Jump to content

Talk:No-fly zone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See Also; SEAD

[edit]

To operate aircraft inside an AEZ, an operator must defeat the air defences. Common strategies involve avoiding detection, defeating the weapons used to enforce said AEZ or direct violence against said AA capabilities. The blanket term for this is SEAD, suppression of air defences. Therefore a link to the wiki entry on SEAD was added to "See Also".Student342 (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

The article does not explain how a "no-fly zone" would be enforced. And enforcement is the only thing separating the concept from any random person declaring anything, right? If enforcement entails firing upon and shooting down any aircraft that ventures inside the zone, then is that the same as an FAA prohibited area? What would the normal procedures be for this sort of thing? It needs more explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.207.100 (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article referenced does not contain all of the information in the Wikipedia article. Although I believe what the Wikipedia article has to say, I am forced to assume that much of the article is original research and unverifiable, which is prohibited:

[[1]]

[[2]]

I respectfully disagree. If you go take a look at the referenced article again, you'll see the following text (it is in a box inside the article):
The Federal Aviation Administration designates six areas in the United States as prohibited flight zones that pilots must avoid:
*Capital zone in Washington that covers the White House, Capitol and Naval Observatory.
*President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Tex.
*The Bush family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine.
*The presidential retreat at Camp David in Maryland.
*Pantex nuclear assembly plant in Amarillo, Tex.
*The area around George Washington's home at Mount Vernon, Va., to prevent vibrations from engine noise from rattling the historic home.
I can search for further references if required. Lbbzman 19:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake Lbbzman. I didn't see it in the box when I read the article. Sorry about that. -snpoj

Not a problem. Thanks for putting it back. Cheers, Lbbzman 03:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield 1942 reference

[edit]

Again, I don't doubt the truth of the statement that there is a map called "No-fly Zone" but there is no reference and it is arguably too obscure of a fact. -snpoj

Removal of question at end of Iraq paragraph.

[edit]

I removed the following question from the end of the paragraph on the Iraq No-Fly Zone, "Does this case represent a victory for the Realist or Solidarist perspectives on Humanitarian Intervention?" It seems strangely out of context and makes me wonder if this text was lifted (rightfully or not) from a textbook. Any thoughts? - editoro

I agree with the removal. -Snpoj 05:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose?

[edit]

This article needs to include the purpose of a no-fly zone. I am not well-versed in the subject. Anyone? KevinPuj 15:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I looked up this article to figure out why there were NFZs in Iraq during the 90s, but this article doesn't explain what the purpose is, only that a no fly zone is a zone where no flying is to be done, which is pretty obvious (though that was apparently not really the case in Iraq, see Operation Provide Comfort). So, if anyone could explain, that'd be great, thank you! 95.209.37.215 (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC) (fixed the link) 95.209.37.215 (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to see a sentence which indicates the punishment for failure to comply with an NFZ-- for example, something like "...no planes are allowed to fly *under penalty of military action*..." etc. It seems a basic part of the definition, that it's not just that someone *says* it's a NFZ, but they back that up somehow. I don't know how it works, which is why I came here to begin with, or I would add it myself. 65.111.99.192 (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boundary Waters -- Reason?

[edit]

I'm not disputing that this is a "no-fly zone", but I'm curious for the reason. Most of the other listed areas within the US have obvious strategic value, or are otherwise explained (as in the case of the museum.)

Is this area a no-fly zone for preserving the "wilderness experience", or is there some other reason? (Either way, I feel it should be mentioned in the article.)

--WanderingHermit 21:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen an official reason stated, but I assume it's because of the "wilderness experience". Of course, you know what happens when you assume... --Gridlock Joe 21:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add/edit to include info

[edit]

Please refer to http://www.cnn.com/2003/TRAVEL/03/18/airspace.restrictions/ and edit information accordingly... 202.163.253.91 07:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film

[edit]

Isn't there a film called No Fly Zone? Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US Section - Prohibited Areas and TFRs

[edit]

That looks a bit out of place in this article. Prohibited, restricted, and danger areas (and TFR, also known as Temporarily Restricted Areas elsewhere) are regular features of the airspace of every ICAO member country, and fundamentally different from a military no-fly zone which appears to be the subject of this article.

I suggest that part should go, least one starts listing the Prohibited Areas appearing in every country's AIP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.27.130.200 (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second that, we had a similar discussion over at de:Talk:Flugverbotszone during the last few days. I propose: 1) enhancing the introduction to contain some kind of explanation and links to prohibited airspace and restricted airspace (or Special use airspace). 2) kicking out everything that is not a NFZ. That would be nearly anything from the section No-fly zones as of March 2011, since most of the areas mentioned there were put up by the ICAO member countries themselves and are therefore either prohibited or restricted airspaces. Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much better now, thanks! --El Grafo (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how a no fly zone works?

[edit]

Could I request that someone who knows more about this topic than me explain how a no fly zone works? It would be great to see a new section at the top, or in the introduction explaining things like,

  • how is a no fly zone enforced? Do planes get shot down by the military?
  • is there a provision in international law governing no fly zones? Are there any cases in courts about it?
  • what is the distinction between military and civilian no fly zones?
  • what are the aims of a no fly zone (particularly military)?
  • have no fly zones been effective historically in achieving their aims?

Cheers, Wikidea 10:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

glad to see i'm not the only one coming to this article with basically the same questions. a civilian restriction i more or less grasp (e.g., u.s. restricts all aircraft over/near Camp David). but the one being considered for libya has yet to be well illustrated in the media. they don't make clear how external forces (i.e., international community) can invoke a restriction/take control over a country's airspace.--96.232.126.111 (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded.88.5.150.109 (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is quite a bit of applicable information on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi no-fly Zones Wiki. Perhaps some of it could be included or used as a guideline for fleshing out this article. 174.93.49.27 (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning international law: Afaik this is all based on the United Nations Charter, Chapter 7, Article 41.
"Civilian no fly zones" are based on national law, which is usually just an implementation of the rules defined ICAO Annex 2. They are either prohibited airspace or restricted airspace (or something similar) and have nothing to do with the military zones. Alas, as mentioned above, in the article any area where aircraft are not allowed is called a NFZ. --El Grafo (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moon no-fly zone

[edit]

There seems to be no mention of the recent NASA recommendations for no-fly zones over the moon. I know that it is not legally binding on anyone, but it does deserves a mention in this article. See : [3] --Siddhant (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syria

[edit]

Is Syria a no-fly zone or not? I was doubting since I flew with Emirates from Germany to Dubai. The airplane was projected to go over Syria, but he clearly avoided by flying over Turkey and Iraq. Since Syria is in civil war and a military airplane from Turkey probably was shot down, I became more uncertain. OPolkruikenz (talk) June 23, 2012 13:16 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to start a new section on the requested and discussed plans for a no-fly zone on some areas in Syria. Tradedia (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on No-fly zone. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 11:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on No-fly zone. 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:

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) 21:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian examples

[edit]

They're not really 'no-fly zones' are they? They're just airspaces made restricted temporarily. There's thousands of restricted airspaces around the world, mostly above military locations, and they're not talked about here as 'no-fly zones' because they're not. The Nevada Test and Training Range would be a good example of a quite extensive restricted airspace that isn't described as a no-fly zone. I suggest that the civilian examples be removed and a link to Prohibited airspace be included in the 'see also' section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.197.120 (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There should be some sentences in the introductory paragraph that explain the difference between a no-fly-zone and prohibited / restricted airspace. Then there's also TFR, but that seems to be a national US thing only. --El Grafo (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine invasion

[edit]

I'm trying to figure out how to word an addition about Zelenskyy's current request for an NFZ in Ukraine. At first I was going to just cite some news sources, but then it occurred to me that the news articles aren't clear exactly what is being requested, and I'm not even sure Zelenskyy knows what he is asking for. It seems like a weird request since what he really seems to want is air defense upgrades against attacking Russian planes. NFZ according to the article is, by contrast, something an attacker does to suppress the defender's air power, while allowing their own planes to operate. As I understand it, imposing an NFZ begins with bombing the air defense system, rather than upgrading it. I may be wrong, and in any case I think this addition will need specialized sourcing rather than general news articles. So I think I want to leave this to the military experts here. But I think an addition is worth having. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we can find sources then it may be possible. Cool guy (talk • contribs) 22:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources about Zelensky asking for NFZ, with NATO refusing because an NFZ would likely enlarge the conflict. The issue is explaining the refusal a bit more clearly. That will in turn require explaining how an NFZ is implemented, and I'm sure there are sources for that, but it's not my area. So I'd rather that knowledgeable editors take care of it, or at least supply (pardon the expression) guidance. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:No-fly_zone&oldid=1212733791"