Whats the difference between Prohibited and Restricted airspace?

[jasc15]

Restricted Areas

73.13
No person may operate an aircraft within a restricted area between the designated altitudes and during the time of designation, unless he has the advance permission of
(a) The using agency described in §73.15; or

(b) The controlling agency described in §73.17

Prohibited Areas

73.83
No person may operate an aircraft within a prohibited area unless authorization has been granted by the using agency.

As I was creating this post I realized that I may have answered my own question, but I still want to be sure. It seems that the only difference between the two is that you can simply get ATC approval to enter a Restricted area whereas Prohibited areas may ONLY be entered with advance permission. Is this the case?

 

[DGlaeser]

You have a chance of getting permission to enter Restricted Airspace - if the reason for the restriction is not active. It's usuallly something that is a hazard to flight (gunnery ranges, bombing ranges, missle test areas, ...)

You have virtually no chance of getting permission to enter Prohibited airspace. Most don't contain hazards to flight, they are areas they simply don't want aircraft overhead - like the locations of the president, nuclear facilities, etc.

 

[vontresc]

They generally won't shoot you down for entering restricted airspace

 

[Doggtyred]

R may or may not be active... and you have a chance to be cleared through..

P - dont even bother asking.. dont even try.. the answer is NO unless you are the President's personal pilot...

 

[DutchessFlier]

You have a chance of getting permission to enter Restricted Airspace - if the reason for the restriction is not active. It's usuallly something that is a hazard to flight (gunnery ranges, bombing ranges, missle test areas, ...)

You have virtually no chance of getting permission to enter Prohibited airspace. Most don't contain hazards to flight, they are areas they simply don't want aircraft overhead - like the locations of the president, nuclear facilities, etc.

Thats an interesting point about nuclear facilities. I fly all over the Hudson Valley, and the closest restricted airspace we encounter is over West Point Military Academy, but I find it interesting that the airspace over the Indian Point Nuclear facility is not noted, or marked at all. It is as wide open as anywhere else.

 

[AuntPeggy]

They generally won't shoot you down on purpose for entering restricted airspace

Fixed it for you.

 

[JeffDG]

I think the difference is the reason for designation.

Restricted airspace contains activities that may be hazardous to non-participating aircraft. Think AFB bombing ranges as an example.

But how often do you think they have practice dogfights in P-40? Prohibited space is designated for other reasons like VIP (P-40) or sensitive areas (P-205).

 

[poadeleted20]

Jeff's got it -- P-Areas relate to national security, while R-areas involve hazards to flight. You can generally be cleared through R-areas when they're not in use, but P-areas are an absolute no-no unless your call sign is AF/Marine One or something close to that. I would point out that R-areas are used primarily for air-to-ground weapons delivery practice (bombs, guns, rockets, and missiles), surface-launched weapons training (guns, rockets, and missiles), etc., so you can still get shot down in an R-area -- the difference is that they weren't aiming at you the way they would be in a P-Area. Nevertheless, a mid-air collision with a 500-lb bomb can spoil your day just as effectively as a mid-air with a Stinger.

 

[vontresc]

Hmmm where can i get a list of all of the prohibited areas? I went to http://sua.faa.gov , and when you filter the list for prohibited airspace nothing shows up.

 

[poadeleted20]

Hmmm where can i get a list of all of the prohibited areas? I went to http://sua.faa.gov , and when you filter the list for prohibited airspace nothing shows up.

At least for the areas in which you have charts, they're listed in the margin of the sectionals and L-charts. But there aren't many of them at all -- maybe a dozen total?

 

[JeffDG]

Jeff's got it -- P-Areas relate to national security,

There are P's that have nothing to do with national security, like P-204/P-205 up in northern MN.

R's are hazards to flight, P's are everything that they don't want you in, but is not a hazard to flight.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Interesting side note; once in flying for the NC guard, I was leading the governor across wonderful, scenic, Fort Bragg which is just a maze of restricted and highly procedure ridden air space. When my call sign changed to North Carolina One: there were virtually no procedures--Uh, NC One, say destination--cleared. They just shut things down if they had to. We asked not to interfere with activities if that was possible.

Best,

Dave

 

[EdFred]

Scanning through the WACs I found exactly 12 P-Areas, but I may have not got em all.

P-40
P-47
P-49
P-50
P-51
P-56A
P-56B
P-67
P-204
P-205
P-206

 

[Steve]

Immediately following 9/11 there were restrictions placed on nuclear power plant overflights that basically created a prohibited zone within a 10 nm radius. Subsequently, that restriction was modified to preclude "loitering" in the vicinity of such facilities. I suspect the original requirement was found to be unenforceable and the latter implies if you hang around long enough for an air intercept you'll be on the evening news.

The previous

FDC 1/1763 FDC AND FDC 1/1764 ZZZ - TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS OVER NUCLEAR SITES.
FOR REASONS OF NATIONAL SECURITY. EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UNTIL NOVEMBER 07, 2001 0500 UTC.

PURSUANT TO TITLE 14 CFR SECTIONS 91.139, EMERGENCY AIR TRAFFIC RULES AND 99.7 SPECIAL SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS. ALL GENERAL AVIATION FLIGHT OPERATIONS ARE PROHIBITED WITHIN A 10 NAUTICAL MILES RADIUS OF AND BELOW 18000 FEET MSL OVER THE BELOW LISTED NUCLEAR SITES EXCEPT FOR MEDEVAC, LAW ENFORCEMENT, RESCUE/RECOVERY, EMERGENCY EVACUATION AND FIRE FIGHTING OPERATIONS WHEN AUTHORIZED BY ATC:
​

The current

Nuclear Sites

4/0811 ...SPECIAL NOTICE... THIS IS A RESTATEMENT OF A PREVIOUSLY ISSUED ADVISORY NOTICE. IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, PILOTS ARE STRONGLY ADVISED TO AVOID THE AIRSPACE ABOVE, OR IN PROXIMITY TO SUCH SITES AS POWER PLANTS (NUCLEAR, HYDRO-ELECTRIC, OR COAL), DAMS, REFINERIES, INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXES, MILITARY FACILITIES AND OTHER SIMILAR FACILITIES. PILOTS SHOULD NOT CIRCLE AS TO LOITER IN THE VICINITY OVER THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES. WIE UNTIL UFN

Nuclear Sites are not depicted on the Sectional Chart


Be sure to check all NOTAMS, not just the local ones. I'll refrain from commenting the efficacy of the NOTAM system.

Thats an interesting point about nuclear facilities. I fly all over the Hudson Valley, and the closest restricted airspace we encounter is over West Point Military Academy, but I find it interesting that the airspace over the Indian Point Nuclear facility is not noted, or marked at all. It is as wide open as anywhere else.

 

[roncachamp]

Immediately following 9/11 there were restrictions placed on nuclear power plant overflights that basically created a prohibited zone within a 10 nm radius. Subsequently, that restriction was modified to preclude "loitering" in the vicinity of such facilities. I suspect the original requirement was found to be unenforceable and the latter implies if you hang around long enough for an air intercept you'll be on the evening news.

The previous

FDC 1/1763 FDC AND FDC 1/1764 ZZZ - TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS OVER NUCLEAR SITES.
FOR REASONS OF NATIONAL SECURITY. EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UNTIL NOVEMBER 07, 2001 0500 UTC.

PURSUANT TO TITLE 14 CFR SECTIONS 91.139, EMERGENCY AIR TRAFFIC RULES AND 99.7 SPECIAL SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS. ALL GENERAL AVIATION FLIGHT OPERATIONS ARE PROHIBITED WITHIN A 10 NAUTICAL MILES RADIUS OF AND BELOW 18000 FEET MSL OVER THE BELOW LISTED NUCLEAR SITES EXCEPT FOR MEDEVAC, LAW ENFORCEMENT, RESCUE/RECOVERY, EMERGENCY EVACUATION AND FIRE FIGHTING OPERATIONS WHEN AUTHORIZED BY ATC:
​

The current

Nuclear Sites

4/0811 ...SPECIAL NOTICE... THIS IS A RESTATEMENT OF A PREVIOUSLY ISSUED ADVISORY NOTICE. IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, PILOTS ARE STRONGLY ADVISED TO AVOID THE AIRSPACE ABOVE, OR IN PROXIMITY TO SUCH SITES AS POWER PLANTS (NUCLEAR, HYDRO-ELECTRIC, OR COAL), DAMS, REFINERIES, INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXES, MILITARY FACILITIES AND OTHER SIMILAR FACILITIES. PILOTS SHOULD NOT CIRCLE AS TO LOITER IN THE VICINITY OVER THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES. WIE UNTIL UFN

It was modified when the brain trust realized that in order for pilots to comply they'd have to be told where the plants are located.

Nuclear Sites are not depicted on the Sectional Chart

That's not completely correct. Both of the "plants" near the center of the attached image are nuclear power plants.

 

[dmccormack]

It was modified when the brain trust realized that in order for pilots to comply they'd have to be told where the plants are located.

That's not completely correct. Both of the "plants" near the center of the attached image are nuclear power plants.

It would be pretty hard to land at KMDT if you had to stay 10 miles away from Three Mile Island...

 

[roncachamp]

Scanning through the WACs I found exactly 12 P-Areas, but I may have not got em all.

P-40
P-47
P-49
P-50
P-51
P-56A
P-56B
P-67
P-204
P-205
P-206

P-73 covers Washington's home, Mount Vernon. Where did you find the last three? They don't appear in JO 7400.8S Special Use Airspace.

 

[EdFred]

P-73 covers Washington's home, Mount Vernon. Where did you find the last three? They don't appear in JO 7400.8S Special Use Airspace.

Boundary Waters in Minnesota are two of them. Might be all three. Just checked, all three are on the northwest part of the Green Bay Sectional.

 

[Doggtyred]

That's not completely correct. Both of the "plants" near the center of the attached image are nuclear power plants.

And if I'm not from the area, I am going to know that "plant" means a nuclear power plant HOW???? by looking at this chart?

The original claim of nuclear sites not being depicted on sections is still accurate...

 

[roncachamp]

Boundary Waters in Minnesota are two of them. Might be all three. Just checked, all three are on the northwest part of the Green Bay Sectional.

Interesting. They're not listed in JO 7400.8S Special Use Airspace.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

That's not completely correct. Both of the "plants" near the center of the attached image are nuclear power plants.

They may be depicted, but not as nuclear; a coal-fired plant would have the same depiction on a chart.

 

[Doggtyred]

P204,205 and 206 are something of an oddity in the airspace system.

It was created by executive order 10092, by Harry Truman in 1949 as an airspace reservation. Its not completely closed to flight, at least if you read the executive order thats the conclusion you would draw..

Its analagous to modern day special flight rules areas (like the Grand Canyon) only the method of its establishment is different (due process versus executive order).

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=78278

It was later codified into public law in 1978 and has the same legislative status as the legislatively enacted "mickey mouse" flight restrictions post 9/11....

http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/documents/publicLaws/PDF/95-495.pdf

 

[roncachamp]

And if I'm not from the area, I am going to know that "plant" means a nuclear power plant HOW???? by looking at this chart?

No. I don't think you'd know that "plant" means nuclear power plant in this case even if you flew over them on a clear sunny day.

The original claim of nuclear sites not being depicted on sections is still accurate...

Not completely. Deal with it.

 

[roncachamp]

They may be depicted, but not as nuclear;

Hence the "not completely" part.

a coal-fired plant would have the same depiction on a chart.

Or none at all.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Jeff's got it -- P-Areas relate to national security, while R-areas involve hazards to flight. You can generally be cleared through R-areas when they're not in use, but P-areas are an absolute no-no unless your call sign is AF/Marine One or something close to that. I would point out that R-areas are used primarily for air-to-ground weapons delivery practice (bombs, guns, rockets, and missiles), surface-launched weapons training (guns, rockets, and missiles), etc., so you can still get shot down in an R-area -- the difference is that they weren't aiming at you the way they would be in a P-Area. Nevertheless, a mid-air collision with a 500-lb bomb can spoil your day just as effectively as a mid-air with a Stinger.

So...if you are shot down in a R area it will be by accident, while if it occurs in a P area it will be on purpose

 

[poadeleted20]

So...if you are shot down in a R area it will be by accident, while if it occurs in a P area it will be on purpose

You got it.

 

[EvilEagle]

While not exactly on the thread topic, there is an important subject to mention here -

When you guys are flying in/through MOA's, PLEASE coordinate with the controlling agency for the MOA.

We (military pilots) know it's your right to cruise though there, but in many cases there are up to 50 fighter aircraft training in these MOA's. Climbing and descending sometimes 25k' in a matter of seconds - talking to the controlling agency makes it safer for GA and the military pilots.

/Paid public announcement...

 

[Steve]

The term "plant," which appears on sectional, is not a depiction but a description and a rather generic one at that. What is often depicted are the associated cooling towers or gaseous exhaust stacks, not the plant itself.

Some times the truth is hard to deal with.

 

[Dr. O]

First, let me say I have no problem with asking the controller if a MOA is active...

Second, let me say that if the multimillon dollar fighter pilot with a top secret radar installation cannot see and avoid a spam can flying straight and level at 130 knots, he won't last two seconds in a real combat zone...

OTOH, Ninja flights seem to be unable to see and avoid anything so being clear of a MOA doesn't mean diddly...

denny-o

 

[DGlaeser]

Thats an interesting point about nuclear facilities. I fly all over the Hudson Valley, and the closest restricted airspace we encounter is over West Point Military Academy, but I find it interesting that the airspace over the Indian Point Nuclear facility is not noted, or marked at all. It is as wide open as anywhere else.

The ones with prohibited areas are typically military related, and there are only a few of them (I was just trying to come up with examples). Nuclear power plants are 'hidden in plain sight' as you noted.

 

[PA44-LUV]

Second, let me say that if the multimillon dollar fighter pilot with a top secret radar installation cannot see and avoid a spam can flying straight and level at 130 knots, he won't last two seconds in a real combat zone...

denny-o

and then when they see you and have to stop their training to let the GA aircraft exit the MOA, you've got multimillion dollar aircraft with an exorbant hourly operating cost buzzing around not getting their mission done.....

the taxpayers love it.

 

[JeffDG]

The ones with prohibited areas are typically military related, and there are only a few of them (I was just trying to come up with examples). Nuclear power plants are 'hidden in plain sight' as you noted.

I've not seen a plant with a prohibited area around it...National Security Area, yep (have one right here over Oak Ridge TN), but haven't seen a P

 

[poadeleted20]

Second, let me say that if the multimillon dollar fighter pilot with a top secret radar installation cannot see and avoid a spam can flying straight and level at 130 knots, he won't last two seconds in a real combat zone...

Speaking from 2000 hours experience in tactical jet aircraft, the above is utter rubbish. Not all tactical jets have radars (think A-10), and not all those with radars are optimized for air-to-air, and even those with air-to-air radars have a real hard time spotting aircraft in time to avoid them when pointed straight down (high speed, short distance to detect and avoid). Further, even with all that gear, mid-airs still do occur in training as well as combat. While that's an extremely rare event, it happens. Finally, even if they do spot you, you still ain't helpin' nobody by flying through an active MOA and forcing them to stop training for safety because of an unknown intruder.

 

[EvilEagle]

Speaking from 2000 hours experience in tactical jet aircraft, the above is utter rubbish. Not all tactical jets have radars (think A-10), and not all those with radars are optimized for air-to-air, and even those with air-to-air radars have a real hard time spotting aircraft in time to avoid them when pointed straight down (high speed, short distance to detect and avoid). Further, even with all that gear, mid-airs still do occur in training as well as combat. While that's an extremely rare event, it happens. Finally, even if they do spot you, you still ain't helpin' nobody by flying through an active MOA and forcing them to stop training for safety because of an unknown intruder.

Couldn't agree more! I talk to all my GA friends at surrounding airports about this fact and they all give the same lame excuse of "yeah, but you've got radar". That just shows the lack of knowledge of how radar works. Fellas: it's not like an ATC scope, our radars are much more single direction, and when we are in the MOA on a training sortie, we are using it to find the guys we are fighting against - once we lock people up, you can only see that jet or the ones around them. Radar is not ultimate SA!!!

Again, go back to my original post - I'm not saying don't go through the MOA, just talk to someone about it. I've been flying tactical jets for over 10 years, I know how radar works and I've seen what happens when people don't talk to controlling agencies - it's not good for anyone.

Denny-O: how do you know how long we'd last in real combat? Do you have combat time?

 

[jesse]

Second, let me say that if the multimillon dollar fighter pilot with a top secret radar installation cannot see and avoid a spam can flying straight and level at 130 knots, he won't last two seconds in a real combat zone...

Riiight. You're slow. They're not. That is a bad combination. I personally have little interest in blindly flying a spam can through a hot MOA full of fighter aircraft, but that's just me.

 

[EdFred]

Maybe you mil guys should go fly in an area where there's not a lot of traffic. You're getting paid to fly, quit ****ing and moaning.

 

[poadeleted20]

Maybe you mil guys should go fly in an area where there's not a lot of traffic.

I did, and they do -- it's called "special use airspace," and it includes MOA's and R-areas.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Guys: It's pretty easy to find out what activity is in a MOA. We have some around Dallas where it's not real disruptive for GA to fly on through.

There are other areas where a GA flight going though can completely stop the mission. When you do that, there can be several military folks burning a lot of fuel and not getting the mission accomplished. In some cases, those missions may never be flown. For instance, when in Army flight school, we had some night cross country navigation training we didn't get done because we needed to have a large number of flyable ships at night, in VFR weather within a few weeks of graduation. When that training window was open, the last thing needed was wayward GA folks shutting down airspace unnecessarily. Just let center know for pete's sake. The last thing we need is military folks missing critical training. There are all sort of reasons that can happen from weather to plane availability; don't add to the problem unnecessarily.

Best,

Dave

 

[EdFred]

I did, and they do -- it's called "special use airspace," and it includes MOA's and R-areas.

No, I'm pretty sure those are just thrown up wherever is convenient for the military and often in the way. When I say not a lot of traffic, I'm talking 100nm out in the Gulf, or out west of Eureka, NV.

 

[Bob Noel]

No, I'm pretty sure those are just thrown up wherever is convenient for the military and often in the way. When I say not a lot of traffic, I'm talking 100nm out in the Gulf, or out west of Eureka, NV.

given the effort required to coordinate access to airspace over the Gulf,
I don't believe that those "are just thrown up wherever is convenient
for the military."