PDA

View Full Version : Small-plane pilots protest Disney no-fly zones



Pages : [1] 2 3

justagrrl
05-15-2003, 07:37 AM
From today's OC Register:

Small-plane pilots protest Disney no-fly zones (http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=39265&section=LOCAL&subsection=LOCAL&year=2003&month=5&day=15)



Flights are permitted over every U.S. amusement park except the two
Disney resorts. The airspace around Disneyland in Anaheim and the
Disney properties in Orlando, Fla., will remain no-fly zones at least until
February, when the policy that created the restrictions is due to expire....



"...Congress created the FAA to control the airspace, but the way things are going, Mickey and Goofy and NASCAR and
baseball control the airspace," said Dobry, who operates out of Long Beach Municipal Airport. "We are not a terrorist threat,"
he said.

Dobry and his colleagues in the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association say small planes can't carry weight such as heavy
explosives that would be used in a terrorist attack. They point to trucks and large vehicles, which are the weapons used in
most terrorist attacks, and wonder why those aren't restricted.

HBTiggerFan
05-15-2003, 09:34 AM
*sniff* *sniff* Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it people! :rolleyes:

Yes, DL may be using terrorism as an excuse to ban the advertising but I am glad! I hated seeing planes flying over the parks, espcially after 9/11. They did make me nervous, but not nervous enough to stop going to the parks. If SFMM and KBF wanted to ban flying over their parks I am sure they could ask and say "Well Disneyland is doing it so we want it too" .

sgtdilbert
05-15-2003, 09:35 AM
As a pilot and huge Disney fan, all I have to say is that the TFR (temporary flight restriction) that is currently in place over Disneyland only hurts the little guy.

The first reaction most people have is that yes, this is a good move for safety. Well, it doesn't add up in the final analysis.

All of the commercial flight traffic (passenger carriers) are on IFR (instrument flight rules) and can fly anywhere they are given clearance by air traffic control. This includes the Disneyland TFR.

The little guys, like me, that fly VFR (visual flight rules) are the only folks that are impacted by this TFR. I'm sorry, but a small airplane poses little danger. That idiot in Florida who ran a Cessna into a building a few years back proved how little damage a small airplane can do.

If you look at the chart of So. Cal, it's incredibly difficult to get around in an airplane. Throwing a TFR right in the middle between Fullerton, Los Alamitos and John Wayne's air space makes it incredbly difficult to navigate the area. More dismaying, is that if you make the mistake of clipping a TFR, you most likely will have your licensed revoked, and you will never fly again.

Now I have been to Disneyland and have seen pilots flying too low. The FAA already has regulations against this (must remain 1000 ft above ground level in a populated area), and these pilots should be punished.

But for the FAA to grant Disneyland a TFR, in my opinion, for largely political reasons is an infringing on my rights as a United States citizen. This is still a free country, and as long as flight is conducted in a safe manner, we should be able to enjoy our freedoms.

And do I need to mention that terrorists who intend to cause harm in any aircraft are not going to care about any airspace or any rule that makes the general public feel "safe"!?!?

Frustrated,
s.

hbquikcomjamesl
05-15-2003, 11:30 AM
Perhaps then, if it's hard to navigate such a congested area on VFR, we need to ban all VFR flying in the area.

At any rate,"sgtdilbert," much like the Libertarian Party, you are ignoring the most basic principle of life in a free society: the "next man's nose" principle.

One man's freedom to swing his arm must end where the next man's nose begins.

But even the jerks who deliberately overfly DL during the July 4th or New Years Eve fireworks displays are fairly tolerable compared to something far worse, that the FAA isn't doing scat about: the total jerks who make non-emergency overflights of Hollywood Bowl during concert hours.

Besides which, even if all theme parks and outdoor cultural venues were made permanent no-fly zones during operating hours, you, as an American aviator, would still have a level of freedom to be envied by even the aviators in other FREE countries.

Tref
05-15-2003, 12:33 PM
Originally writ' by hbquikcomjamesl

One man's freedom to swing his arm must end where the next man's nose begins.


Hmm, well, I thought I had a point to make about this topic, but I think you pretty much hit the nail on the proverbial head*

Personally, I would be quite happy never to see a plane flying overhead Disneyland. Now if this is constitutional or not, I do not know, but I do know, the park would be better off without them buzzing over.

*no heads were harmed for this post.

I.r.

sgtdilbert
05-15-2003, 12:57 PM
Explain to me how my original post had anything to do with "the next man's nose." How is flying over Disneyland Resort > 1000' AGL harming anyone? You hear a noise for a 20 - 30 seconds? Is that really it? So you're telling me that you don't notice any other noises, such as the constant jet traffic in and out of John Wayne? You're saying that when you enter one of the parks, that you expect silence! That simply can't be. Say it ain't so! :)

And a free society is based on give and take. While you may have to endure the sound of an aircraft engine flying by for a few seconds, the society benefits from the jobs created by general aviation, the tax money paid on all of the aircraft, sales of fuel, delivery services, Angel Flights (flying sick people to hospitals that couldn't make the trip by ground at no charge), Federal money for land/business improvements around airports, etc.

The fact is that the TFR isn't stopping aircraft from flying over the park. I was at the park yesterday for a couple of hours and saw several aircraft flying over the park. TFR or not, it's still going to happen because they have clearance from ATC.

And you, "hbquikcomjamesl" (why the quotes anyway?) are ignoring the fact that some rotten apples spoil things for the rest of us. 99% of the pilot community goes out of there way to co-exist with the public and to avoid being a noise nuisance. I'd invite you to come to the monthly FAA meetings at various airports around So. Cal. There you will find pilots, controllers and FAA personnel all learning and working together on flying safer and being "good neighbors" to the public at large. It's ironic that we find a bad apple ala Paul Pressler at Disney resorts and rail against him until we can't see straight, yet we can't apply the same logic to other groups of people.

Hollywood Bowl is on the IFR approach into Santa Monica airport. These "jerks" are doing as the FAA instructs them, nothing more, nothing less. Most pilots I know, having knowledge of any event such as you describe, would do their best to steer clear while not violating any airspace regulations.

In the end, I think most of the public thinks that pilots are rich folks with time and money to burn. In reality, most aren't rich, and great majority are young adults working their way into airline jobs. Without the little planes out there, there'd be few ways for young pilots to gain the valuable flight experience at a reasonable cost before moving up to an airline job. The only exception that comes to mind is flying in the military.

I’m not expecting to change anyone’s mind, but I think it would be cool if those folks taking the time to read this thread consider that there are benefits to general aviation and that us pilot types aren’t all bad people. I love Disney, I can’t be all bad! :)

s.

refurbmike
05-15-2003, 01:39 PM
sgt: I'm behind you all the way. I am really disappointed by these regulations.

and hbquikcomjamesl: Make sure you stand at least twenty feet from me, because even though you're not hitting my nose yet, I don't even want to put you close enough to have the change, got it?

* formerly a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party

innerSpaceman
05-15-2003, 02:56 PM
I don't think the public annoyance factor has very much to do with noise; rather with vision. The regs, though doing nothing to combat terrorism, do stop the joyriders from buzzing Disneyland from the air for their own or their passengers amusement, and they do stop the barrage of unwanted advertising.

Yes indeed, some bad apples ruin it for the whole bunch. It's a fact of life.


So, if you pilots can't fly over Disneyland, there's really no one to blame but your fellow pilots who have abused the privilege.

refurbmike
05-15-2003, 03:32 PM
So should Disney ban all APs since some of them are rather obnoxious?

Sorry, I'm not a fan of guilty by association.

innerSpaceman
05-15-2003, 03:37 PM
APs are obnoxious to the CMs, not to the guests.


As soon as low-flying planes bother the CMs and not the guests, let me know and I'll consider that AP ban.

sgtdilbert
05-15-2003, 03:41 PM
Wow. Flying over Disneyland is not a privilege. To paraphrase, Disneyland does not have the _right_ to the airspace over the park. That belongs to the United States.

I still live in a free country, where as long as I am engaged in any activity where I am licensed by a regulatory organization and I’m safe, I should most definitely not be restricted because a big company says so. And that goes for your boaters. And your fishermen. And your rock climbers. And your Glamis desert rats. And your *insert any activity here that may be encroached upon in the future*. After serving my time in the Marine Corps, I certainly am not going to give away my freedoms or yours without due consideration, even if I don't see much value in the activity itself.

I’m sorry, but I find the argument about unwanted advertising terribly ironic considering where you’re at. Disney branding is world renown and there’s more advertising at the Disneyland Resort than you can shake a stick at (I’ve tried, and my arm got way too tired from shaking that stick at all the advertising and branding). :)

I'll leave you with this quote found within Disneyland:

“I believe each individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor so far as it in no way interferes with any other man’s rights.” –Abraham Lincoln

How did Disneyland develop the _right_ to the airspace from ground level to 3,000’? How come you don’t have this right on your own property?

And if anyone is wondering, I’ve been a Republican my entire life.

Tref
05-15-2003, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by refurbmike
So should Disney ban all APs since some of them are rather obnoxious?

Sorry, I'm not a fan of guilty by association.

APs should especially be banned if we catch them flying low and buzzing other guests.

I am not a big fan of guilty by association, either. I prefer their other hits, like cherish and along comes mary.

I.r.

Tref
05-15-2003, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by sgtdilbert
And if anyone is wondering, I’ve been a Republican my entire life.

Speaking for myself, that is another MP mystery solved! Now, maybe I can finally get some sleep.

duffman03
05-15-2003, 05:15 PM
All very interesting, but mostly missing the point...

1) The US Gov't did not ban Disney flyovers because they were annoying to the guests - they banned it (supposedly) because of the security risk. As much as it may be annoying, Disneyland has to deal with that the same way football games, beaches and other crowded areas of land do

2) Disney was given a privilege no other company is given, and manipulated the 'security' fears to get something they had been lobbying for years to get.

3) Other national monuments, places of public gathering and even cities of strategic importance did not receive the privilege even though several of them requested it

4) Disneyland as a target of 'terrorism' was exploited by the company for its own benefit - to shut down competitive ads (particularly in Orlando). Other monuments, companies were also considered 'risk' targets but airspace restrictions weren't allowed.

5) The air space restriction was buried in another bill to pass through Congress. The Homeland Security Dept. didn't even request it.

Disney spokespeople even said they did it for the enjoyment of the guests - but they used the terrorism threat to make it happen. (article in Orlando Sentinel - http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/custom/tourism/orl-asecdisney11051103may11.story )


But congressional sources familiar with Disney's lobbying effort say the company discussed only security concerns, leaving critics to question whether the company was honest in its dealings.


Is it good not to have planes flying over Disney - sure!

But, the true corporate political machinations behind the scenes show the manipulative nature of what they did.

Using terrorism fears to profit is despicable - we all got angry when the oil companies did it. Why be so forgiving with Disney?

duffman03
05-15-2003, 05:31 PM
Sorry if my post turned into a bit of a rant (as I re-read it).

Disneyland is a wonderful place, my kids and I go there at least once a year. I love Disney movies and have since I was a kid.

But as a corporation, Disney has become egotistical and manipulative - they've lost sight of what made them strong in the first place.

Someday, the shareholders or board of directors or SOMEONE will realize what's happened to the company - there's a reason the movies continue to perform poorly, their videos are retreads and imitations of old work, the network is last in the ratings and the parks are in a state of decline - they've all lost the heart they were based on.

The profit obsession of the 90s has turned on them, as their customers have lost their patience.

Hmmm... I turned an apology for a rant into another rant! Oh well, what're you gonna do?

Morrigoon
05-15-2003, 07:42 PM
SgtDilbert: I can tell you that a VFR flight at 1000' WOULD impact me at the Hollywood Bowl - what's your position on that? Isn't plane deterrence the whole point behind those kleg lights the HB uses each night during the concerts?

How would you feel about a compromise? What if they raised the minimums over that particular patch? 1000' AGL is pretty darn low IMHO. Also remember that DL flyers are subject to the same restriction, so any overhead photography by DL is limited as well (unless you're saying that people flying under Part 133 ops are exempt from it, which I doubt, but I could be wrong).

cstephens
05-16-2003, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by innerSpaceman
APs are obnoxious to the CMs, not to the guests.

I know this has nothing to do really with the topic at hand, but that's not true - I've seen APs be obnoxious to guests, not just to CMs.

Kevlar
05-17-2003, 09:17 AM
There is a lot of grief here for a Disney Group.

Why so much intolerance towards airplanes.

First off, if you hate small planes so much, at least try reading:

http://www.gaservingamerica.org/

Second, if we all start sitting around arguing about restricting everything that bothers others, I can guarantee you that airplanes - even those that are used for nothing but pleasure flying - will not be the first to go. so you might want to consider your hobbies, even amusement parks, and whether they may be under attack next.

As a pilot, I know how important planes are to our economy and way of life. No one wants to ban the noisiest planes, because those are the ones that tend to be the most loved (Vintage Aircraft, Police, Medical, and Commercial Aircraft)- its just hard to make that realization. Your average Cessna or Piper is much quieter. Newer planes from europe, like the Diamond Aircraft planes, are even more quiet becuase of noies restrictions in europe (where they have to send pilots to us for training because general aviation is almost dead due to all the restrictions)

The plane that many people want to get rid of is the percieved "rich guys toy". While many rich people do own planes, they are not the only ones. Lots of everyday folks enjoy flying. You can buy a plane for less than a new SUV, and best yet - in 5 years, when the SUV is half its value, the plane will likely be worth the same amount of money. Most pilots rent the planes from small, family owned businesses.

Those of us who fly for fun pay for instruction on a regular basis. My instructor today, is your commercial pilot tomorrow. Without me, you have to pay to train him yourself. Goodbye cheap Southwest tickets.

As we get more experienced, most pilots start using their skills for volunteer activities like flying medical patients to and from rural areas and big cities for treatment, flying terminally ill children to brighten their days, flying search and rescue missions or energizing young people about math and science by showing them the practical applications.

There is a pilot in your community, ask around, and go talk to them about aviation. She or he will likely be able to explain how things like the Disney TFR, are killing general aviation.

karldotcom
05-27-2003, 09:27 AM
I was at a World Series game last year at Anaheim Stadium when one of those silly banner planes lost power....it broke formation and made a landing over at The Pond. There is no need to spam the visitors of the Magic Kingdom all day long. It is kind of nice to get a break from all the overflights here in SoCal. (I live in the path of BUR and get LA City helos flying over me at all hours...)

I was at DCA on Friday, and the only aircraft I saw were what I presume a LifeFlight helicopter and a PD helo.

And for those of you who think it is just a ploy, the Anaheim PD officers working onsite all have nylon bags hanging from their utility belts containing gas masks for a chem attack. Most people wouldn't notice them, but there was some type of incident in the Grand Californian Friday night, and 6 Anaheim officers and 5 Disney security showed up. All the officers had their masks with on their belts...if they weren't taking the threat seriously, those would be left in their cars, etc.

I seem to remember some kid in the OBL fan club buzzing Homested AFB before crashing his "light plane" into an office building in Florida...

screamin4ever
05-27-2003, 10:47 AM
I saw a small plane and a helicopter fly over Disneyland last month. Seems like the no fly zone is being breached anyway.

"Only hurts the little guy."----Bad government, bad!

Come on. Security is the #1 job of the government. For a change they are doing something that the Constitution clearly gives them authority to do. I say let's celebrate!

sgtdilbert
05-27-2003, 12:40 PM
Like I said earlier, as long as any pilot has permission to from air traffic control, they can fly through the TFR. All the arguments about "it's great that there won't be any planes any more" aren't true. There will be planes, just not as many.

The TFR extends to 3000' above ground, so anyone can fly there without restriction.

You didn't read any of my earlier posts if you're argument is still false: national security. To sum up:

1. A light airplane poses little threat to the park (see the idiot in Florida who crashed into a building).
2. Since when are terrorist going to play by the rules? "Oh, we can't go there, because the FAA says so." Yeah, right.

It just amazes me that people buy this drivel from the government because it doesn't impact them. One day, it will impact something that you enjoy, and it will be frustrating when everyone tells you to stop overreacting.

And the FAA didn't impose this restriction. Congress did. Read: Disney lobbiests did. That really makes me sick. I love Disney, but that is an aborrahent use of power.

s.

Laffite
05-27-2003, 12:41 PM
There are 2 types of flying, VFR and IFR.

I've learn VFR and is working on an IFR license, or more commonly know as "I Follow Roads"

Warm Regards,
Preston.

sgtdilbert
05-27-2003, 01:52 PM
Laffite,

I assume you're referring my reference to TFR?

TFR = Temporary Flight Restriction

s.

Tigertail777
05-27-2003, 08:49 PM
I saw on one of the big national news station things (I think the one with Dan Rather) about 5 days ago that they are trying to repeal this ban of planes over Disneyland, because many people in the government even are beginning to view this as Disney taking advantage of the situation to get what they want. As far as I am concerned it is nice to have no planes, but not at the expense of such an abuse of power. And an abuse of power is exactly what they were calling it on the news, and I fully agree.. there are other places of equal interest to terrorists, that are not enjoying this no fly zone restriction, why should Disney be treated any different? I am appalled at how manilipulative Disney can be these days.

MsDisney
05-27-2003, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by sgtdilbert


1. A light airplane poses little threat to the park (see the idiot in Florida who crashed into a building).
2. Since when are terrorist going to play by the rules? "Oh, we can't go there, because the FAA says so." Yeah, right.


A light plane carrying chemical weapons could do a LOT of damage. That, my friend, is a threat.

A terrorist not abiding by the rules is fair game to be shot out of the sky, then. That's how you tell it's a terrorist and not a hobbiest out to take the cousins for a zip over the Magic Kingdom. That's the point of the NFZ. If all of the responsible pilots stay out of it then it is easier to identify a true threat.