Overview
Title
Proposed Amendment of R-2206 and Establishment of Restricted Areas R-2206B, R-2206C, R-2206D, R-2206E, R-2206F, and R-2206G; Clear, AK
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The FAA wants to make part of the sky over a military base in Alaska off-limits to regular planes like a no-fly zone to keep them safe from strong radar signals. They're asking people to share their thoughts on these changes until April 26, 2021.
Summary AI
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing to rename the existing restricted airspace area R-2206 to R-2206A and establish six new restricted areas—R-2206B to R-2206G—above the Clear Air Force Station in Clear, Alaska. These changes are to protect aircraft from high-intensity radiation from the Long Range Discrimination Radar, essential for the U.S. missile defense system. The proposal was requested by the U.S. Air Force to ensure aviation safety by segregating non-participating aircraft. The public is invited to submit comments on this proposal before April 26, 2021.
Abstract
This action proposes to rename the established restricted areas R-2206 to R-2206A and establish six new restricted areas R-2206B, R-2206C, R-2206D, R-2206E, R-2206F, and R-2206G, over the Clear Air Force Station (Clear AFS) at Clear, AK. The United States Air Force (USAF) on behalf of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) requested this action to protect aircraft from hazardous High-Intensity Radiated Field (HIRF) produced by the Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR) at Clear AFS. LRDR contributes to the MDA's mission of developing and deploying a layered Department of Defense (DoD) Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) to defend the United States from ballistic missile attacks of all ranges in all phases of flight. The proposed restricted areas are necessary to protect aviation from the hazardous HIRF and segregate non-participating aircraft.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed changes regarding restricted airspace over the Clear Air Force Station in Clear, Alaska. This notice, published as a proposed rule, suggests renaming an existing restricted area and establishing six new restricted zones to protect aircraft from the effects of high-intensity radiated fields (HIRF) produced by the Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR). The LRDR is a significant component of the United States' missile defense strategy, aimed at safeguarding the nation against potential ballistic missile threats. The U.S. Air Force advocates for these airspace changes to ensure the safety of aviation by segregating aircraft that are not part of relevant defense maneuvers. Public comments are sought on this proposal by April 26, 2021.
Significant Issues and Concerns
The document involves a sophisticated technical subject involving aviation safety and national defense operations. Consequently, it uses terminology and constructs that may challenge a reader who lacks a background in these areas. Terms like "High-Intensity Radiated Field (HIRF)" and the specific referencing of constrained airspaces and altitudes may not be immediately clear to a layperson.
Additionally, while the document refers to certain legislative acts and FAA Orders, it does not provide links or direct references that explain these legal elements in more general language. This omission might obscure understanding for those not familiar with these regulations.
The proposal involves deviation from existing standards, such as the "1,500AGL/3NM" restricted area exclusion, described in FAA Order JO 7400.2, without providing explicit, simple clarifications of why these deviations are necessary.
Broad Public Impact
For the general public, particularly those in Alaskan communities near the Clear Air Force Station, the introduction of new restricted airspace could influence general aviation activity. There may be concerns among residents about changes in air traffic patterns and potential increases in military operations visibility.
From an aviation perspective, both recreational and commercial pilots need to be aware of additional navigation challenges these new restricted areas could impose. The proposal outlines changes that are significant in terms of local air travel, with implications for flight safety and routings, especially concerning Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and Visual Flight Rules (VFR).
Stakeholder Impact
For the U.S. Air Force and the Department of Defense, these airspace adjustments are crucial efforts to bolster national defense capabilities and protect aircraft from hazardous radiation levels. Successfully implementing these changes would enhance operational conditions for defense exercises and readiness.
Commercial airlines and local aviators may face disruptions due to altered flight patterns or potentially longer routes around restricted zones. While the FAA expresses intent to develop minimal-impact airways, the effectiveness of these measures will be closely scrutinized by stakeholders affected by operational complexities or increased fuel costs from extended flights.
In summary, the FAA's proposal represents a significant venture into airspace management, tightly intertwined with national security interests and civil aviation considerations. Key is the balance between robust defense readiness and maintaining an efficient, safe, and accessible airspace for public use. Engaging the public through comments could provide a platform for further refinements and community adaptation measures.
Issues
• The document uses technical language that may be difficult for the general public to understand without a background in aviation or military operations, specifically terms like 'High-Intensity Radiated Field (HIRF)', 'Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR)', and references to specific airspaces and altitudes.
• The complexity of the proposed changes, such as the establishment of six new restricted areas with specific boundaries and altitude restrictions, can be difficult to follow without clear visual aids, although the document mentions a graphical depiction has been uploaded to the docket.
• The document refers to several legislative acts and FAA Orders but does not provide explanations or links to these documents, which might limit understanding for those not familiar with these references.
• The language surrounding the deviation from the '1,500AGL/3NM' standard, as described in FAA Order JO 7400.2, could be clearer in explaining the specific reasons and justifications for this deviation.
• The document makes multiple references to the technical details of the proposed airspace changes, such as specific latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates, which might be more effectively communicated through maps or diagrams.