FAA issues no-fly zones over Disney parks

Posted Wednesday, March 19, 2003 4:10 AM | Contributed by Jeff

The Federal Aviation Administration issued temporary restriction for the air space over Disney's US parks in Florida and California. The no-fly zones were established not because of any specific threat, but as a part of the heightened terror alert as the US prepares to attack Iraq.

Read more from The Orlando Sentinel.

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 4:41 AM
Well there goes any talk of a "Disney" airport down in Orlando :)

lata, jeremy

--"We laugh to keep from crying..."

+0
Wednesday, March 19, 2003 5:05 AM
This doesn't surprise me a bit.

------------------
June 11th, 2001 - Gemini 100
VertiGo Rides - 82
Technical Services - 2002-2003
Frightzone Screamster - 2002-2003

+0
Wednesday, March 19, 2003 5:17 AM
A logical move, but I have to wonder how much protection it really provides unless they equip the Magic Kingdom with constantly manned anitaircraft weaponry. Disney is only a minute or two by air from the busy airlanes into the Orlando airport. I think the most it may really do is make it harder to scout out things for a potential attack.
+0
Wednesday, March 19, 2003 5:28 AM
No, what it does is to reassure the public that somebody is thinking about their safety when they visit the Big Cheese. It has little or no real significance to public safety, but it will make people feel better.

I take that back. It will have one significant effect. With the no-fly zone in effect, if you look up and see an aircraft while in a Disney park, you'll know it isn't supposed to be there. Doesn't make you any safer, but at least when an aerial attack comes you'll know the aircraft was also violating a no-fly reg.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.
(Me, cynical of anti-terrorism actions? Never. But we can all be happy that I Am Not A Terrorist.)

+0
Wednesday, March 19, 2003 6:11 AM
Especially since the next attempt, if there is one, won't be from the air. So many people are looking that direction. It would be far more effective terror-wise to do something else, even if it didn't cause much damage.

Hmmm, I sense a new clique in the works -- the Coasterbuzz Cynical Bastards (CBCB)

------------------
--Greg, aka Oat Boy
My page
"I can't believe I just left a nuclear weapon in an elevator." -- Farscape*** This post was edited by GregLeg 3/19/2003 11:12:46 AM ***

+0
Wednesday, March 19, 2003 6:15 AM
Which is all the more humorous because here in Chicago, Mayor Daley can't get the FAA to declare downtown Chicago (home of the *disputed* World's Tallest Building - where my office is - The Sears Tower) a no fly zone...

------------------
--George H
---Superman the ride...coming to a SF park near you soon...
Currency tracking experiment... http://www.wheresgeorge.com (Referring to The "George" on the $1 bill - Not Me)

+0
Wednesday, March 19, 2003 6:56 AM
lol... there going to hit Euro disney (not really, it still holds up the name...)
+0
Wednesday, March 19, 2003 9:05 AM
Considering how france caters to terrorists they have little to fear!!
+0
Wednesday, March 19, 2003 9:36 AM
I have to wonder, what on Earth is the point of doing something just "to make people feel more secure?" Any intelligent person who hears this is going to realize that it doesn't really do anything, and therefore will not feel particularly secure. Does this sound logical to anyone?

------------------
I hear America screaming...

+0
Wednesday, March 19, 2003 10:43 AM
From what I read about the temporary flight restriction over Disney World and Disney Land is you will still actually see planes over it. The only thing pilots would need to do is file a flight plane with a Flight Service Station and then when they get close enough they just have to contact air traffic control and tell them their reasoning and ask for permission to enter the no flight zone. However most pilots don’t do that, so you would very rarely see, for example, a Cessna fly over head. You will still see commercial airplanes fly over Disney.

I just don’t understand why the FAA would give Disney World and Disney Land a no flight zone while Chicago continually asks for a temporary flight restriction over the city, and has the country’s tallest building and is a huge metropolis. I think that would make more sense.*** This post was edited by Scott1616 3/19/2003 3:44:29 PM ***

+0
Wednesday, March 19, 2003 11:02 AM
Personally, I think the impact on the general public would be a bit higher if terrorists his a major resort destination such as Disney as opposed to a city. I mean, not to sound rude, but been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Theme parks symbolize an escape from reality for most people. Disney, especially, since it is one of the most recognized corporations on the planet.

Anyhow, I would think that the park would fall under the classification of a large, outdoor venue. To make an entire city a no fliy zone, especially with Chicago O'Hare and Chicago Midway so close, is a little absurd.

A TFR (temporary flight restriction) is no laughing matter. If ANY unauthorized aircraft enters that airspace, fighters are scrambled IMMEDIATELY to intercept them. I can tell you, the last thing I would want to see in my cessna would be to look out the window and see an F-16 waving its wings at me...that's what we pilots like to call BIG TROUBLE...

To argue this, though, is sort of a moot point. A TFR is a law, and like all laws, they're made for law-abiding citizens. Traffic laws don't necessarily stop people from driving recklessly, just as laws forbidding murder and other capital crimes don't necessarily stop that sort of thing, either. I mean, the only way to completely protect people from hijacked aircraft, or any aircraft, for that matter, would be to outlaw flying, and destroy every plane out there, and nobody is going to do that, because it's stupid.

Aah, well. I've made my point, so I'm going to go hope for some decent Ohio weather (it's too windy today) so that I can slip the surly bonds of Earth and maybe take some aerial shots of SFWoA or something. :)

------------------
digi
"There's always room for SFWoA!"

+0
Wednesday, March 19, 2003 11:28 AM
(SF)Gam said

"I have to wonder, what on Earth is the point of doing something just "to make people feel more secure?" Any intelligent person who hears this is going to realize that it doesn't really do anything, and therefore will not feel particularly secure."

While a *person* may indeed be intelligent, people are downright stupid. Case in point, a few weeks ago, could you go into your local Home Depot (Lowes, Ace Hardware...) and find plastic or duct tape? Any "intelligent" person who has put plastic up over there windows in the winter time to keep out cold knows that it has limited effectiveness. Yet this didnt stop millions across the country from buying these supplies just "to feel safe".

Airline travel on September 10, 2001 was no different security-wise than it was on 9/11. However, after 9/11, people didnt *feel* it has as safe as it used to be. Truth be told, it's safer to fly now than in the summer of 2001, but you would be hard pressed to find people convinced of that.

In short, there is a great benefit to people "feeling" safe even if they are not really. Because if people start to panic "Bad Things" (tm) can happen.

lata, jeremy

--think about if everyone suddenly lost faith in paper currency.....

+0
Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:48 PM
Well, I for one feel safer already. If the terrorists were planning an air attack on Disney, they surely won't break the law and enter a no-fly zone to do it.

I'm sure if the area around the twin towers was a no fly zone, they would've called the whole thing off. Why didn't we think of this sooner?

------------------
If you could just see the beauty... these things I could never describe. Pleasures and wayward distraction; is this my wonderful prize? --Joy Division

+0
Wednesday, March 19, 2003 6:25 PM
kpjb is right. What the heck does a no-fly zone do? By the time any National Guard aircraft can make the decision to shoot down another aircraft and intercept it would take much longer than you might expect. A small Cessna can barely cause more damage than a car slamming into a building. A large jet will never crash into Disney. Why? Because I sure as hell wouldn't let it happen if I was on that jet. Not after 9/11.

Just one view.

+0
Wednesday, March 19, 2003 6:47 PM
Greg closed with:
Hmmm, I sense a new clique in the works -- the Coasterbuzz Cynical Bastards (CBCB)

Would you then refer to us as the "CBCB's"? :)

kpjb, you hit the nail on the head. Laws do you absolutely no good when you're dealing with outlaws.

CoastterKaiser: Another important point. The reason the events of 09/11/2001 happened the way they did was that a group of clever people worked out how they could exploit the very mechanisms in place that were supposed to prevent Bad Things™ from happening. They knew the rules for dealing with a hijacking, and they knew that those rules ("Do exactly as I say and nobody gets hurt!!!") could be used to further their aims. Nobody can ever do that again, because that situation changed the rules. But what next? We are not terrorists, we do not think like terrorists, and because we don't think like terrorists, it's real hard for us to protect against them effectively.

One final comment from me...from a movie:

HOYT: What do you think?

CALDER: I'm an inspector, not an engineer...

HOYT: So think like a bomber

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

+0
Thursday, March 20, 2003 8:47 AM
Here's a link to the Chicago Tribune where Mayor Daley "exploded with outrage" regarding Disney being called a no fly zone and Chicago not...

------------------
--George H
---Superman the ride...coming to a SF park near you soon...
Currency tracking experiment... http://www.wheresgeorge.com (Referring to The "George" on the $1 bill - Not Me)

+0
Thursday, March 20, 2003 12:10 PM
This makes no sense to me. What is the point of doing this. So the terriost could just fly around Disneyland, and make they're way to Knott's or Magic, or anyone of the other many parks in California. They can just hit a spot where we least expect it.
+0
Thursday, March 20, 2003 4:54 PM
Clueless proves to be poorly named...

They'll ALWAYS hit a spot where we least expect it. That's why it's called 'terrorism.'

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...