Private Planes over Disney???

[momoftwins]

Sitting over at the BWV, and what looked like a private jet (like a Lear or Guifstream) just flew overhead.


Is there no longer a no-fly zone over Disneyworld??

Thanks all!!

 

[PSUPreston]

Sitting over at the BWV, and what looked like a private jet (like a Lear or Guifstream) just flew overhead.


Is there no longer a no-fly zone over Disneyworld??

Thanks all!!

I just read something about this, it does still exist, but does not cover the entirety of WDW property. So could have been just outside the current no fly zone

 

[PalmettoPath]

We noticed a lot more aircraft around Disney Springs and EPCOT area as well. Maybe it is all the fringes of the area as others have noted.

 

[EdnaMarieMode]

The 3 nautical mile radius that makes up the restricted area barely contains EPCOT. Disney Springs, HS and AK are not in the radius at all. Along with Pop, AoA, Riviera, CBR, the All Stars, SSR.

The cutoff near BWV is between the villas pool and the tennis court. The cutoff at EPCOT right through the dining room at Via Napoli or the middle of Biergarten.

 

[EdnaMarieMode]

I just read something about this, it does still exist, but does not cover the entirety of WDW property. So could have been just outside the current no fly zone

It's kind of surprising how much of WDW property is outside of the radius. A large portion of the north part of the radius doesn't contain anything (obviously) owned by Disney.

 

[gottalovepluto]

…Is there no longer a no-fly zone over Disneyworld??

Common misconception. The no fly zone focused on MK, not WDW.

 

[momoftwins]

Thanks guys!

 

[sam_gordon]

The "no fly zone" (technically a Temporary Flight Restriction) not only doesn't cover the entirety of WDW, but only goes up to 3000 about the ground. So a plane can legally fly at 3001 feet above Cinderella's castle.

I'm not sure what the status of it is, but there was talk within the last month about doing away with the TFR. The argument was basically other theme parks don't get the same "privilege", why should Disney.

 

[seashoreCM]

As I saw it back in 2001, the no fly zone over WDW was intended to protect the public (the park guests, given so many of them), not Disney property. I don't think Disney asked for it; it was imposed on Disney.

 

[sam_gordon]

As I saw it back in 2001, the no fly zone over WDW was intended to protect the public (the park guests, given so many of them), not Disney property. I don't think Disney asked for it; it was imposed on Disney.

The TFR wasn't established until 2003. And yes, Disney requested it. Supposedly for "safety", but does anyone believe that *IF* someone had nefarious intent, a red line on a map would keep them out?

Here's the article from the Orlando Sentinel when it came into being: https://disneytfr.wordpress.com/how-these-tfrs-got-started/

 

[supersnoop]

a red line on a map

Isn't it a bit more than "a red line on a map?" Isn't it an area that, if breached, receives an immediate m military response?

 

[sam_gordon]

Isn't it a bit more than "a red line on a map?" Isn't it an area that, if breached, receives an immediate m military response?

I don't think there's fighter aircraft on "Alert-5" notice waiting for someone to breach the Disney TFR (probably no TFR unless it's presidential). What's more likely to happen is ATC will try to reach out on the radio to find out if there's an emergency (an aircraft emergency allows a pilot to violate ANY regulation they feel is needed for a safe return to earth) or someone just wasn't paying attention. That will take at least a minute or two.

So my point stands, IF someone WANTS to intentionally crash into Epcot or MK, the red line on the map isn't going to stop them. It WILL stop those pilots who want to keep their license (and therefore their ability to fly).

It does keep banner tows and sightseeing aircraft out of the area, which, as a park guest, I am happy about. But I have a hard time justifying the need for it when other theme parks (including HS and AK) don't have one.

Again, it's only good up through 3000 feet above the ground. So someone could fly at 3001 feet over the castle, and not only be totally legal, but doesn't even have to be talking to ATC. NOTE: That's for WDW. DL they would need to talk to ATC.

 

[EdnaMarieMode]

As I saw it back in 2001, the no fly zone over WDW was intended to protect the public (the park guests, given so many of them), not Disney property. I don't think Disney asked for it; it was imposed on Disney.

Disney lobbied for this, it was not imposed on them. Disney had requested this for years (at least) and then used the 9-11 terrorist attacks for leverage to get this. Disney claimed that WDW and DL could be a prime target for another terrorist attack. Rather, Disney made very hefty donations to the two senators (one on the appropriations committee and one on the committee overseeing transportation spending) who made sure to add Disney’s no fly zone specifically to a 3000 page spending bill. I’m not in the habit of paying nearly $100000 for something I didn’t want.

As others here have correctly pointed out- a no fly zone isn’t going to stop someone with nefarious intent and also the 3 nautical mile radius only contains MK, EPCOT, and some of the resorts. AK, HS, or Disney Springs aren’t in the zone. So I have a hard time buying that the real concern here is an act of terrorism.

Isn't it a bit more than "a red line on a map?" Isn't it an area that, if breached, receives an immediate m military response?

Pilots have long complained about the impossibility of enforcing this.

It would take seconds to breach this airspace, particularly if someone had specific nefarious intent. The attack would be over before the military response arrived.

 

[supersnoop]

I don't think there's fighter aircraft on "Alert-5" notice waiting for someone to breach the Disney TFR (probably no TFR unless it's presidential).

I guess they mount up for the U.N. General Assembly meetings.

https://www.stripes.com/branches/ai...a-flying-restricted-airspace-nyc-2990564.html

 

[sam_gordon]

I guess they mount up for the U.N. General Assembly meetings.

https://www.stripes.com/branches/ai...a-flying-restricted-airspace-nyc-2990564.html

It says so in the article...

The F-16 fighter jet was from the 187th Fighter Wing of the Alabama Air National Guard, which was on temporary duty providing air patrols for the event, according to UPI.

TFRs aren't unusual. With a few exceptions though, they are TEMPORARY. They'll be issues around Cape Canaveral for rocket launches, around stadiums for large sporting events, airshows, etc.

IMO, Disney has a SMALL leg to stand on because do you really want private planes flying around where there are 100,000+ people? Apparently not since they issue TFRs for major college FB games. BUT, if that's the reasoning, why aren't DHS and AK included? AND why not other theme parks?

 

[Sykes]

One thing I'll add is that I've flown through the Disney TFRs in both California and Florida many times. Anyone talking to air traffic control can get permission to fly through it as long as they're not just sightseeing.

 

[kdonnel]

Back in the early 1990's my brother in law took my wife and I up in a Cessna 172 and we flew all over and around WDW.

Sadly we did not have a camera with us.