Disney Perm Flight Restrictions going away?

Learnin’ to fly… said:
IMO, what this helps with is the newly minted (or not so new) pilot who wants to show the fam/friends the sites. [...] And we do have regulations for other airspace’s that are similarly situated. Take National Parks for example, where there is effectively a standing TFR between 500 ft AGL and 2000 ft AGL.
Click to expand...
In the same general area as Disneyland we have Knott's Berry Farm, Universal Studios, Griffith Park Observatory, the Hollywood sign, DTLA, and so on. Popular sites for sightseeing, yet no TFR. And what's to stop the stall/spin scenario you pose from happening at 3001 ft?

Nauga,
who put it all behind
 
Learnin’ to fly… said:
I need no law or regulation to prevent me from using a plane to do harm to others or property. Similarly, I need to law or regulation to prevent me from using a firearm to do harm to others or property. I would venture to say that is true of all in this thread.

Equally, no law or regulation is going to prevent a criminal from doing what they intend to do. That is the nature of a criminal.

This rationale makes it easy to say - “why have any laws at all”.

Because, we believe that, on the whole, they either prevent avoidable (non-criminal) accidents OR provide crimes/violations on which society can charge someone caught before the “final” act (since proving intent to commit a large crime is often harder than proving the commission of many smaller predicate crimes) or in addition to the final act to increase punishment.

Disney - while not my cup of tea - is a significant point of interest.

IMO, what this helps with is the newly minted (or not so new) pilot who wants to show the fam/friends the sites. Low altitude. Circling. Airspeed bleeds off. SA is compromised. Spin/stall/smoking hole. Bad for everyone. VERY bad for GA when all the Karen’s chime in. Easy for me to say ‘small sacrifice’ as it is 800+ nm from where I fly….but…

And we do have regulations for other airspace’s that are similarly situated. Take National Parks for example, where there is effectively a standing TFR between 500 ft AGL and 2000 ft AGL.
Click to expand...

That is certainly in the statistical "noise" level of events likely to occur by not having a TFR over Disney. The TFR didn't exist prior to 2003, and it wasn't raining aircraft into the park prior to that. They simply saw an opportunity to control the skies above them under the guise of "national security theater" and took advantage of it. FAA/Congress took it hook, line, and sinker as they knee-jerk reacted to anything aviation-related after 9/11.
 
Lest my earlier comment be misinterpreted ...

-- I have no love lost for the Di$ney empire, and have no doubt that the Florida and California "T"FRs are the result of excessive political clout.
-- The Anaheim "T"FR creates inordinate and potentially dangerous hassles for VFR navigation in very complex airspace.
-- That said, I wouldn't want to see a daisy-chain of banner-tows set up shop at that location, either, for the same reason.
-- There ought to be a sensible middle ground, but I fear the powers that be have little or no incentive to do anything about it.
 
nauga said:
In the same general area as Disneyland we have Knott's Berry Farm, Universal Studios, Griffith Park Observatory, the Hollywood sign, DTLA, and so on. Popular sites for sightseeing, yet no TFR. And what's to stop the stall/spin scenario you pose from happening at 3001 ft?

Nauga,
who put it all behind
Click to expand...

Yep. You are 100% correct. You’ll never account for everything, but that probably should not stop you from accounting for the things that you can reasonably account for. That applies to both the location comment as well as the altitude stall/spin.

Running my checklist and briefing my take-off at the hold-short line does not prevent 100% of the things that could happen on takeoff. Still a good thing to do.

Where do you draw the line? Not sure. I tend towards the lower end of tolerating restrictions. To me, this one passes a reasonability test due to the nature of iconic location (the others you list fall short of that with perhaps the exception of the Hollywood sign) combined with a very large gathering of folks on the ground (which the Hollywood sign lacks).

Washington DC, Statue of Liberty, Mt Rushmore, and yes…Disney. Iconic Americana that generally has lots of folks on the ground. Seems reasonable to treat those airspace’s in accordance with what they are. IMO.
 
Brad W said:
have you ever sat on a bench and watched folks walking around the "happiest Place On Earth"? Most people you see aren't all that happy.
Click to expand...
Exactly one time. Never again. Why anyone would voluntarily participate in that experience AND pay for the (dis)pleasure is beyond me.
 
Learnin’ to fly… said:
Spin/stall/smoking hole
Click to expand...
There's no such thing as a mouse stall. You're thinking of moose stalls, which are only a problem at Walley World. :)

Has anyone done a FOIA request to see what was filed to start the nonsense of the Disney TFRs? It could just as easily have been a hypervigilant FAA drone as a Florida politician who originally requested it. It's dumb in any event, and mostly serves to protect advertising revenue streams rather than national security in any meaningful sense. But who was the original dummy behind it?
 
WRT banners. I understand it's a great time-building tool for certain pilots, but wow.

In today's world - I just can't imagine the advertising value proposition.

To advertise a product/service via an, essentially, illegible banner in the sky. Next in place is the still-happening RDS ads.
 
I had no idea the angst against the banner tows. I guess I'm just a millennial too glued to my phone to look up and be upset about advertising I can't read.
 
Pilawt said:
Other parks in the country don't have this kind of airspace issues. There's a lot of B, C and D airspace in the immediate area.

View attachment 117200

The Disneyland "T"FR complicates matters for local flights (especially to/from FUL) trying to remain clear of the B, C and D airspace, or simply transit from one of the local airports to another. But at the same time, traffic loitering over Disneyland would create its own set of problems.
Click to expand...
Were there lots of crashes involving banner tows before the TFR?
 
Rgbeard said:
WRT banners. I understand it's a great time-building tool for certain pilots, but wow.

In today's world - I just can't imagine the advertising value proposition.

To advertise a product/service via an, essentially, illegible banner in the sky. Next in place is the still-happening RDS ads.
Click to expand...
If it's illegible, you aren't doing it right.
 
Lindberg said:
Were there lots of crashes involving banner tows before the TFR?
Click to expand...


No, just a war. (And therein hangs a tale...)

IIRC, Disney started getting pizzy about banner tows when they opened Pleasure Island back in the early 80s. It was an adult restaurant/night club complex that competed directly with Church Street Station in downtown Orlando. Rosie O'Grady's, a bar/restaurant in Church Street Station, advertised using "Rosie O'Grady's Flying Circus," a fleet of Ag Cats that did banner towing. Colonel Joe Kittinger was part owner of Rosie's and ran the flight operation.

Disney really hated seeing biplanes towing Rosie banners over their property, believing (rightfully so) that Rosie's was taking away their business.

I worked as a live-show audio tech for Disney back then, mixing live bands in the Magic Kingdom. Some of Disney's musicians used to moonlight at Rosie's. Disney tried all sorts of ways to stop it, the musician's union got involved, contracts got waved around, demands and threats flew back and forth, and AFAIK the entertainers went right on working both spots.

There were all sorts of other skirmishes, all involving Disney trying to cripple competitors.

This TFR has never been about security. It's just another tactic in Disney's war against competition. And I imagine Disney would even sell banner-tow advertising rights to some businesses if they could figure out a way to license out the TFR.
 
Last edited:
AKiss20 said:
Disney world has on average 60,000 people in it and covers 39 square miles. That’s 1500 people/sq mile. Half of the land isn’t used yet apparently so double it to 3000 people / sq mile. That’s still just under a third of a place like Staten Island. We don’t see an enormous TFR over all of Staten Island do we? It’s about equal to the population density of cities like Charlotte or San Antonio. Last I checked I’m free to fly laps over places like that and much cities that are 10x denser (and have done so many times).

meanwhile stadiums like yankee stadium can have 50,000 people on 0.0375 sq miles or a density of 1,333,333 people / sq mile. Not saying that’s still a valid argument for the stadium TFRs but at least from a density perspective stadiums are outliers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_World#:~:text=The property covers nearly 25,000,which half has been used.

https://disneyparknerds.com/disney-world-attendance-by-day/


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density#:~:text=The population density is calculated,square mile of land area.

https://www.governing.com/archive/population-density-land-area-cities-map.html?_amp=true

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee_Stadium
Click to expand...

Not often I hear people use my childhood home as a point of reference...go Stat Nylan!
 
Brad W said:
have you ever sat on a bench and watched folks walking around the "happiest Place On Earth"? Most people you see aren't all that happy.
Click to expand...
I've enjoyed my visits. But my wife and I agree: We'd hate to come there with kids.

Next-door neighbor (widower in his '70s) goes to LA every weekend. He's a member of one of the Disney clubs, and usually spends at least one day there.

Ron Wanttaja
 
If you want to turn the public over GA just start flying low level helicopters over Disneyland. If this discussion can just get off of “me” and think of the public.
 
skyking3286 said:
If you want to turn the public over GA just start flying low level helicopters over Disneyland. If this discussion can just get off of “me” and think of the public.
Click to expand...

with all the noise at those locations, would anyone hear the overflights?
 
Bob Noel said:
with all the noise at those locations, would anyone hear the overflights?
Click to expand...
The Animal Kingdom is not under the TFR - last time I was there, I heard a big radial overhead and looked up to see some sky writing. Perhaps at the Magic Kingdom the noise would have been less noticeable.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Why? Is it really much of a disruption? I've seen in banner towing used pretty extensively in other parts of Florida/California/etc. along the beach fronts as well as around football stadiums on game days (obviously outside the TFR area). It doesn't really impact me at all (nor has it ever prompted me to engage in whatever product was being peddled).



With all of the noise/rides/tram/audio being piped around Disney at ground level, you'd never hear the aircraft flying overhead anyway.
Click to expand...

Disney is a large private property that provides an appealing skyline, provides entertainment, and controls what advertising occurs there. I believe they should have the right to control flying billboards over their property. And honestly I don’t need to seen them mucking up the view from the beach either.
 
Clip4 said:
Disney is a large private property that provides an appealing skyline, provides entertainment, and controls what advertising occurs there. I believe they should have the right to control flying billboards over their property. And honestly I don’t need to seen them mucking up the view from the beach either.
Click to expand...

Lol, since when is an amusement park, hotel, and large expanses of parking lots an "appealing skyline". I'm of the mind that private businesses don't get to dictate airspace rules, nor do we pick who gets to have a TFR and who doesn't. Banner towing is about the least of my annoyances at an amusement park, ballgame, or a beach.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
Disney is a large private property that provides an appealing skyline, provides entertainment, and controls what advertising occurs there. I believe they should have the right to control flying billboards over their property. And honestly I don’t need to seen them mucking up the view from the beach either.
Click to expand...
That describes a lot of neighborhoods, too. Does the Hunter’s Bridge at Avon Crossing HOA get to ban aerial ads?
 
Last edited:
ateamer said:
That describes a lot of neighborhoods, too. Does the Hunter’s Bridge at Avon Crossing HOA get to ban aerial ads?
Click to expand...
And beaches too which are ground zero for banner tows.

I don’t like banner towing either, I find it invasive and gross, but we should be consistent as to whether and where it is allowed, not leave it up to which private entity has the deepest pockets and political sway (which is basically a redundant statement in our political system)
 
ateamer said:
That describes a lot of neighborhoods, too. Does the Hunter’s Bridge at Avon Crossing HOA get to ban aerial ads?
Click to expand...
Not much banner towing going on over neighborhoods. The banner guys target tourists.

Given the opportunity we would have banner towing over Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon.
 
Clip4 said:
Not much banner towing going on over neighborhoods. The banner guys target tourists.

Given the opportunity we would have banner towing over Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t appear to be anything prohibiting banner towing over either. The Grand Canyon has an SFRA, but banners are not mentioned, so unless something besides 93U amd SFAR 50-2 says no-go, they can do it.
 
It’s all politics,with all the parks in Florida the Disney tfr doesn’t make much sense. Why not protect all the parks. Most pilots avoid the area because of all the controlled airspace in the area.
 
I worked at Disney in the late 90s. At the time, management was weirdly obsessed with stopping the banner tows. It was a constant topic of discussion for park ops internally. I mean they HATED it. Tried for years to stop it every way they could think of, but the FAA told them to pound sand every time. Then 9/11 happened and they found their opportunity...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top