From
www.globalsecurity.org.
Many are upset that the reason Disney wanted the No-Fly zone was for commerical reasons and not to protect it's guests. I've often agreed that a restriction as this is next to useless for protection purposes, but whatever your opinion may be, here is the ordinance below:
"Disney park officials have wanted to eliminate air traffic over the parks long before 9-11," said Phil Boyer, president of the 390,000 members of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, a group asking the FAA to toss out Disney's no-fly zones. "Did they employ lobbyists to convince FAA to finally 'ban' general aviation in the guise of security?"
Security experts say such no-fly zones -- barring planes from flying below 3,000 feet within 3 miles of the center of the parks -- provide little actual protection from terrorism. The job of enforcing the zones is especially difficult above places such as
Disneyland and Walt Disney World, where Cinderella Castle is located near busy airports, they say.
A terrorist in a small plane, for example, could fly from outside the zone and reach a park within seconds, they point out.
"Apart from warning away law-abiding pilots, it's not clear to me what this is going to buy you," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense think tank in Alexandria, Va. "It's not clear to me what difference this would make unless they're going to put some antiaircraft missiles in front of the castle or something to enforce it."
However, the no-fly zones do provide an effective defense against Disney's decades-old business foes, self-styled guerrilla advertisers who try to lure customers away from Disney to area nightclubs and attractions. At its height, the Orlando air wars daily featured biplanes towing banners, blimps and single-wing skywriters competing for attention.
Today, aerial advertisers, such as Kittinger, can't sell their services if they have to fly above 1,200 feet. Flying in the no-fly zones these days can cost them their pilots' licenses.