I meant operated the former (for and on behalf of WA organs), not regulations. There are regulations forthcoming on regulating aircraft now that the domestic flight blocker has been ditched.
In that case, the crux of my original complaint stands, and your co-author seems to be in disagreement with you. I'll return to the source text for complete clarity:
A WA state must not impede the normal operations of any flying objects under the jurisdiction of a WA organ, except strictly for the purpose of: capacity management if it is traveling within the WA state's airspace; and/or quarantines, except if the said flying object's operation within that airspace only involves traveling through it without landing or disembarking. A WA state may not disrupt the normal operations of flying objects: traveling under the flag of the WA, or traveling under the flag of another WA state, or that of flying objects in the airspace of another WA state, nor attack such flying objects, unless a declared state of war exists between the relevant states. [This] excludes cases where the flying object has been hijacked by rogue actors, or by those that have mutinied against the WA or the said WA state, and other analogous circumstances of loss of control.
In summary, this gives two restrictions, which I'll try to write out in as unambiguous form as possible. If you think I'm wrong, it's either because I've misinterpreted the proposal and what follows does not match your intention, or because the following is correct but you do not believe it to be an issue; please make it clear which.
- A WA aircraft (that is, a "flying object [directly] under the jurisdiction of a WA organ", and operating with some bilateral services agreement with some part of the WA, as opposed to just being regulated by a part of the WA) may not have its "normal operations" impeded by a WA state, except ("strictly") for "capacity management" or quarantines.
- Any aircraft ("flying objects" travelling under the flag of the WA or any WA state, which is, at least for the purposes of typical commercial and general aviation where my concerns and expertise lie, an essentially wholly-encompassing condition*) may not have its "normal operations" impeded by a WA state nor be attacked, unless a state of war exists, or the control of the aircraft by competent authorities has been lost. (I would note that standard real-world phrasing for conditions such as these would be a loss of control by the designated Commander or subsequent delegated authority. A lack of any such consideration has apparently muddied the resolution—as well as its predecessors—significantly.)
*I wish to make it clear, since innocuous (though long) clarifications such as these have been apparently blindly misinterpreted in the past, that this is not a criticism; the condition is fine.
My criticism is twofold: first, in that the latter of the two appears to conflict with the former (at least in the case where a "flying object under the jurisdiction of a WA organ" is also "travelling under the flag of the WA", which seems reasonably-expected), since their conditions inexplicably do not overlap at all; and second, in that the latter (which encompasses the vast majority of all civilian airliner traffic) provides no allowance for disruption of the flight under normal circumstances.
For a concrete example of the latter, take an example of the hypothetical North Pacific Airlines flight 123, flying to the Noordsk capital, and the Noordsk Avdeling for Sivallufþåmpregeln, which currently has regulatory power over airspace in Norvarxilaland. Due to capacity restrictions at the airport, upon entering the capital TMA, NPA123 is instructed to terminate the STAR, and direct to and hold at a fix not published as a hold (due to existing holds being full). This could be argued to be a non-normal (though defined) procedure, and certainly encompasses a "disruption" to the "normal operations" of the flight. Under this regulation, since NPA123 is considered a "flying object [...] traveling under the flag of another WA state", the ASlr cannot authorise this disruption unless Norvarxilaland has declared war against the North Pacific, or it can prove the flight has been hijacked. In the case of the ludicrous suggestion that
surely the aircraft will comply, for its own good, I'll raise that this arrangement exists: uncontrolled airspace, which is not used in any major commercial flight areas (for good reason!).
My main conclusion from this entire case is the fact that clause 4. is extraordinarily poorly-written—much worse so than the defeated
Aerospace Sovereignty Act, a travesty of debate which I should not like to see repeated—and moreover seems to have been amended so many times that its intention has been lost and now creates only problems, denying nations a basic right to ensure safety and order within their airspace. I shan't go as far as calling it "illegal", since the contradiction is a blunder at worst, but the consequences are just as severe.
I will restate my vote Against, and implore all those voting For to provide at least a cursory dismissal of my complaints before doing so, as a basic courtesy to this ailing region's democracy.
