Disney and the No-fly Zone

[HauntedMansionFan]

1)You mentioned security checks earlier. Should security checks all over just be stopped all together?

2)You may have answered this one, but a quick scan didn't turn up an answer. What are you feelings on no-fly zones in other areas of the country?

3) Here is a new one: Is your problem with this particular TFR is that it is a TFR for Disney?

 

[roymccoy]

1. I never said that security checks should be stopped, I simply pointed out that we shouldn't expect Disney to stop them because they get more than just security out of them. They also (and the cynical part of me says) get to search you for contraband food and drinks.
(BTW, I answered this one already.)

2. TFR's are not usually a problem at all. Lately though, the government is placing them all over. I'd have to look at each TFR and talk to the local pilots to see if it's a nuisance or not. Remember, TFR's are meant to keep pilots out of areas that are dangerous to flight. They have just recently been employed by politicians as "terrorism deterents."
(I answered this one, too.)

3. I couldn't care less that this TFR is Disney. It's the airspace restriction that is the problem. And the fact that it's right in the middle of the busiest airspace in the world and it is useless. (For the reasons that I have already pointed out.)


I have since been in touch with a friend of mine who is an air traffic controller and he said that Disney has lined a lot of pockets over the years to get their airspace restricted. He doesn't see it going away anytime soon. He also said that they are having a terrific time trying to route the traffic around the TFR safely. He knows of at least 5 instances where airplanes had to do an "emergency manuever" to avoid another plane. The TFR is in a very bad place, landing wise. It is in the middle of two airports approach patterns. (Fullerton and John Wayne) Approach and landing are two of the most critical times in a flight.

I still have not heard ONE good reason for having the TFR. It is useless and it is dangerous.

It is symbolism over substance.

Roy

 

[HauntedMansionFan]

Originally posted by roymccoy
1. I never said that security checks should be stopped, I simply pointed out that we shouldn't expect Disney to stop them because they get more than just security out of them. They also (and the cynical part of me says) get to search you for contraband food and drinks.
(BTW, I answered this one already.)

Hearing this answer I do remember this response, my apologies. But I also remember replying that I have carried drinks into the park before and seen others do it as well. Disney hasn't confiscated them at any of the security checkpoints. Yet you did imply that the reason that Disney put the checkpoints into place was to stop "contraband" items from entering the parks. I'm not denying there is some proof to this, but that isn't the main or the important reason for instituting the checkpoints. Adding to it, I remember when leaving Animal Kingdom a few trips back we were asked to take a survey about the security checkpoints, seeing as how most of the stations are now permanent, it appears that many guests share the same feeling that I have.

I'd have to look at each TFR and talk to the local pilots to see if it's a nuisance or not.

So if it isn't infringing on anyone's "right" to fly in that area its ok?

I couldn't care less that this TFR is Disney. It's the airspace restriction that is the problem.

What about if it was a nuclear weapons holding center, a government command center, etc...?

And the fact that it's right in the middle of the busiest airspace in the world and it is useless.

I wouldn't say one of the busiest, perhaps one of the busier, but certainly not the busiest.

I still have not heard ONE good reason for having the TFR.

In your own opinion you haven't. Just like on the flip side I haven't heard ONE good reason that they should be taken away. I can respect you feelings on the one located above DisneyLand, because you have made it quite clear what a nuisance it is. But what about the one above the property in Florida?

 

[roymccoy]

The Socal airspace system is one of the busiest airspaces in the world. With LAX, John Wayne, Van Nuys, Long Beach, Ontario, San Diego (these are all top twenty airports for traffic count) along with many small reliever airports and many military bases, the aeronautical charts are almost unreadable. Other areas may have one or two large airports, but that's it. New York would, of course, be right up there, too.

I don't know what drink they let YOU take in, but they wouldn't let us take in anything that was purchased on the outside. They wanted to take away a bag of "chex trail mix" one time, but we explained that it was snacks for our 3 year old.

My complaint about this TFR isn't that there shouldn't be any security measures in place at DL, just that this one does absolutely nothing and it is dangerous to the pilots in the area. A three mile ring (1 1/2 miles on each side) doesn't give anyone time to do anything. All it does is cause air traffic control and pilots headaches.

Roy

 

[Another Voice]

“I still have not heard ONE good reason for having the TFR. It is useless and it is dangerous.”

Because on a typical summer’s day 60,000+ people inhabit a small area in the middle of a crowded urban sprawl that already has been – and is believed to currently be – a significant target for a group of people that have already used – and continue to appear willing to use – aircraft to attack…and all of this is under an airspace that can not be reasonably controlled using other methods.


Sorry – but if the skies of Orange County are too crowded to accommodate the safety restrictions, then the problem is one of too many planes. If the airspace around Disneyland is too small to provide an effective warning, then the "bubble" should be expanded.

There is no more a right to freely use the skies over Anaheim than there is a right to skateboard down the Santa Ana Freeway. Limited space, other demands and capabiliteis of the other users of that resource, and just plain old common sense factor in. There have always been restrictions on the use of public lands, waters and skies because occasionally it is required by the public good.

Some may not like the restrictions imposed on their amusement or on their ability to tout banners for the Cerritos Auto Square or the new Sonora Chicken Burrito at Del Taco. But if there is the smallest chance that a minor restriction on an elite few will help prevent the further loss of life, there is really no argument.

The safety of the public must trump your hobby.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Roy, how about filing an IFR flight plan? Yes, it may take a little more time to get where you are going, but it will certainly be safe. Perhaps your aircraft is not IFR equipped? That VFR stuff is sort of dangerous anyway... Then again, I don't know how practical that would be for your mission.

I agree that in it's pure form, a TFR will do absolutely nothing to stop a terroist attack. If however there is some sort of 'hidden missiles', then all bets are off.

That being said, I am in favor of the Disney TFRs. I think the crowds at Disney would be very uneasy to constantly see low flying aircraft over the parks. I think this would effect park attendance.

 

[roymccoy]

"The safety of the public must trump your hobby." Number one, most of the traffic flying over DL isn't a "hobby", it's people trying to make a living one way or another. Now, I do agree with one thing that AV said, if the TFR isn't big enough to create a "shield" around DL, then it should be increased in size. Of course, if you would increase the size of the TFR, 3 major airports would become involved, (LAX, John Wayne and Ontario) and this would endanger the lives of literally hundreds of thousands. Maybe, DISNEYLAND should be closed, instead of closing the airspace, if it's that much of a target. I'm not sure if I want something that "hot" in my backyard. I'm not sure I want to be that close to ground zero of a dirty bomb. Yeah, now I'm on to something, Congress should close Disneyland. That will REALLY make you feel safer! If you're not even there, nothing can happen to you.

Roy

Also, Fullerton isn't going to be able to do it's yearly "Eagle's Flight" this year the same way we always did. That's the air tours that we would do with handicapped kids and adults over Knott's and Disneyland but, I'm sure that's of no importance as long as people can feel safe for no reason.

 

[HauntedMansionFan]

Originally posted by roymccoy
Maybe, DISNEYLAND should be closed, instead of closing the airspace, if it's that much of a target. I'm not sure if I want something that "hot" in my backyard. I'm not sure I want to be that close to ground zero of a dirty bomb. Yeah, now I'm on to something, Congress should close Disneyland. That will REALLY make you feel safer! If you're not even there, nothing can happen to you.

While we are at it why don't we just close LAX (that would free up some much needed air space according to you) and the Golden Gate Bridge (those people must fear every day that they cross the bridge to work and play) all together! They were targets also! Hmm... let's see what other ridiculous things in California and around the country we can have closed because they are "hot" spots.

And don't even get me started on the subject of dirty bombs. You want to talk about the public being misled with feelings of security.

Also, Fullerton isn't going to be able to do it's yearly "Eagle's Flight" this year the same way we always did. That's the air tours that we would do with handicapped kids and adults over Knott's and Disneyland but, I'm sure that's of no importance as long as people can feel safe for no reason.

One word. Adapt.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Originally posted by roymccoy
...Now, I do agree with one thing that AV said, if the TFR isn't big enough to create a "shield" around DL, then it should be increased in size. Of course, if you would increase the size of the TFR, 3 major airports would become involved, (LAX, John Wayne and Ontario) and this would endanger the lives of literally hundreds of thousands.

Roy, you lost me with this logic.

 

[roymccoy]

Not really logic, but I was just trying to make a point that the slippery slope of TFR's don't HAVE to stop at just a 3 mile ring around a theme park. If the TFR was increased in size it could, in essence, shut down the airspace in the basin and since this is exactly what would have to happen if a TFR was to really be effective in alerting law enforcement and the military and give them time to do anything about it, I think you can see that at some point DISNEYLAND becomes the problem and a logical step (just as logical as a TFR to pilots) would be to close DL. It wouldn't be setting a precendent to do it, either. After 9-11, a few public events were canceled due to security concerns.

Now, I don't want Disney closed and I don't want the useless TFR around it either.
Either they have to increase the size of the TFR to actually give time to react if there is an incursion or they should remove it.

Roy

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by roymccoy
If the TFR was increased in size it could, in essence, shut down the airspace in the basin and since this is exactly what would have to happen if a TFR was to really be effective in alerting law enforcement and the military and give them time to do anything about it,

I don't really have a " military opinion" because I'm not in the military...

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Well, an increased TFR mat or may not disrupt traffic flow. Many times there are exemptions for IFR arrivals and departures.

Can we agree that it would not "endanger the lives of literally hundreds of thousands"?

 

[HauntedMansionFan]

Originally posted by EUROPA

My sentimens exactly EUROPA. For someone that doesn't have a "military opinion" because they aren't/weren't in the military, does seem to be falling back on what the military could or couldn't do in the situation of a TFR. I think that is the point you were going for correct?

I still say it all comes down to one word. Adapt.

Other people have had to, what makes pilots in this area superior that they don't have to?

 

[Maistre Gracey]

I don't think folks here should gang up on Roy. From an aviation standpoint, he does have some solid arguements.

If Roy is not entitled to a military opinion because he was not in the military, than nobody here should be entitled to an aviators opinion unless you are a FAA licensed pilot.

Personally I think everyone is entitled to an informed opinion on anything.

 

[HauntedMansionFan]

Originally posted by Maistre Gracey
I don't think folks here should gang up on Roy. From an aviation standpoint, he does have some solid arguements.

I don't believe that anyone is ganging up on any other posters in particular. Unfortunately that is one happens in a "debate" you have a side and you stand up for that side. It just so happens that on this particular topic at the moments the sides are a little uneven, that doesn't mean that anyone is ganging up.

than nobody here should be entitled to an aviators opinion unless you are a FAA licensed pilot.

I don't think that anyone else except for Roy has put forth an aviators opinion. Most opinions shared by myself and others are those of the general public. But perhaps I missed something?

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Well, most here are not looking at a TFR from a pilot's standpoint, only a Disney guest standpoint. Also, some here are dismissing the possible air traffic congestion causing a safety hazard. I also read a comment about AOPA. If a pilot supports AOPA, that is one of the strongest things an individual can do. AOPA truly has a voice in Congress.

Anyway, I am in favor of the Disney TFRs, as I believe it will ease the minds of the guests. I do not, however believe they will stop any terroist, unless the 'hidden missile' theory is true.

 

[roymccoy]

maistre gracey - I appreciate the fact that although you have a different opinion about the good that the TFR does at DL, you can see some of my points. I'm up here flying around this TFR and I can tell you, it's sitting right in the middle of a pretty heavily traveled section of airspace. Anytime pilots are funneled around an area or into an area, it can cause potential problems. Since I don't see any real good for a small TFR around Disney (besides phony warm and fuzzies from guests) I have to speak out against it.


Roy

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by Maistre Gracey
... however believe they will stop any terroist, unless the 'hidden missile' theory is true.

After 9/11 many areas of the country have been under protection of each States National Guard and Regular Military. This includes public,private and government owned facilities. If Disney is (and I think it is) one of those locations then the average citizen would not even know what or where the protection is coming from. The military has several small scale systems to intercept an incoming plane from shoulder fired(Stinger), Hummer based(Avenger), to the well known Patriot Missile system. These are just the systems that we know about....

Remeber folks the "Stealth Fighter" flew over the Us for 10 years before the public even knew the plane existed.

 

[roymccoy]

EUROPA - It doesn't really matter if these "phantom weapons" are somewhere in or around Disney. There simply would not be time to use them. If a plane goes into the 3 mile TFR, which is actually only 1 1/2 mile from TFR boundary to DL, there would only be seconds to react. Then you have to remember that the TFR is accidentally broken by pilots sometimes just because they're a little off course. (1 1/2 isn't a lot of room for error) I would guess that the DL TFR is probably broken 2 to 3 times a week by pilots trying to "skim" the boundaries of it. This just goes to my point. There is simply not enough time to do anything if an airplane breaks the TFR. It would be a matter of seconds, not minutes or hours. Your only argument could be that the TFR needs to be bigger to make a difference.

Roy

I also go back to the Pentagon on 9/11. They had 15 to 20 minutes of information that a jet was coming towards them and the White House. If the Pentagon, the most secure building in the world, can't shoot down a plane with 15 to 20 minutes notice, then how can a plane be shot down within a matter of seconds in DL. (Taking into account that 99.99999% of incursions are innocent pilots a little off course?)

 

[caveat lector]

I think I've read the entire thread, but have a couple of questions.

1) Why can't you just fly at 3001 feet? Is your plane incapable (My aviation knowledge is limited)

2) What is an IFR? Can you use it as a previous poster mentioned? Or, is it just the inconvenience factor?

3) AV point is a good one. Do you disaggree that this restriction adds another (albeit) small hurdle (maybe the word "friction" was used)?

4) How do you feel about noise abatement (like the ones at John Wayne) ordinances? They really don't improve saftey (actually reduce it), but are done as a quality of life issue.