When did DL security become so tight?

[Malcon10t]

My husband is a private pilot and there is also a gigantic no-fly zone over Disneyland. Commercial flights *may* be allowed, but private pilots are definitely NOT.

Was this during lock down? It was probably allowed because no one was in the parks.

There has never been a "No Fly Zone" over Disneyland, contrary to what people like to say. There is a TFR (Temporary Flight Restriction) that has been in place since 2001 (and off and on prior to that.). The TFR is basically if you are within a 3 km of Disneyland area, you cannot fly lower than 3000' without approval from aiir traffic control. It really is not as hard as it sounds. I've done it with a private pilot. Conversation goes something like "Los Angeles Control, 23Alpha Bravo requests permission to descend to 3000(or 2500 depending on direction)". ANd depending on the traffic, you may get lowered. That said, the TFR (or "No Fly Zone" as people think of it) is only below 3000', which is just a little more than 1/2 mile up. But you can fly over it above 3000' all day every day....

 

[ParkHopper1]

My husband is a private pilot and there is also a gigantic no-fly zone over Disneyland. Commercial flights *may* be allowed, but private pilots are definitely NOT.

Yeah as mentioned a TFR is not the same as "Restricted" airspace which is a no fly zone . I am private pilot and have indeed been inside the Disneyland TFR flying VFR...you just need to be in communication with ATC. It is designed to keep out those that don't have a reason to be there or ATC does not know their intentions.

It is the same TFR as over any large sporting event but those are turned on and off for when mass attendees are assembled at one time. At DL that is all the time. VIP TFRs for say a Presidential visit are indeed more restrictive...but they all have their different rules to enter.

On the dogs, they are all after explosives and firearms, not drugs...and it is NOT at all theater...I hit the parks once with an off duty police officer and he had just secured his firearm in the hotel safe then we walked to the parks...one of the dogs pick up the residual scent from a good 6' away even though he no longer had anything actually on him...it was quite impressive to watch.

I have also had DOJ dogs sniff out and ping scents that were residue induced and have worked with tons of LEO dogs. There are indeed false positives that happen but that is just a indication to investigate further, not make an arrest or ban someone based solely on a dog scent hit. Dogs today are getting more and more specialized in their skills and what they are looking for. They now have dogs that are trained to sniff out a chemical in data stooge devices and they can find a USB stick hidden in a wall.

They are not after your vape pen...that is what the bag checkers are looking for.

 

[PirateBrigade]

It really is not as hard as it sounds. I've done it with a private pilot. Conversation goes something like "Los Angeles Control, 23Alpha Bravo requests permission to descend to 3000(or 2500 depending on direction)". ANd depending on the traffic, you may get lowered. That said, the TFR (or "No Fly Zone" as people think of it) is only below 3000', which is just a little more than 1/2 mile up. But you can fly over it above 3000' all day every day....

Yeah as mentioned a TFR is not the same as "Restricted" airspace which is a no fly zone . I am private pilot and have indeed been inside the Disneyland TFR flying VFR...you just need to be in communication with ATC.

I'm starting to think the husband didn't want to take the wife out for a flight

 

[whoever]

On the dogs, they are all after explosives and firearms, not drugs...and it is NOT at all theater...I hit the parks once with an off duty police officer and he had just secured his firearm in the hotel safe then we walked to the parks...one of the dogs pick up the residual scent from a good 6' away even though he no longer had anything actually on him...it was quite impressive to watch.

I have also had DOJ dogs sniff out and ping scents that were residue induced and have worked with tons of LEO dogs. There are indeed false positives that happen but that is just a indication to investigate further, not make an arrest or ban someone based solely on a dog scent hit. Dogs today are getting more and more specialized in their skills and what they are looking for. They now have dogs that are trained to sniff out a chemical in data stooge devices and they can find a USB stick hidden in a wall.

They are not after your vape pen...that is what the bag checkers are looking for.

The point remains that numerous studies of dogs have an 85% failure rate pretty consistently. It's even gone to the supreme court. For DLR, they are obviously free to do what they want on their property which I support, but the dogs tend to rely on their handlers queues moreso than their nose. Agree that false positives in this case are better than not, but they aren't the be all end all.

 

[Malcon10t]

The point remains that numerous studies of dogs have an 85% failure rate pretty consistently. It's even gone to the supreme court. For DLR, they are obviously free to do what they want on their property which I support, but the dogs tend to rely on their handlers queues moreso than their nose. Agree that false positives in this case are better than not, but they aren't the be all end all.

According to blind test with various trained dogs, the opposite of what you stated is true. From the study -
" 68 Labrador retrievers, 61 German shepherds, 25 Terriers and 10 English Cocker Spaniels, of both sexes in each breed, were used. Altogether 1219 experimental searching tests were conducted. On average, hidden drug samples were indicated by dogs after 64s searching time, with 87.7% indications being correct and 5.3% being false. In 7.0% of trials dogs failed to find the drug sample within 10min. The ranking of drugs from the easiest to the most difficult to detect was: marijuana, hashish, amphetamine, cocaine, heroin. German shepherds were superior to other breeds in giving correct indications while Terriers showed relatively poor detection performance. Dogs were equally efficient at searching in well-known vs. unknown rooms with strange (i.e., non-target novelty) odors (83.2% correct indications), but they were less accurate when searching outside or inside cars (63.5% and 57.9% correct indications respectively). During police examination trials the dogs made more false alerts, fewer correct indications and searching time was longer compared to the final stage of the training. The drug odor may persist at a site for at least 48h. Our experiments do not confirm the recent reports, based on drug users' opinions, of low drug detection efficiency."

And when it went to the Supreme Court, they ruled a unanimous decision in favor of the dog. "The United States Supreme Court returned a unanimous decision on February 19, 2013, ruling against Harris and overturning the ruling of the Florida Supreme Court.[29] In the unanimous opinion, Justice Elena Kagan stated that the dog's certification and continued training are adequate indication of his reliability, and thus is sufficient to presume the dog's alert provides probable cause to search, using the "totality-of-the-circumstances" test per Illinois v. Gates. She wrote that the Florida Supreme Court instead established "a strict evidentiary checklist", where "an alert cannot establish probable cause ... unless the State introduces comprehensive documentation of the dog's prior 'hits' and 'misses' in the field ... No matter how much other proof the State offers of the dog's reliability, the absent field performance records will preclude a finding of probable cause."

 

[whoever]

According to blind test with various trained dogs, the opposite of what you stated is true. From the study -
" 68 Labrador retrievers, 61 German shepherds, 25 Terriers and 10 English Cocker Spaniels, of both sexes in each breed, were used. Altogether 1219 experimental searching tests were conducted. On average, hidden drug samples were indicated by dogs after 64s searching time, with 87.7% indications being correct and 5.3% being false. In 7.0% of trials dogs failed to find the drug sample within 10min. The ranking of drugs from the easiest to the most difficult to detect was: marijuana, hashish, amphetamine, cocaine, heroin. German shepherds were superior to other breeds in giving correct indications while Terriers showed relatively poor detection performance. Dogs were equally efficient at searching in well-known vs. unknown rooms with strange (i.e., non-target novelty) odors (83.2% correct indications), but they were less accurate when searching outside or inside cars (63.5% and 57.9% correct indications respectively). During police examination trials the dogs made more false alerts, fewer correct indications and searching time was longer compared to the final stage of the training. The drug odor may persist at a site for at least 48h. Our experiments do not confirm the recent reports, based on drug users' opinions, of low drug detection efficiency."

And when it went to the Supreme Court, they ruled a unanimous decision in favor of the dog. "The United States Supreme Court returned a unanimous decision on February 19, 2013, ruling against Harris and overturning the ruling of the Florida Supreme Court.[29] In the unanimous opinion, Justice Elena Kagan stated that the dog's certification and continued training are adequate indication of his reliability, and thus is sufficient to presume the dog's alert provides probable cause to search, using the "totality-of-the-circumstances" test per Illinois v. Gates. She wrote that the Florida Supreme Court instead established "a strict evidentiary checklist", where "an alert cannot establish probable cause ... unless the State introduces comprehensive documentation of the dog's prior 'hits' and 'misses' in the field ... No matter how much other proof the State offers of the dog's reliability, the absent field performance records will preclude a finding of probable cause."

Not applicable to DLR as they can do what they want on their property (which I fully support), but even the Washington Post (one of the most liberal rags in the US) has dug into dog alerting tendencies and that dogs are trained to alert falsely on the premise of a reward from their handler. You even mentioned that if no alerts happened the dogs need to alert every so often for a treat. At DLR, false positives are a minor inconvenience. In the real world they have serious implications. I don't use drugs and haven't been pulled over for a traffic infraction in 7 years, but I don't trust dog's noses.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...s-alternative-facts-about-drug-sniffing-dogs/

 

[dieumeye]

Not applicable to DLR as they can do what they want on their property (which I fully support), but even the Washington Post (one of the most liberal rags in the US) has dug into dog alerting tendencies and that dogs are trained to alert falsely on the premise of a reward from their handler. You even mentioned that if no alerts happened the dogs need to alert every so often for a treat. At DLR, false positives are a minor inconvenience. In the real world they have serious implications. I don't use drugs and haven't been pulled over for a traffic infraction in 7 years, but I don't trust dog's noses.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...s-alternative-facts-about-drug-sniffing-dogs/

That article, and the entire issue, seems to be more about the poor behavior of handlers/trainers than the actual ability of the dogs.

That is to say, the research would seem to indicate that the skill of the dogs is good, but the problem comes when the dogs are trained (or wrongly trained) for nefarious purposes.

 

[DLgal]

Not applicable to DLR as they can do what they want on their property (which I fully support), but even the Washington Post (one of the most liberal rags in the US) has dug into dog alerting tendencies and that dogs are trained to alert falsely on the premise of a reward from their handler. You even mentioned that if no alerts happened the dogs need to alert every so often for a treat. At DLR, false positives are a minor inconvenience. In the real world they have serious implications. I don't use drugs and haven't been pulled over for a traffic infraction in 7 years, but I don't trust dog's noses.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...s-alternative-facts-about-drug-sniffing-dogs/

Drugs are also not explosives. I believe explosive detecting dogs are better at sniffing things out. They have saved countless servicemember lives in the middle east over the last 20 years.

I'd believe their SUCCESS rate is 85%, not their failure rate. No properly trained dog or officer would get certified with such poor performance.

 

[Malcon10t]

Not applicable to DLR as they can do what they want on their property (which I fully support), but even the Washington Post (one of the most liberal rags in the US) has dug into dog alerting tendencies and that dogs are trained to alert falsely on the premise of a reward from their handler. You even mentioned that if no alerts happened the dogs need to alert every so often for a treat. At DLR, false positives are a minor inconvenience. In the real world they have serious implications. I don't use drugs and haven't been pulled over for a traffic infraction in 7 years, but I don't trust dog's noses.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...s-alternative-facts-about-drug-sniffing-dogs/

I understand your position with regards to any government agency, so I get your bias. I have no clue why your getting pulled over would cause a dog search. I have been pulled over a few times, and I have never had a drug dog brought out.

That said, I have worked with and done beginning training with dogs (labs) for scent work, and it is AMAZING what they can hit on.

An example, we started with a puppy (about 20 weeks) who showed some scent ability. We worked with her food. To get her dinner, she had to locate the 1 singular piece of kibble in a 400sf room. In this same room was her food box, with 40 lbs of the same kibble. We trained with various people hiding the 1 kibble, then we would continue to walk the room, so she wasn't simply hitting on our scent. And we did absolutely no guiding. We often sat down and just watched her work the room (often double checking, but never alerting on the food box.) She usually was able to alert to the kibble within 2-3 minutes. It always amazed us.

She went on to working for a handler to do body recovery work.

 

[whoever]

I understand your position with regards to any government agency, so I get your bias. I have no clue why your getting pulled over would cause a dog search. I have been pulled over a few times, and I have never had a drug dog brought out.

That said, I have worked with and done beginning training with dogs (labs) for scent work, and it is AMAZING what they can hit on.

An example, we started with a puppy (about 20 weeks) who showed some scent ability. We worked with her food. To get her dinner, she had to locate the 1 singular piece of kibble in a 400sf room. In this same room was her food box, with 40 lbs of the same kibble. We trained with various people hiding the 1 kibble, then we would continue to walk the room, so she wasn't simply hitting on our scent. And we did absolutely no guiding. We often sat down and just watched her work the room (often double checking, but never alerting on the food box.) She usually was able to alert to the kibble within 2-3 minutes. It always amazed us.

She went on to working for a handler to do body recovery work.

I appreciate all that, and at DLR, I would rather them be safe than sorry.

My personal experiences with DLR security have been pretty good most of the time. I was allowed to take an aforementioned "swiss army knife" which is about 2" folded into its scales inside security with a strict warning not to do it again. Sometimes I get the just walk through pass, sometimes they fondle 5 figures of camera equipment with disdain. I'm still more of an advocate of behavioral tactics vs technology. Or even hand stamps (been there, done that, treat me with kid gloves). I still think that most security procedures are set up on the 80/20 rule. For instance, I was stuck in Chicago last Thursday. Supposed to depart late. FULL x-ray my colon stuff. Once inside, flight was shortly cancelled. Next flight at 0-dark-30, EVERY SINGLE PERSON is apparently now TSA pre-checked with minimal screening. Neither makes me feel safer as bad things can and will happen ANYWHERE. but it's the semblance of effort that irks me. Either do it to the max every time, or not do it al all.

An alternative would be trusted traveler status. Disney knows me. For good or bad. I'm an orator of my experiences. There are vbloggers. Neither of us are going to break any rules or do anything bad. First time visitors, unknown parties, suspect. Repeat visitors, not so much. I would think that your known status to disney alone would grant you through unmolested.

 

[Tigger's ally]

Either do it to the max every time, or not do it al all.

That right there is actually a totally insane way to look at security for the masses.

 

[whoever]

That right there is actually a totally insane way to look at mass security.

Well, if you are willing to relax it because volume is high, clearly you didn't think it was REALLY needed in the first place. Seriously, throwing all your measures out the window means they weren't actually valuable measures.

 

[oneIIIone]

Happy for the security efforts seen and unseen. The parks are way too much of potential targets and we go there to take our minds off the regular routine. Peace of mind is welcome!

 

[Malcon10t]

Either do it to the max every time, or not do it al all.

Yep, sounds like my granddaughter when she walked thru security, she was about 5 and was not happy that they barely glanced in her backpack purse thing. Spouts off loudly, "I may just be a kid, but I COULD be carrying a bomb!" She was very upset they didn't search her more. Security just grinned.

This is a kid when they told her this week, first week of 6th grade, that they would only have 1 homework assignment a week, responded with "I'm going to need more that that!!"

 

[ParkHopper1]

You debate procedures of what little measures we can actually observe and hypothetical effectiveness till we are blue in the face but reality is their security measures to date have been successful in preventing any serious incidents which I call a success in this day and age so they are doing something right so far IMO.

It is not all or none to be effective...risk assessment decisions are made and adjusted continually. There is always a balance of security and practicality. To be 100% safe every guest should be strip searched prior to entering the park...but that is not practical, but that does not mean that dogs and bag searches are then ineffective.

 

[MillauFr]

You debate procedures of what little measures we can actually observe and hypothetical effectiveness till we are blue in the face but reality is their security measures to date have been successful in preventing any serious incidents which I call a success in this day and age so they are doing something right so far IMO.

It is not all or none to be effective...risk assessment decisions are made and adjusted continually. There is always a balance of security and practicality. To be 100% safe every guest should be strip searched prior to entering the park...but that is not practical, but that does not mean that dogs and bag searches are then ineffective.

Exactly. What ever they do works pretty well. The fact they haven't had a serious incident is not luck or a lack of people trying.

 

[Markonefive]

I remember going to the Minneapolis Children's Museum about 15 years ago. Security was comprised of a sign on the door stating "Handguns not allowed in the building." Being from Canada, that would have seemed self-evident to us (and a bit of a culture shock). how things have changed. Given there are people who have intent to do harm for whatever, reason, very grateful for the security measures (seen and unseen) that Disney takes to ensure guest safety, even if they may be inconvenient at times.

 

[WebmasterMaryJo]

Several posts were deleted. Please remember that political discussions, including gun control are not allowed on these forums.