Restricted Airspace

[Travisma 1,317]

I saw this on the I Love Disney Camping FB page.

 

Not exactly sure what it means since the restriction has been in place since 2003 and there are similar ones over other parks and stadiums.

 

Some of them are to protect "intellectual property" so other companies can't get a birds eye view of what their competitors are doing, and some are to prevent low flying planes from annoying park goers with all of their noise.

 

 

Number : FDC 4/3634 Download shapefiles Issue Date : October 27, 2014 at 1457 UTC Location : DISNEY WORLD THEME PARK, ORLANDO, Florida Beginning Date and Time : October 27, 2014 at 1500 UTC Ending Date and Time : Permanent Reason for NOTAM : Temporary flight restrictions for Special Security Reasons Type : Security Replaced NOTAM(s) : 9/4985: TO REFLECT A TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (TSA) WEBSITE UPDATE AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING AIRSPACE WAIVERS.   Jump To:       Affected Areas
Operating Restrictions and Requirements
Other Information   Affected Area(s) Top   Airspace Definition:     Center: NAVAID(000) (Latitude: 28º24'45"N, Longitude: 81º34'20"W)     Radius: 3 nautical miles     Altitude: From the surface up to and including 3000 feet AGL     Center: On the ORLANDO VORTAC (ORL) 238 degree radial at 14.8 nautical miles. (Latitude: 28º24'45"N, Longitude: 81º34'20"W)     Radius: 3 nautical miles     Altitude: From the surface up to and including 3000 feet AGL Effective Date(s):     From October 27, 2014 at 1500 UTC     To Permanent

 

The part that was just enacted  on 10/27 now makes it a permanent ban.

 

It could just be some government bureaucracy issue with wording.

 

Maybe temporary expires after 11 years?

 

It's probably nothing, but it'll give the tin hat people something to talk about.

[djsamuel 322]

Over the last several months, I've noticed several low flying aircraft over Disney World, defintiely under 3,000 ft.  I wondered about it since I assumed the ban was still in place.  Perhaps this is an attempt to re-emphasize the ban.  I also wonder if the penalties for violation are different if the ban is permanent.

 

There are many instances right now of increasing security all over, so this may just be part of it.

[DaveInTN 3,247]

Did this stuff start after 9/11?  

 

I read an article yesterday about how security at government facilities nationwide is being beefed up....not sure what is leading to that but like djsamuel said maybe this is part of that?  Maybe there is some government intelligence (is that an oxymoron?) leading to this.  Or, maybe not.  

[keith_h 420]

Did this stuff start after 9/11?  

 

"government intelligence (is that an oxymoron?)"

 

Do you even have to question that statement? 

[Travisma 1,317]

OK, I had tried to post the following, and when I hit post, everything disappeared, the screen went blank, and I couldn't get back on FF for over 10 minutes.

 

We are not alone!

 

So in checking the facts about the permanent ban I came across this article.

 

Forgive me if the formatting gets a little messy...

 

 

Rules bent to give Disney no-fly zone

Request rushed through Congress

 

May 12, 2003|By Sean Mussenden and Henry Pierson Curtis, Tribune Newspapers: Orlando Sentinel.

 

 

ORLANDO — Walt Disney Co. won a rare prize on the eve of the Iraq war when federal officials ordered the long-term closing of the airspace above its theme parks in Florida and California ostensibly to protect against terrorist attacks.

 

Walt Disney World and Disneyland were granted security zones that put them on par with a select few potential targets, including President Bush's ranch, nuclear submarine bases and military stockpiles of sarin gas.

 

Without public debate or even a request from the new Homeland Security Department, Congress bent its rules to help Disney secure the no-fly zones.

 

The decision has angered pilots who accuse Disney of manipulating terrorism fears for a commercial aim: to close public airspace over its parks as a way to ban competitors' aerial advertising planes and sightseeing helicopters.

 

"Disney tried to make that restricted airspace for years but couldn't until now because the airspace belongs to the people, not to a corporation," said Joe Kittinger, a longtime Orlando aerial advertiser. "They've achieved it now under the guise of national security, and there is absolutely no reason for it."

 

The Disney no-fly zones have been a subject of annoyance to Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley, who complained when "Mickey and Minnie" got the designation in March before downtown Chicago got it. The no-fly status for Chicago was later lifted, but Disney's is authorized for a year and could be extended.

 

Disney officials insist they did nothing wrong in persuading lawmakers to order the Federal Aviation Administration to provide special protection.

 

"The sole and exclusive motivation for seeking these restrictions is for the safety and enjoyment of our guests," said Disney spokeswoman Leslie Goodman, explaining that "enjoyment" includes keeping out "banner ads from trial lawyers" and pilots "buzzing the parks."

 

"Disney park officials have wanted to eliminate air traffic over the parks long before 9/11," said Phil Boyer, president of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, which has asked the FAA to cancel Disney's no-fly zones. "Did they employ lobbyists to convince FAA to finally ban general aviation in the guise of security?"

 

The Disney no-fly zones--barring planes from going below 3,000 feet within 3 miles of the center of the parks--have proved effective against airborne advertisers who try to lure customers away from Disney to nightclubs and attractions. At their height, the Orlando air wars daily featured small planes towing banners, blimps and single-wing skywriters.

 

Disney got what it wanted with only 65 highly technical words tucked into a 3,000-page spending bill approved by Congress this year. Not one of those words was "Disney."

 

In February, House and Senate leaders sat down in private to work out differences in their competing versions of the $397.4 billion spending bill.

 

According to three sources familiar with the private meetings, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who leads the committee that oversees all federal spending, and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), in charge of the subcommittee on transportation spending, were instrumental in adding the Disney provisions.

 

Protections extended

 

While the bill originally offered flight protections only to some sports stadiums during games, it was amended to require the FAA to put the no-fly zones over Disney parks as well.

 

"Mr. Shelby and Mr. Stevens had some particular interest in adding Disney," said a House source. Shelby sought to include the provision in a private meeting with his House counterpart, Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Ky.), the source said. A spokeswoman for Shelby said the senator did not specifically ask for Disney to be added.

 

An Appropriations Committee spokesman for Stevens, another spokeswoman for Shelby and a Democratic Appropriations spokeswoman all confirmed it was added when the bill reached the Senate but did not say by which senator.

 

A second House source familiar with the process said Shelby and Stevens had been influenced by Disney lobbyist Mitch Rose, who had been one of Stevens' most trusted aides for almost a decade. Rose, who didn't return calls for comment, has worked for Disney since 2000, when he left Stevens' office.

 

In discussions with Congress, a Disney lobbyist--it's unclear whether it was Rose or another lobbyist--said the no-fly zones were needed to protect against terrorism, the House source said. There was no mention of banner planes, he said.

 

"They were arguing for it on the basis of security," the source said. "We weren't interested in doing it for banner ads."

 

Records show the company's political action committee has given Stevens $10,000 and Shelby $2,000 since 1998.

 

The Disney provision passed Congress on Feb. 13 without a request from a single national security agency. It had not been reviewed by the congressional committees that are supposed to sign off on homeland security and transportation policy changes, an apparent violation of congressional rules.

 

The Mouse doesn't just speak, it ROARS.

[Retired and Happy (Ken) 101]

Whether for security or enjoyment, it's kinda nice not to have aircraft buzzing around the Parks.  Strictly justified?  Who knows?

[mouseketab.....Carol 1,261]

Whether for security or enjoyment, it's kinda nice not to have aircraft buzzing around the Parks.  Strictly justified?  Who knows?

Agreed!

[AC in A2......Aaron 693]

A small plane with a bio/chem agent crashed into a heavily populated place like that could do so much damage........I'll take the no fly zones.

I have zero issues with it.

[Travisma 1,317]

As far as security against an attack goes, the restricted airspace doesn't do a thing.  I imagine a interceptor would take well over a 1/2 hour or more to get into the area, and that's after it was determined there was a threat (plane already crashed/sprayed).

 

I think the only area that is actively patrolled is DC.

 

This is strictly to keep nuisance planes away, and I agree it's a good think not having to hear or see a banner plane flying overhead every 10 minutes.  They would drown out the speedway sounds.

[Grumpy and Grandma 739]

One or two F-16's made a pass Sat or Sun. So maybe there was an issue and that is why the info was re-posted.

[AC in A2......Aaron 693]

I'll just say that no-flys can work for security but you have to be willing to spend money on flight hours for pilots instead of social engineering programs and foreign aid to people who would like to kill us. Would it ever be fool-proof? No. But then neither is the so-called security at the White House apparently. Since this is not the debate section though, i will bow out of this thread now.

[Gots2pitt.. Jeff 64]

A small plane with a bio/chem agent crashed into a heavily populated place like that could do so much damage........I'll take the no fly zones.

I have zero issues with it.

I don't think a no fly zone will prevent that.

[AC in A2......Aaron 693]

I don't think a no fly zone will prevent that.

As you can see in my post above....i am done debating this no matter how many people come out of hiding.

Nice to here from you Jeff.

[Lou... 3,118]

i will bow out of this thread now.

 

i am done debating this no matter how many people come out of hiding.

 

Pants on fire!

[ependydad...Doug 176]

I wonder how wide the airspace restrictions go. We did a helicopter tour out of Clermont and it flew near parts of WDW.

[bord1niowa......Curt 79]

Could it have anything to do with Disney considering using drones for the fireworks?  I had read about that and it could Make a Messy situation if they were up there and they had helicopters and balloons etc over the area.

[devores 382]

One or two F-16's made a pass Sat or Sun. So maybe there was an issue and that is why the info was re-posted.

They were F5s also known as T38s. T38 is the trainer version and F5s are used in interceptor training. They are a version of the Mig so they use them in air to air combat training against the F16 and F15.

 

As for the No Fly, http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_3634.html The previous TFR (NOTAM 9/4985) was a temp and had to be renewed every 90 days to remain valid. This new one is permanent and wording was added to include unmanned aerial vehicles as well. 

 

It extends 3 nm around WDW property and up to 3000 ft agl. Its nothing to get excited about. The old waiver (NOTAM 9/4985) was issued in 2009 to address some wording in the original version (NOTAM 3/2122 issued March 2003). So since 2003 there have been flight restrictions over WDW.

 

You may see aircraft get close to the limit, but as long as they do not cross that golden line they are fine. Some are allowed to cross through: RESTRICTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO THOSE AIRCRAFT AUTHORIZED BY AND IN CONTACT WITH ATC FOR OPERATIONAL OR SAFETY OF FLIGHT PURPOSES, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND AIR AMBULANCE FLIGHT OPERATIONS. FLIGHTS CONDUCTED FOR OPERATIONAL PURPOSES OF ANY DISNEY WORLD EVENT AND VENUE ARE AUTHORIZED

 

This new NOTAM just eliminates the need to renew every 90 days,

[mouseketab.....Carol 1,261]

Is it sad that I've never been in the military and know what every single one of those acronyms mean......

 

I think I've been in the defense industry waaaay too long..... (but it pays well)

[Lou... 3,118]

Is it sad that I've never been in the military and know what every single one of those acronyms mean......

 

Who doesn't know what a NOTAM 9/4985 is, or my favorite, the NOTAM 3/2122.

[devores 382]

Who doesn't know what a NOTAM 9/4985 is, or my favorite, the NOTAM 3/2122.

Its very simple Lou,

 

NOTAM = Notice to Airmen.

 

The numbers can be deciphered as well. The first number is the year it was issued. The last digits are the sequence. So 9/4985 is the 4985th NOTAM issued in 2009. This particular NOTAM is an FDC NOTAM. It is issued by the flight data center and is a change to what would normally be standard procedures.

[Lou... 3,118]

Its very simple Lou,

 

Of course it is.....................for anyone who just happens to have decades in the USAF and has dealt with stuff like that.

 

NOTAM = Notice to Airmen.

 

Never would have guessed that.

 

What I did guess was "no overflying today again morons". I was close.

[twiceblessed....nacole 433]

I'll just say that no-flys can work for security but you have to be willing to spend money on flight hours for pilots instead of social engineering programs and foreign aid to people who would like to kill us. Would it ever be fool-proof? No. But then neither is the so-called security at the White House apparently

 

I agree completely.

 

See... I'm not debating :)

[devores 382]

Of course it is.....................for anyone who just happens to have decades in the USAF and has dealt with stuff like that.

I actually learned that in flight school when I was going for private pilots license.

[Lou... 3,118]

I actually learned that in flight school when I was going for private pilots license.

 

That too.

[DaveInTN 3,247]

I interpreted NOTAM as meaning that you couldn't fly over WDW in the morning, but it was ok in the afternoon and evening.