199 feet?

[MagliteL13]

Do you think that the 190' might have been true when Cinderella Castle was intially constructed due to the close proximity to STOLPort? Now that STOLPort is no longer considered an active runway, maybe the height has gone up? Maybe someone can shine some light (or a red beacon) on this?

 

[peter11435]

Do you think that the 190' might have been true when Cinderella Castle was intially constructed due to the close proximity to STOLPort? Now that STOLPort is no longer considered an active runway, maybe the height has gone up? Maybe someone can shine some light (or a red beacon) on this?

As Robfasto already pointed out. It is possible that the restriction has changed since the time the castle was built. I doubt STOLPort has anything to do with it though. The federal regulation is 200 feet. And STOLport while not used is still listed as an active runway.

 

[GrandFloridian1]

This topic came up a short time ago, the idea was tossed around that the FAA rules 'may have' changed a bit since 1971. So Cinderella Castle may have been built as high as possible by 1971 standards.

Thank you Rob!

 

[disneylands]

So if a structure in Florida is 200 feet or taller, it needs a red blinkenlight atop it. But where do you start "counting" the height? What if the structure is on top of a hill? what if the base is built INTO a hill, do you start counting at the lowest point, or the highest? For Everest, could they have raised the land under it 50 feet then built 199 feet on that, or would that count as 249 feet?

Just something i've always wondered. "200 feet" is a rather nebulous statement.

this is a very good and origonal question, but to answer the hill question yes the hill does count in the height of the building! but thats all I know. Thumbs up for the origonality. I like this thread!:wave:

 

[nyfrenchy]

Now that WDW is a no fly zone, is this beacon requirement still relevant?

 

[disneylands]

Now that WDW is a no fly zone, is this beacon requirement still relevant?

I think it is only for commercial airlines seeing as the airport is extreemly close to disney maybe its for them, also it is florida regulation so I dont know if you can ignore that!

 

[peter11435]

Now that WDW is a no fly zone, is this beacon requirement still relevant?

No. being a no fly zone would be irrelevent, they would still be required to have the beacons. That said Disney is not a no fly zone. The air space is only restricted. You can not fly under 3000 feet unless you file a flight plan and have permission do so.

 

[coasterfan12]

yeah i heard that too i think it must be from the base of the building up to the highest point. just my 2 cents

 

[Paul&chris2005]

At Blackpool Pleasure Beach they have 2 Beacons on the 2 tallest Pepsi Max drops (213' and about 179' I think) so it is possible to attatch them to the coaster tracks, its just not always a safe option, as am sure someone has lost an arm on the PM as you get so damn close to the light

http://www.rcdb.com/ig775.htm?picture=24 You can see it in this picture.

Also the park has a 180' drop tower (Ice Blast) and it doesnt have a beacon, so your theories of them putting the beacons on the towers isn't the case.

And while a beacon isnt the nicest looking thing to have on an attraction, would it really be the end of the world if it was there. Theres millions of ways to disguise it, a flagpole or something.

 

[peter11435]

At Blackpool Pleasure Beach they have 2 Beacons on the 2 tallest Pepsi Max drops (213' and about 179' I think) so it is possible to attatch them to the coaster tracks, its just not always a safe option, as am sure someone has lost an arm on the PM as you get so damn close to the light

http://www.rcdb.com/ig775.htm?picture=24 You can see it in this picture.

Also the park has a 180' drop tower (Ice Blast) and it doesnt have a beacon, so your theories of them putting the beacons on the towers isn't the case.

And while a beacon isnt the nicest looking thing to have on an attraction, would it really be the end of the world if it was there. Theres millions of ways to disguise it, a flagpole or something.

Thats just the thing to Disney it would be the end of the world. Could you imagine a blinking red light on the top of Everest. Also your info is irrelevent as it is not in this county and thus the rules are not the same as in the US. The drop tower doesn't have a beacon because it probably does not need on at 180 feet. Many drop towers are taller than that and often the tallest structure in the park.

 

[disneyplanet]

200 feet plus

the 200 feet measure is from the average ground level. it is the total measure of the structure not including basement and sub-levels. there is only one thing at disney that is 200 feet plus and that is the epcot wond. the epcot sign is the only thing with a becon.

 

[Tom]

Thats just the thing to Disney it would be the end of the world. Could you imagine a blinking red light on the top of Everest. Also your info is irrelevent as it is not in this county and thus the rules are not the same as in the US. The drop tower doesn't have a beacon because it probably does not need on at 180 feet. Many drop towers are taller than that and often the tallest structure in the park.

Agreed. A red light on the top of ToT would be extremely bad show, since no buildings in that era had them, and many of the other "lights" in the show building are "gas". And you don't see lights on top of real mountains, so why would EE have one?

 

[Thrawn]

At Blackpool Pleasure Beach they have 2 Beacons on the 2 tallest Pepsi Max drops (213' and about 179' I think) so it is possible to attatch them to the coaster tracks, its just not always a safe option, as am sure someone has lost an arm on the PM as you get so damn close to the light

http://www.rcdb.com/ig775.htm?picture=24 You can see it in this picture.

Also the park has a 180' drop tower (Ice Blast) and it doesnt have a beacon, so your theories of them putting the beacons on the towers isn't the case.

And while a beacon isnt the nicest looking thing to have on an attraction, would it really be the end of the world if it was there. Theres millions of ways to disguise it, a flagpole or something.

First, I have no idea what the heck "Blackpool Beach" is, or whatever. Second, of course it is on the coaster if the coaster is over 200 feet and the tower isn't ...
Third, I doubt someone has lost an arm due to the light being attached to the ride.

 

[peter11435]

the 200 feet measure is from the average ground level. it is the total measure of the structure not including basement and sub-levels. there is only one thing at disney that is 200 feet plus and that is the epcot wond. the epcot sign is the only thing with a becon.

The WDW Dolphin is also over 200 feet.

 

[Hurricane]

At Blackpool Pleasure Beach they have 2 Beacons on the 2 tallest Pepsi Max drops (213' and about 179' I think) so it is possible to attatch them to the coaster tracks, its just not always a safe option, as am sure someone has lost an arm on the PM as you get so damn close to the light

http://www.rcdb.com/ig775.htm?picture=24 You can see it in this picture.

Also the park has a 180' drop tower (Ice Blast) and it doesnt have a beacon, so your theories of them putting the beacons on the towers isn't the case.

And while a beacon isnt the nicest looking thing to have on an attraction, would it really be the end of the world if it was there. Theres millions of ways to disguise it, a flagpole or something.

Not to nitpick but the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) has no authority in Great Britain, where Blackpool Pleasure Beach is located

 

[colliera]

What it is doesn't matter.

If it is a building, roller coaster, or other structure doesn't matter. It is the height of the structure that matters. Take a look at your local radio station tower. If it is over 200' it has a top flashing beacon and probably a couple of ancillary lights near it's middle. More it is is really tall.

If the structure is closer into the glide path of an airport that height may be lower than 200'.

While the concern for commercial airliners notwithstanding, smaller private planes are more likely to be flying that low. Especially if the pilot is using Visual Flight Rules. The likelihood of actually flying into a radio tower is more that you might think as many pilots will tune the radio station's frequency and fly "to" it using radio navigation equipment to go from town to town. Not all small towns have an airport with a radio beacon. The flashing light with the red globe or the strobe is the last chance to say lookout to the pilot.

 

[marni1971]

The WDW Dolphin is also over 200 feet.

And the Grosvener. And the Contemporary (it`s lights were fitted specifically with the STOLport in mind)

 

[Madison]

And STOLport while not used is still listed as an active runway.

As per this website, the STOLport is no longer listed as an active runway -- though aerial photographs also do not show the runway as marked with Xs as one might expect if it were a closed runway.

It is interesting to note that it did at one time have such markings, but those were removed when it was repaved.




http://www.members.tripod.com/airfields_freeman/FL/Airfields_FL_OrlandoSW.htm#disney