3NM separation from SUA
- Thread starter John777
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
I know it's in Ch5 (prohibited & restricted) in the flight plan section under Area Navigation.
Last edited:
Brad Z
Final Approach
What's the FAR/AIM?
There is no such regulation under title 14. Section 4 of the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) makes no mention of avoiding P and R airspace by 3nm.
Section 3 of the the Air Traffic Control Order (currently order JO 7110.65W, or sometimes referred to as the "point 65") instructs controllers to "Provide radar separation of 3 miles (FL 600 and above - 6 miles) from the special use airspace"
SkyDog58
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 14,600
- Location
- My own special place.
- Display Name
Display name:
Canis Non Grata
It's in the 2016 version of the AIM on page 5-1-15 under the guidance for RNAV flights. There is however no reference to it in the regulations to my knowledge. Consult with your CFI or FSDO to be certain.
Thanks for the help.
My last question on this is:-
(f) File a minimum of one route description waypoint for each ARTCC through whose area the random route will be flown. These waypoints must be located within 200 NM of the preceding center’s boundary.
What does it mean route description waypoint and waypoints located within 200nm? Can any rephrase this into easier sentence?
My last question on this is:-
(f) File a minimum of one route description waypoint for each ARTCC through whose area the random route will be flown. These waypoints must be located within 200 NM of the preceding center’s boundary.
What does it mean route description waypoint and waypoints located within 200nm? Can any rephrase this into easier sentence?
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
It's also in the DOD General Planning for flight plans for military aviators. Personally never planned within 3 NM of those areas unless I was operating within them.
Last edited:
Cooter
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 2,412
- Display Name
Display name:
Cooter
From what you quoted, at least one waypoint within each ARTCC and one of those waypoints has to be no more than 200nm from the boundary of the ARTCC you are coming from. I think I basically just quoted it, but it's pretty straight forward. They are talking about waypoints along you're route.
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
I've been yelled at for approaching the inner ring of a presidential TFR. I was about 2 miles away and ATC made it clear they didn't like me there. I didn't change course and I didn't see F-16s...
SkyDog58
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 14,600
- Location
- My own special place.
- Display Name
Display name:
Canis Non Grata
While dancing on the edge of the danger zone might be a fun thing to do for some, you must remember one thing. Your GPS might show you outside but if ATC's radar shows you inside, you are inside.
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
ATC never told me anything different than what my equipment showed. In addition to GPS I have nav's and dme. Do you remember those? Also the is the awacs looking over the situation. Yup, I've heard them on 121.5...they are there.
In closing, it wasn't "dancing on the edge of the danger zone" it was my usual route with a 5 mile deviation so the sitting president could sleep with a wealthy campaign contributor. As always YMWV.
EvilEagle
Pattern Altitude
The AWACS isn't always there. We fly with them on less than 50% of our stateside training sorties. Not enough assets to go around. Typically the stuff going on in RA's don't really have a need for AWACS - just depends on the area.
thanks, so it does not apply to flying Vitctor airways or jet routes?
Waiting for your reply and in a meanwhile I will also conduct some research on that.
Does 3nm also apply to airways other than RNAV?
I tried to look up separation minima for airways such as Jet and Victor, but have not seen any...
Is this because the AIM referring to any random impromtu routes from airport A to B(direct) and not an officially published route?
Last edited:
It is not in the 2016 version. can you double check with your version?
Doggtyred
En-Route
This link will provide some insight, and lead you to a series of blogs that are somewhat dated but still accurate regarding ATC and the system. It gives some of the "why is it this way" from an ATC perspective. The articles are over 10 years old, so if you try to follow examples by pulling out current charts or plates, you may not find those old airport names, intersections or approaches...
The column is "Say Again" by a former (now retired) ARTCC Controller named Don Brown.
Read his blogs on ATC series 100,200,300 and 400 level "courses" which explain the ATC system in increasing detail and complexity. It will not only answer your question, but more importantly answer "why".
Doggtyred
En-Route
If I remember right Victor airways are 8 miles wide, 4 miles either side of a centerline... Some MOA's and other SUA's appear to be defined by the presence of an Airway along their border, offset by a requisite distance. Granted some airways penetrate some SUA's. For VFR thats your problem. For IFR, ATC keeps you out of the active ones with a reroute.
When flying "random" routes (essentially anything not on an established airway, and made very popular by the explosion of GPS navigation) this preplanned and intentional separation doesn't occur. Your random route might take you right through an active special use airspace and that causes problems. FAR/AIM is putting it back on you, the pilot, not to create the problem in the first place and properly plan your route to avoid SUA by a reasonable margin to avoid loss of separation. The intent is for you to plan not to go through live SUA. Nonrandom routes already accomplish much of that plan. Random routes involve you looking at your charts and seeing where the magenta line takes you.
timwinters
Ejection Handle Pulled
If the border of a restricted area is three miles outside of the border of a restricted area then that's where they should show it on the charts!
I stay out of restricted areas.
But sometimes not by much.
I stay out of restricted areas.
But sometimes not by much.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
5-1-8 D
Cooter
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 2,412
- Display Name
Display name:
Cooter
I watched a guy one day perfectly trace the boundary of restricted airspace , making all the turns until he resumed on course. The problem was that he entirely flew it one mile inside the airspace. I'm not sure what he was using for nav, but he obviously knew the airspace was there.
SkyDog58
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 14,600
- Location
- My own special place.
- Display Name
Display name:
Canis Non Grata
Here are my thoughts as some random guy on the internet. I am not a controller and am not an airspace expert or mapping expert by any means.
The "actual" boundary of the restricted airspace is what is depicted on the chart. The flight planning guidance in the AIM suggests a 3 NM avoidance of that boundary in an effort to ensure that you actually do remain outside of that airspace. If you add up possible errors from GPS, the line painted on your display and what ATC or the controlling authority see on their scopes, you could possibly be viewed as crossing the line regardless of whether you did or not and regardless of whether it was your fault or the fault of technology. I think adding on a little cushion to the boundary when flying outside of any airspace that you are not cleared into, is a very good idea. I see no need to tip toe on the line. It is not worth the risk.
The "actual" boundary of the restricted airspace is what is depicted on the chart. The flight planning guidance in the AIM suggests a 3 NM avoidance of that boundary in an effort to ensure that you actually do remain outside of that airspace. If you add up possible errors from GPS, the line painted on your display and what ATC or the controlling authority see on their scopes, you could possibly be viewed as crossing the line regardless of whether you did or not and regardless of whether it was your fault or the fault of technology. I think adding on a little cushion to the boundary when flying outside of any airspace that you are not cleared into, is a very good idea. I see no need to tip toe on the line. It is not worth the risk.
SkyDog58
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 14,600
- Location
- My own special place.
- Display Name
Display name:
Canis Non Grata
It is the version originally published on 12/10/15 with Change 1 dated 5/26/2016.
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/aim.pdf
Check the title of 5-1-8. That entire section only applies to IFR flights.
"5−1−8. Flight Plan (FAA Form 7233−1)−
Domestic IFR Flights"
Domestic IFR Flights"
Thanks everyone for your participation!
SkyDog58
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 14,600
- Location
- My own special place.
- Display Name
Display name:
Canis Non Grata
Of course it does. If you are VFR, you are using your eyeballs and landmarks to help stay out of the restricted area and away from any of its hazards. If you are IFR, all you have are your GPS and instruments which are prone to error. That is why it is a best practice for IFR and not necessarily VFR. But that is just my opinion.
I'm not sure whether the OP was asking about VFR flights, IFR flights, or both, but I got the impression from the thread that folks were assuming that the quoted AIM section applied to both.
For IFR, I assume that the three NM comes from the separation standards that ATC is required to provide.
For VFR, it would seem excessive to me. I've never seen GPS errors big enough to require that. Is ATC radar that far off?
Cooter
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 2,412
- Display Name
Display name:
Cooter
I'm curious why it isn't easier just to stay 3 miles away. It's hard to imagine how using that 3mile buffer would be so necessary. Restricted airspace usually means some form of dangerous activity, so giving it a little extra room is probably the best option. But I've never heard of it being a requirement.
Why stop at three miles? Why not stay ten miles away, or twenty? It seems to me that recommendations for flight procedures need to based on something, at not just an arbitrary number pulled out of a hat. For VFR, at least, inquiring into the accuracy limitations of the equipment involved would seem to be part of that.
Also, have you ever heard of the Trona gap? That's a corridor that VFR traffic uses, between R-2505 and R-2524. It's not possible to stay three NM away from both of those restricted areas, because at the closest point, they're only four NM apart. I suspect that pilots flying between Trona and Inyokern, for example, would not appreciate being told that they had to fly 80 NM out of the way to do so. In that same area, note also that there are civilian airports that are less than three NM from a restricted area boundary, including the threshold of MHV's Rwy 30.
Last edited:
Dr. O
Pattern Altitude
So, if I give the 3 mile cushion a 3 mile cushion and then someone will say I 'should have' given that cushion-cushion a 3 mile cushion, pretty soon I will have to fly through Canada to go from Saginaw to Put-In-Bay
The real issue is the endless proliferation of TFR/SUA for every money grubbing politician or appointed bureaucrat, out there dialing for dollars. It is long past time for the pilot community to push back by picking a useless TFR and demanding of a Federal Judge that the bureaucrats who spit those out like pumpkin seed shells on the sidelines of an NFL game have to appear in the Court to justify the taking of public airspace each and every time before they take it.
The real issue is the endless proliferation of TFR/SUA for every money grubbing politician or appointed bureaucrat, out there dialing for dollars. It is long past time for the pilot community to push back by picking a useless TFR and demanding of a Federal Judge that the bureaucrats who spit those out like pumpkin seed shells on the sidelines of an NFL game have to appear in the Court to justify the taking of public airspace each and every time before they take it.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
The 3 mm requirement IS for non participating IFR / VFR on top aircraft and not VFR. Applies to warning areas and MOAs as well. There's also vertical separation requirement of 500 ft.
Since the OP's question wasn't specific, I gave the only answer from the AIM that was appropriate.
Last edited:
Cooter
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 2,412
- Display Name
Display name:
Cooter
Because three is reasonable, and twenty isn't. Look, I don't care what you do but this whole attitude of "these are my rights and nobody's going to tell me what I can't do" attitude is misplaced here. You may have some valid grievances elsewhere but someone suggesting you give a little buffer to airspace that's designated for dangerous activity isn't depriving you of your rights or government overreach. I've never heard of a violation pursued because of a buffer being busted.
Once again, I get the idea that the same people who argue that if you fly less than the FAA mandated cloud clearances VFR, you are cheating death and a menace to aviation will also argue that skirting the invisible boundary that separates dangerous activity is a right and we're almost obligated to fly there or our very existence is threatened by government expansion.
Yes, my point was "What is reasonable?"
How is three miles reasonable for VFR flights, when there are civilian airports whose runways are less than that distance from a restricted area boundary? The existence of such airports, and things like the Trona gap, suggest that the FAA thinks the buffer for VFR can safely be less than three miles. Inyokern (IYK) has runways that come within one mile of R-2505, for example.
Not my attitude.
By the way, how much of a buffer are restricted area users required to allow inside the boundaries?
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Depends on what it is. Probably see a pretty good buffer between the limits of artillery / bombing ranges.
A lot of helo routes are right on the R boundary line. You bust off the airspace which occasionally happens at night trying to follow some tank trail with a 1:50,000 map, you'll hear about it. "R12345 I show you 1.5 miles north of blue route." Crap!
Last edited:
Cooter
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 2,412
- Display Name
Display name:
Cooter
I replied to you and Dr. O together and didn't make a clear distinction. Sorry for the confusion.
As for your question, mostly none. That is why it is a good idea to give it some room. So let's just say you want to skirt a Restricted area and fly right along the line. Inside the area multiple fighters are working a training mission and also use the line as their boundary. How much separation do you have?
No problem!
That seems odd to me. Leaving aside arguments about right and wrong, midair collisions tend to be harmful to both pilots. Consequently, I would think that the safety incentive to leave a buffer would apply equally to pilots both inside and outside the airspace.
I leave at least one mile outside, and usually more.
Glad to hear it!
Reminds me of the restricted area that was over the former Fort Ord. That one always made me nervous, because it was uncomfortably close to the downwind leg of Monterey Airport (MRY). I remember one time when I made a night departure from there, and there was tracer fire coming up within the restricted area
, so I made sure to fly a tight downwind (as usual). I noticed, however, that they discontinued firing until I had cleared the area, which I greatly appreciated! Maybe not all pilots were that careful about it.
Cooter
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 2,412
- Display Name
Display name:
Cooter
When military aircraft are training in a restricted area, their focus is on the mission and the training. They keep their business inside the boundary and from my experience they try to keep it away from the line as much as possible. That is one of the things that will be debriefed in some cases, managing the area. They are the ones that are confined, the people outside have everything else. Some R areas are tight, and don't have a whole lot of room to work in. Accidents do happen and they do spill out from time to time, because they are not primarily focused on navigating. They shift their focus when they check out and rejoin everyone else in normal ATC land.
I really don't get this demand for equality, and expecting them to have to maintain the same buffer on the inside. 3 miles is sufficient for separation, if you mess up and it's closer to 2 you are still safe. No alarms are going off at 2.7 miles and they aren't going to launch an intercept. It's done in the interest of safety. Just to make you fell better though, a lot of times the fighters get a warning call from the MOA controller when they are approaching the boundary as well.
There are places where the reverse is true.
It's not a demand, it's a practical reality: Don't the pilots inside and outside have an equal incentive to avoid midair collisions?
Cooter
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 2,412
- Display Name
Display name:
Cooter
There are places where Restricted areas are not confined?
Yes, and no one suggested otherwise. What is so unfair about this? I'm sensing an entitlement mentality but in reality you have nothing to argue against. Use that airspace if it is that important to you, but you are ignoring guidance and creating an undue hazard. I've already said that the people rightfully within the airspace often get warnings when they approach the boundary. What makes you thing the military is flaunting its privilege here?
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Glad to hear it!
Reminds me of the restricted area that was over the former Fort Ord. That one always made me nervous, because it was uncomfortably close to the downwind leg of Monterey Airport (MRY). I remember one time when I made a night departure from there, and there was tracer fire coming up within the restricted area
Their R area should have been at least 3 miles from the airport. Tracers at night can look extremely close though.
Inside the R area, tolerances are much tighter. I've had Apaches hovering 100 meters on a range to one side with small arms ranges 100 meters on the other side. While "spill out" of the R area is serious thing for aircraft, worse is running through a live range. That'll get some enforcement action real quick. Friend of mine lost his PIC orders for 30 days.
Last edited: