of this provision.[/quote]

Edit and debate away!
Reply
#13

I think the focus of the text should be on the standards, and that the Authority is secondarily mentioned as the mechanism to develop and implement the uniform techincal stanards.
As I understand Hack's latest UN resolution guidelines at Jolt, that would make the resolution more likely in compliance with those guidelines, which seem to discourage emphasis on committees in proposals for UN resolutions.
Am I understanding that correctly, Mikitivity?
As to the detail, I will come back and take a closer look later. I've been doing writing all afternoon, and my brain can't absorb much more at that level right now.
Reply
#14

My responses:

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: 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: 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: 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.

------------------------------------------------------------

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:

Quote: 
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]
Reply
#15

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? Rolleyes ) 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.
Reply
#16

Can the proposal please be editted again? A new draft? Smile
Reply
#17

I think its interesting how in real life countries are now banning unsafe airlines. I found this today on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's news website:

African airlines among the most dangerous

African airlines feature prominently on a new list of the world's most dangerous airlines.

Belgium has followed France's lead in publishing the names of airlines over which it has safety concerns.

None of the airlines on the list will be allowed to fly to Belgium because of what authorities say are operational safety concerns.

The list includes companies from the Central African Republic, Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria and Ghana.

Airlines from Egypt, Libya, Ukraine and Armenia are also on the list.

France and Switzerland have imposed similar bans on a range of carriers, as has the United States.

The European Union fully supports the move and is considering an EU-wide list of banned carriers.

The release of the list follows a number of fatal air crashes in the last few weeks.
Reply
#18

Lawtonia, maybe a good idea if a resolution was created titled something like "International Civil and Freight Aviation Blacklist", which lists airlines which pose a certain risk because they don't meet all the modern requirements for an airline or something like that?
Reply
#19

Right, not much discussion going on, so I'm going to edit the thing then.

Quote: The Civil Transportation Authority Act

WHEREAS certain civil water voyages, civil space flights and civil flights originate, pass through, pass above or terminate at different nations, and

FURTHERMORE citizens from third nations are often aboard these craft,

AWARE that these craft often cross into international waters, international airspace or beyond the stratosphere, and

RECOGNISING that the safety of those aboard and on land are the concern of the nations where the craft departs from, travels above, travels through, arrives at and passengers hold citizenship of, and

AWARE that safety is a shared responsibility of all parties.

THEREFORE, in the interests of promoting international travel, trade and, most of all, safety by air, space and water, the NationStates United Nations

RESOLVES that the safety of civil craft travelling through water, air and space between or above one or more nations is the responsibility of the United Nations Civil Transportation Authority (UNCTA).

1. United Nations Civil Transportation Authority, chosen from among the membership of the UN General Assembly, shall create and publicise safety standards regarding travel by civilian watercraft, civilian aircraft and civilian spacecraft between UN nations.  These technical standards shall be created by experts under the direction of the UNCTA and may include such items as:

* type, number and position of lifeboats
* docking, refuelling and other port procedures
* number, length and position of runways or launchpads
* type, number and procedures for air traffic control and navigation aids 
* baggage, on-board crew, on-ground crew and passenger screening procedures
* type and number of on-ground and in-flight firefighting equipment
* number and arrangement seating and storage compartments
* flight crew training, staffing numbers and certification
* type and storage of fuel
* what constitutes a major modifcation or an emergency.

2. These standards shall be reviewed at least every two-and-a-half years, and may be reviewed earlier in response to transportation mishaps or technological advances.

3. At least every two years and after every major modification, the UNCTA will certify which ports, airports, spaceports, watercraft, aircraft and spacecraft are in compliance with its regulations.  The UNCTA status of each watercraft, aircraft and spacecraft shall be publicised for all nations and citizens.

4. Each certified and uncertified craft on an international trip must file a plan with every nation along its proposed route, including if the route travelled is a domestic one. Any nation along a route may deny certified or uncertified craft free passage through national waters/national air(space), or docking rights, or both, with exception during emergency landings or dockins.  This denial may apply generally or on a case by case basis.  Where an uncertified craft has been denied passage, landing or both, no retaliatory denial against the denying nation may be levelled.  Certified craft may not be denied passage or landing once underway, except during a UNCTA emergency.

5. The UNCTA status of each port, airport and spaceport shall be available to UN nations and citizens.  Any nation or individual port, airport or spaceport authority may deny landing rights to an uncertified craft.  This denial may apply generally or on a case by case basis.

6. In an emergency, UNCTA certified craft may attempt to dock or land at any civilian or military port, airport or spaceport after follwing UNCTA procedures for notifying the proper authorities of such an emergency.

7. Following a successful docking or landing at a civilian facility, the receiving nation or authority may recoup its expenses.  Costs, based on UNCTA rates, shall be paid by the owner of the craft or the nation in which it is based.

8. Following an unsuccessful docking or landing at a civilian facility, the receiving nation or authority may recoup its losses and expenses based on the cost of reconstruction, indemnification for injury and loss of life, and expenses incurred until the crash.  Costs shall be paid by the owner of the craft or the nation in which it is based.

9. Following a successful docking or landing at a military facility, the receiving nation may impound the craft and its cargo, and levy a charge no greater than the cost of the craft which made the emergency landing.  Neither crew nor passengers may imprisoned for this act.

10. Following an unsuccessful docking or landing at a military facility, the receiving nation may impound the craft and its cargo, and levy a charge no greater than ten times the cost of the craft which crashed, plus indemnification for injury and loss of life.  Costs shall be paid by the owner of the craft or the nation in which it is based.

11. A civil craft may not be intentionally damaged or destroyed by military means once it broadcasts its UNCTA emergency status.  The owner of the craft of the nation in which it is based may levy a charge no greater than ten times the cost of the craft which was destroyed, plus indemnification for injury and loss of life against the violator of this provision.

12. The UNCTA will maintain a "black-list" of civillian- and freight-carrying companies who have asked the UNCTA to certify them and do not comply with the UNCTA-standards. The UNCTA does point out that this list is insufficient, because not every craft's owner decides to attempt certification of their craft.
[/quote]

Comments please. Smile Number 12 might need to be rephrased some.
Reply
#20

Quote: 12. The UNCTA will maintain a "black-list" of civillian- and freight-carrying companies who have asked the UNCTA to certify them and do not comply with the UNCTA-standards. The UNCTA does point out that this list is insufficient, because not every craft's owner decides to attempt certification of their craft.

Comments please.  Number 12 might need to be rephrased some. [/quote]


* * * * * *

Just change the title to "The Civil Transportation Safety Act" to incorporate Grosseschnauzer's suggestion to make the focus on the intention rather than the agency carrying out the intention.


* * * * *

I'll offer several options for section 12:

(1) The focus so far has been on the craft (ships, airplanes and spaceships) and the facilities (ports, airports and spaceports), not on the companies. This is partly because not all nations may permit companies to form, and also because a company with a good record may still have defective craft in its fleet.


Quote: 12. The UNCTA will also compile and publicise a list of civilian freight and passenger transportation companies whose craft or facilities have unsuccessfully sought certification.  This list will exclude companies whose craft or facilities would fail the UNCTA certification process but have not applied for certification.[/quote]


(2) Keep the above, but replace "companies" with "owners" and you avoid the incorporation problems.


(3) Keep the above, but insert "often" between "have" and "unsuccessfully" and you try to distinguish between a good company with a few failures and a bad company with lots of failures.


(4) Create the blacklist for the craft and facilities only by reword an existing section to cover this (bold replacing underline):

Quote: 3. At least every two years and after every major modification, the UNCTA will certify which ports, airports, spaceports, watercraft, aircraft and spacecraft are in compliance with its regulations.  The UNCTA status of each watercraft, aircraft and spacecraft shall be publicised for all nations and citizens. UNCTA will maintain a list of all applications for the certifcation of watercraft, aircraft and spacecraft.  The positive or negative results of these applications shall be made available to all nations and citizens.[/quote]


If nothing else, option (4) more closely captures what I meant when I wrote "the UNCTA status" should be publicised.

I have no serious problem with any of the other options, but I would prefer them in this order: (2) and (3), (2) only, (3) only and (1).


* * * *

In other matters, I'd leave out the change in section 4:

Quote: including if the route travelled is a domestic one[/quote]

The air traffic of sovereign states should be left to their respective governments. But if you're trying to get at the idea that some domestic flights might have to make an emergency landing in another country, how about something like:

Quote: or a domestic route travelling within 100 kilometers of an international border [/quote]

This might just be in time for the 22nd anniversary of the shooting down of Korean Airlines Flight 7.
Reply
#21

Updated draft:

Quote: The Civil Transportation Safety Act

WHEREAS certain civil water voyages, civil space flights and civil flights originate, pass through, pass above or terminate at different nations, and

FURTHERMORE citizens from third nations are often aboard these craft,

AWARE that these craft often cross into international waters, international airspace or beyond the stratosphere, and

RECOGNISING that the safety of those aboard and on land are the concern of the nations where the craft departs from, travels above, travels through, arrives at and passengers hold citizenship of, and

AWARE that safety is a shared responsibility of all parties.

THEREFORE, in the interests of promoting international travel, trade and, most of all, safety by air, space and water, the NationStates United Nations

RESOLVES that the safety of civil craft travelling through water, air and space between or above one or more nations is the responsibility of the United Nations Civil Transportation Authority (UNCTA).

1. The United Nations Civil Transportation Authority, chosen from among the membership of the UN General Assembly, shall create and publicise safety standards regarding travel by civilian watercraft, civilian aircraft and civilian spacecraft between UN nations; this includes any non-governmental freight-carriers. These technical standards shall be created by experts under the direction of the UNCTA and may include such items as:

* type, number and position of lifeboats
* docking, refuelling and other port procedures
* number, length and position of runways or launch pads
* type, number and procedures for air traffic control and navigational aids 
* baggage, on-board crew, on-ground crew and passenger screening procedures
* type and number of on-ground and in-flight fire fighting equipment
* number and arrangement seating and storage compartments
* flight crew training, staffing numbers and certification
* type and storage of fuel
* what constitutes a major modification or an emergency.

2. These standards shall be reviewed at least every two-and-a-half years, and may be reviewed earlier in response to transportation mishaps or technological advances.

3. At least every two years and after every major modification, the UNCTA will certify which ports, airports, spaceports, watercraft, aircraft and spacecraft are in compliance with its regulations.  The UNCTA will maintain a list of all applications for the certification of watercraft, aircraft, spacecraft, ports, airports and spaceports.  The positive or negative results of these applications shall be made available to all nations and citizens.

4. Each certified and uncertified craft on an international trip must file a plan with every nation along its proposed route. Any nation along a route may deny certified or uncertified craft free passage through national waters/national air(space), or docking rights, or both, with exception during emergency landings or dockings.  This denial may apply generally or on a case by case basis.  Where an uncertified craft has been denied passage, landing or both, no retaliatory denial against the denying nation may be levelled.  Certified craft may not be denied passage or landing once underway, except during a UNCTA emergency.

5. The UNCTA status, which is how well each port complies with the regulations, of each port, airport and spaceport shall be available to UN nations and citizens. Any nation or individual port, airport or spaceport authority may deny landing rights to an uncertified craft.  This denial may apply generally or on a case by case basis.

6. In an emergency, UNCTA certified craft may attempt to dock or land at any civilian or military port, airport or spaceport after following UNCTA procedures for notifying the proper authorities of such an emergency.

7. Following a successful docking or landing at a civilian facility, the receiving nation or authority may recoup its expenses.  Costs, based on UNCTA rates, shall be paid by the owner of the craft or the nation in which it is based.

8. Following an unsuccessful docking or landing at a civilian facility, the receiving nation or authority may recoup its losses and expenses based on the cost of reconstruction, indemnification for injury and loss of life, and expenses incurred until the crash.  Costs shall be paid by the owner of the craft or the nation in which it is based.

9. Following a successful docking or landing at a military facility, the receiving nation may impound the craft and its cargo, and levy a charge no greater than the cost of the craft which made the emergency landing.  Neither crew nor passengers may imprisoned for this act.

10. Following an unsuccessful docking or landing at a military facility, the receiving nation may impound the craft and its cargo, and levy a charge no greater than ten times the cost of the craft which crashed, plus indemnification for injury and loss of life.  Costs shall be paid by the owner of the craft or the nation in which it is based.

11. A civil craft may not be intentionally damaged or destroyed by military means once it broadcasts its UNCTA emergency status.  The owner of the craft of the nation in which it is based may levy a charge no greater than ten times the cost of the craft which was destroyed, plus indemnification for injury and loss of life against the violator of this provision.

12. The UNCTA will also compile and publicise a list of civilian freight and passenger transportation owners whose craft or facilities have often unsuccessfully sought certification. This list will exclude companies whose craft or facilities would fail the UNCTA certification process but have not applied for certification.[/quote]
Reply
#22

This looks like a fine resolution to me.

Considering the amount of resolutions we have pending now, I think it's time to look into forming a campaigning team so we can campaign for these and divide the load over as many people as possible.
Reply
#23

Come on people! We can have this resolution submitted before the week is over!

BTW, if you guys submit the resolution, be sure to TM my nation "Tycholand" to endorse this proposal. I'm the current Delegate of the region "Nederland". Smile
Reply
#24

We can have it submitted now, but that doesn't mean that it'd work. Feel free to submit it, anyone, but there's another resolution that's about to be submitted too. Although we could see if we can combine the campaigning efforts for both.

But first, this resolution should be taken to the UN forum, to see how people react to it.
Reply
#25

Okay, I'll post it on the UN-forum.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)