Hacker News Reader

Comment by dataflow | Hacker News Reader

> For pilots, "restricted area" is already synonymous with "absolutely do not even think about going here"

I don't buy it. How often do you hear of a passenger plane getting shot down for entering restricted airspace over peaceful territory like the US? What about over combat zones, like over Ukraine or Russia? Who in their right mind equates these as as equally severe? If you had to make an emergency landing would you seriously view these equally?

View on HN

There are more risks than getting shot down. All sorts of dangerous activities may be going on in restricted areas: missile launches, dogfights between fighter jets, tests of unmanned vehicles, etc. You don't want to be a surprise guest at any of them. "Restricted" is a single, short word taught in pilot school to get the message across clearly. If a sudden emergency requires entering a restricted area, then air traffic controllers are there to coordinate it.

At least within the US, entering a restricted area without authorization can result in your own personal military air show, followed by lots of questioning, possibly prison, losing your license or both. You don't mess around with restricted areas unless you have a damn good reason.

>> I don't buy it. How often do you hear of a passenger plane getting shot down

> At least within the US, entering a restricted area without authorization can result in your own personal military air show, followed by lots of questioning, possibly prison, losing your license or both. You don't mess around with restricted areas unless you have a damn good reason.

You're not taking my point.

I don't know about you, but I would sure as hell prefer prison over myself and hundreds of other people falling from 40,000 feet.

> ...I would sure as hell prefer prison over myself and hundreds of other people falling from 40,000 feet.

On the one hand, that would be ideal.

On the other hand, that appears to be a NOTAM restricting access to an active war zone. It is truly tragic, and should be avoided whenever reasonably possible, but sometimes civilians who enter war zones get killed.

So, (just so you know) the "they flew into an active war zone" bit is probably the reason why your point is being brushed aside. Restricted airspace is restricted airspace. Unless you're on the unrestricted craft list, you simply don't enter it.

To my reading it's very understated if that is the entire text of the NOTAM - I would have liked it to say WAR ZONE or GUIDED MISSILES in there somewhere.

Compare it to the DC SFRA[0] which specifically states "MAY USE DEADLY FORCE" even though that's extremely unlikely to happen.

When Flight Restrictions are active in FAA controlled airspace, ATC will often clear you through them if you're on an appropriate flight plan without you needing to ask. Even the 'deadly force' SFRA above is essentially handled for you so long as you file an IFR flight plan.

[0]: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/us_restrictions...

When I'm flight planning and I see a restricted area along my route, I honestly don't need to know why. I'm not going there unless the controlling agency gives me authorization and I understand the danger. Because there is danger; otherwise it wouldn't be restricted.

If it makes you feel better, here's the current TFR over eastern Ukraine. It even explicitly says "danger" - does that make you feel better?

TEMPO DANGER AREA ACT WI COORD: 434800N0392400E-433000N0303500E-441500N0302500E-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com