After watching Rob's video I decided to try some digging of my own. After reading the FAA Advisory for myself I then checked the source of the authority 14 CFR 77. In regards to our discussion, two things apply: 14 CFR 77.9(a) which states that new construction or alterations must be reported to the FAA, and 14 CFR 77.17(a)(2) which says[1]:
Based on these regulations, other comments on this forum and YouTube and limited data found via Google I pose the following possible explanations:
1) Per 14 CFR 77.9 the notice was filed prior to construction and based on the plans the FAA determined a light was not necessary for this application, for whatever reason (some commenters suggest that due to the pyramid shape it was not significant enough, others suggest due to the lights in the Swans being within close proximity).
2) At the time the building was constructed the nearby "STOLport" runway had been officially closed for many years (It had been closed in 1982 when the EPCOT monorail was being built near by[2]) therefore there was no airport within 3 miles as described in 14 CFR 77.17(a)(2). Thus it would not fit this definition and no light would be required. (It's important to note that certain specific types of structures have their own definitions and my require a light at different heights).
3) External lighting. I don't remember exactly where I read this, most likely the FAA Advisory, but based on pictures it appears that both the Swan and Dolphin have light shining up on the statues which may satisfy any requirement. Similarly, in an article cited many times in the YouTube comments[3], it's stated that the upper 80 feet of the Dolphin building wasn't usable for rooms and was given fake windows to complete the look. Lighting from these windows near the top may actually satisfy any requirements too. While the article also stated that the Swan statues were made into lightning rods and had red glowing eyes, I haven't been able to find any photo's that show the eyes being lit up red.
If I had to venture a guess, it's a combination of both. First, given it's height and location, it isn't automatically considered an obstruction. Second, during the initial construction application for structures over 200 feet it was determined not to be needed.
I'd also like to note that these are the current day federal regulations that we are discussing. Regulations may have been different at the time of construction. Also, while everyone appears to be talking about FAA regulations, perhaps someone should look in to the state or local building codes or regulations. They could be the true source of the light determination, based upon local interpretations of FAA guidance or local laws that may have changed through the years.
[1] Code of Federal Regulations Title 14 Chapter I Subchapter E Part 77: text taken from https://www.ecfr.gov
[2] Source of STOLport closure from "Disney Trivia from the Vault" by Dave Smith, 2012
[3] http://blog.wdwinfo.com/2015/05/05/a-look-back-walt-disney-worlds-swan-and-dolphin-hotels/
Based on these regulations, other comments on this forum and YouTube and limited data found via Google I pose the following possible explanations:
1) Per 14 CFR 77.9 the notice was filed prior to construction and based on the plans the FAA determined a light was not necessary for this application, for whatever reason (some commenters suggest that due to the pyramid shape it was not significant enough, others suggest due to the lights in the Swans being within close proximity).
2) At the time the building was constructed the nearby "STOLport" runway had been officially closed for many years (It had been closed in 1982 when the EPCOT monorail was being built near by[2]) therefore there was no airport within 3 miles as described in 14 CFR 77.17(a)(2). Thus it would not fit this definition and no light would be required. (It's important to note that certain specific types of structures have their own definitions and my require a light at different heights).
3) External lighting. I don't remember exactly where I read this, most likely the FAA Advisory, but based on pictures it appears that both the Swan and Dolphin have light shining up on the statues which may satisfy any requirement. Similarly, in an article cited many times in the YouTube comments[3], it's stated that the upper 80 feet of the Dolphin building wasn't usable for rooms and was given fake windows to complete the look. Lighting from these windows near the top may actually satisfy any requirements too. While the article also stated that the Swan statues were made into lightning rods and had red glowing eyes, I haven't been able to find any photo's that show the eyes being lit up red.
If I had to venture a guess, it's a combination of both. First, given it's height and location, it isn't automatically considered an obstruction. Second, during the initial construction application for structures over 200 feet it was determined not to be needed.
I'd also like to note that these are the current day federal regulations that we are discussing. Regulations may have been different at the time of construction. Also, while everyone appears to be talking about FAA regulations, perhaps someone should look in to the state or local building codes or regulations. They could be the true source of the light determination, based upon local interpretations of FAA guidance or local laws that may have changed through the years.
[1] Code of Federal Regulations Title 14 Chapter I Subchapter E Part 77: text taken from https://www.ecfr.gov
[2] Source of STOLport closure from "Disney Trivia from the Vault" by Dave Smith, 2012
[3] http://blog.wdwinfo.com/2015/05/05/a-look-back-walt-disney-worlds-swan-and-dolphin-hotels/
Last edited: