Talk:Prohibited airspace

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prohibited airspace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/ersa/PRD__7-Mar-2013.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.moscow-blog.com/tag/military-power/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091006231533/http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/AIM/Chap3/aim0304.html to http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap3/aim0304.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with No-fly zone

Both pages cover the same topic and are short enough to merge together without creating a page too big. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not the same thing.

A prohibited airspace is something the civil aviation authorities of a country establish within their own borders. That's a very normal procedure following international ICAO standards – something the FAA establishes around Camp David.
A no-fly zone is typically declared by a foreign (with exceptions) power in a military context in a conflict zone. That's far away from standard procedure and if there are international rules for that, they're certainly not part of ICAO regulations but Law of war. ~~What is being discussed in No-fly_zone#Civilian_Example were actually just a bunch of regular restricted and prohibited airspaces [1][2].~~ Nevermind, I just removed that nonsense.

That is obviously not quite clear from the articles as they currently are. But trying to merge them goes off into the wrong direction. --El Grafo (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, given the consensus not to merge. Klbrain (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Area 51 not restricted?

Hi fellow wikipedians. Is there any reason why Area 51 is excluded here? I thought no one is allowed to fly over it. TravelAroundOz (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)`[reply]

Area 51 is technically not a prohibited airspace. It's depicted on current sectional charts as underlying R-4808 N, which is a restricted area. Of course, this particular restricted airspace is from surface to unlimited and active continuously, so it is effectively an airspace where civilian air traffic is prohibited. But it is not actually a "Prohibited Airspace", as defined by the aviation laws and standards. 72.48.42.90 (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]