News Disney's theme park no-fly-zones may be at risk from new legislation

[Figgy1]

Disney Springs was the original target, not MK.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Disney because of the name

 

[Lilofan]

I always wonder how the helicopters skirt this rule. When it's time for Illuminations, I mean, Harmonious, I mean whatever it is, the pool above the Riviera feels like helicopter central.

For the curious..Midway to Main Street did this....

Disney no fly zone info

 

[BrowncatP]

I remember those days when the planes flew over WDW. A bit of a distraction. The parks are more enjoyable without the flyovers.

 

[GimpYancIent]

Do the planes fly directly over the stadium DURING the game?

Military salute fly overs, yes.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

How is this political if none of the other theme parks in the US have the same benefit?

Because Disney is unique because of it’s American symbolism and therefore is a prime target for terrorism unlike, say, your local six flags.

 

[LAKid53]

Military salute fly overs, yes.

Which are allowed.

 

[matt9112]

Except this was enacted to preclude bad actors. When enacted it had nothing to do with banners and such https://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_3634.html
Also there would be a safety concern due to the volume of traffic

Not sure why disney world needs to be a sensitive place. The flight restriction is honestly something that shouldn’t be there.

 

[mkt]

As far as eliminating the no-fly zone, I am down for that. Just not the reason why it's being done.

 

[wtyy21]

Interestingly, there are theme parks without no-fly zones, that's essentially Disney international theme parks.

 

[mkt]

Interestingly, there are theme parks without no-fly zones, that's essentially Disney international theme parks.

Well, yeah. Different countries control their airspace as they see fit. In the aftermath of 9/11, WDW was viewed as vulnerable to a similar attack, so they were granted their no-fly zones.

 

[DisAl]

Rather than do away with the the Disney no fly zone I would rather see no fly zones established over all large theme parks for safety reasons.

 

[donsullivan]

Interestingly, there are theme parks without no-fly zones, that's essentially Disney international theme parks.

There are other theme parks without no-fly zones like Hollywood Studios and Animal Kingdom. The TFR zone is centered just south of Contemporary and extend to the southern edge of World Showcase. That’s why you see so much aerial activity over those areas. It drives neighbors in the new residential areas north of MK crazy because of drone restrictions in their backyard. They were trying to amend it a couple years ago but I hadn’t tracked whether they did.

 

[Trauma]

I just scrolled this entire page 6 and not a single post ( including mine ) is about no fly zones.

 

[Stripes]

I just scrolled this entire page 6 and not a single post ( including mine ) is about no fly zones.

The bill in question is DOA so it's hardly worth discussing. With that said...

The motive for the bill is clearly political as opposed to rational policymaking. Now, is the proposed policy rational? Debatable.

Disney's theme parks are still top terrorist targets. Walt Disney World and Disneyland are American cultural icons and would be much more desirable targets than any other theme park in the country as well as the vast majority of tourist destinations. The Pulse shooter initially went to Disney Springs armed and ready but was deterred by the security presence. But, the no-fly zone only protects against one type of terrorist threat: hijacked airplanes.

Is the threat posed by hijacked airplanes as high as it was when the no-fly zone was instituted? Probably not. But, is eliminating the minor inconvenience that the no-fly zone creates worth the minor additional risk to people's lives and the financial health of the Orlando tourism industry? I'd say no, but it is debatable.

 

[Trauma]

The bill in question is DOA so it's hardly worth discussing. With that said...

The motive for the bill is clearly political as opposed to rational policymaking. Now, is the proposed policy rational? Debatable.

Disney's theme parks are still top terrorist targets. Walt Disney World and Disneyland are American cultural icons and would be much more desirable targets than any other theme park in the country. The Pulse shooter initially went to Disney Springs armed and ready but was deterred by the security presence. But, the no-fly zone only protects against one type of terrorist threat: hijacked airplanes.

Is the threat posed by hijacked airplanes as high as it was when the no-fly zone was instituted? Probably not. But, is eliminating the minor inconvenience that the no-fly zone creates worth the minor additional risk to people's lives and the financial health of the Orlando tourism industry? I'd say no, but it is debatable.

I agree.

As I have stated before though, instead of taking away Disneys no fly zone I just wish it would be expanded to other theme parks.

 

[DisneyCane]

Exactly zero people are safer now than they'd be if this were rescinded. This is a relic of post-9/11 safetyism and security theater. It was supposed to have been repealed 20 years ago.


That's not how it works. The burden is on the regulators to justify why a restriction is necessary, not on me to justify why it's unnecessary.

Exactly. It was also useless post-9/11. The restricted zone isn't big enough to be able to scramble defenses quickly enough. If somebody was so inclined to go on a Kamikaze mission and crash into the GotG show building while targeting SSE, no restricted airspace over WDW is going to stop them.

I'm not really sure what the justification would be that WDW should have the benefit of a no-fly zone overhead that no other theme park or any similar outdoor gathering space has. When I go to the beach, I'd prefer if banner planes didn't fly by but they do.

Either it should be deemed that aircraft shouldn't be allowed to fly over any theme park at low altitude and there should be a blanket no-fly zone over all of them or the one over WDW only should be removed.

I love WDW and I would prefer that having the noise and visual obstructions from allowing low altitude aircraft to fly over but giving Disney special treatment and having this in place for something that isn't justifiably for the public good should not be allowed.

To keep the peace in the airspace, Disney should have to pay off the banner planes/skywriters not to take jobs over their property. Same with the helicopter tours although with all of the satellite imagery available, I don't really understand why anybody would pay to see unthemed building rooftops. I don't understand the Vegas strip helicopter tours either. Just do a little research on departure patterns and book a window seat on the correct side of the aircraft for the most likely departure direction.

 

[DisneyCane]

The bill in question is DOA so it's hardly worth discussing. With that said...

The motive for the bill is clearly political as opposed to rational policymaking. Now, is the proposed policy rational? Debatable.

Disney's theme parks are still top terrorist targets. Walt Disney World and Disneyland are American cultural icons and would be much more desirable targets than any other theme park in the country as well as the vast majority of tourist destinations. The Pulse shooter initially went to Disney Springs armed and ready but was deterred by the security presence. But, the no-fly zone only protects against one type of terrorist threat: hijacked airplanes.

Is the threat posed by hijacked airplanes as high as it was when the no-fly zone was instituted? Probably not. But, is eliminating the minor inconvenience that the no-fly zone creates worth the minor additional risk to people's lives and the financial health of the Orlando tourism industry? I'd say no, but it is debatable.

See my post above. How does the no fly zone prevent a potential terrorist attack?

Kissimmee Gateway Airport is 12 miles SSE of MK. How hard do you think it would be for somebody to approach the airport and make a turn straight for WDW? By the time anybody noticed the plane was off course it would be hitting the target.

Nobody is any safer or less safe from a terrorist attack at WDW with or without a no-fly zone. You could argue some extremely small additional risk of an accident occurring and a plane or helicopter crashing into a crowd without the no-fly zone just based on the fact that there will be more aircraft flying overhead.

 

[Brian]

Just a friendly reminder that Disney fans aren't the only ones with access to the internet. You'd probably feel pretty terrible if you unintentionally inspired someone with malicious intent. Please be mindful when posting about "what ifs."

 

[Trauma]

Just a friendly reminder that Disney fans aren't the only ones with access to the internet. You'd probably feel pretty terrible if you unintentionally inspired someone with malicious intent. Please be mindful when posting about "what ifs."

I don’t think the type of people doing these things need inspiration. They operate at whole different level of sick.

 

[JoeCamel]

I don’t think the type of people doing these things need inspiration. They operate at whole different level of sick.

Theme park fans can be very unstable.....