Ron Natalie wrote:

Except for the few of us who have jumped through the hoops to get
cleared for FRZ operations, the FRZ is a "no-fly zone". Even the
IRAQ no fly zone is only prohibited to UNAUTHORIZED (i.e. Iraqi)
airplanes.

You just defined "restricted" airspace, not a "no-fly zone".

I'm fine with media outlets and others defining this as restricted (feel
free to add descriptors like "heavily", "highly", "tightly controlled",
etc.) airspace. This is *not* a "no-fly zone".

Semantics? Maybe. But do this: Find a non-flying, non-aviation buff
friend of yours and ask them what comes to mind when you say "no-fly zone".
Do the same for "restricted airspace".

My experience has been that "no-fly zone" implies *no* planes except perhaps
military enforcers. Restricted means "permission required" - an accurate
description of the FRZ and to a lesser extent the ADIZ.

My point here is we pilots have enough difficulties with the ignorant
public. We shouldn't be perpetuating inaccurate descriptions of the
airspace around here - and "no-fly zone" is not accurate.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________