Does Tinkerbell require an exemption as well?
There’s a Disney World no-fly zone? I had no idea. It must either be a fairly minimal range or unenforceable, since I’ve seen the Jesusy plane messages every time I’ve been there. I’ve been there on Gay Days a few times over the last few years and there always was some hideous hate-mongering in the sky.
I don’t have a problem with a no fly zone over Disney or for them to operate their own drones for their laser/firework/skyshows.
I know there are fans, but AFAIC Disney == Mos Eisley. Spending money there funds all their endeavors - I’d trade in their work with any property to hand it over to the Public Domain.
The fact that they have a no fly zone & the audacity to expect a double dog exemption so only they can fly there - is indeed like salt… & will most likely be granted.
Tink is a total psycho. She tricked the Lost Boys into trying to murder Wendy. You do not want to mess with the Tink.
That’s usually outside the no-fly zone. Around the interstate and Pleasure Island (Disney Springs) shopping mall off I-4.
You see it going in…but not at the parks themselves.
Wow, a 3.5 mile exclusion radius near two airports? That’s kindof a jerk move.
http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_3634.html
I’m not saying that Disney should ever have been given the no-fly zone in the first place (dunno) but it’s not exactly hypocritical of them to ask for an exemption, even if the rationale was some bogus national security thing. Disney knows that Disney’s drones won’t be launching terrorist attacks against Disney’s theme park.
For better or for worse, once everyone else has been banned from the airspace for Disney’s sake, it’s hard to see why Disney shouldn’t be allowed to do things in that space that it would be legal for them to do anywhere else (like low-flying, line-of-sight drones).
So why don’t they say, “Welp, it seems like President Obama kept us safe from terrorists, unlike President Bush. No need for that security any more, thanks!”
It’s well known that terrorists have great respect for no-fly zones, and would never think of infringing on them.
Imagineers™ can hide SAM batteries in all sorts of unexpected places…
(None of them are as clever as the ones who snuck a fully functional LGM-118A silo into “Cinderella’s Castle”; but that’s a tough act to follow.)
Is it just me, or does that picture make Mickey look like something monstrous?
I’d be inclined to suggest that it strips away the mask that usually conceals Mickey’s true form, and its horror; but yeah, he does look pretty terrible there.
I account among my blessings that my kids never took to Disney, not the movies and never heard a pip from them about wanting to go to that place. Oh, sure, they make up for it – economically – by wanting to go to far off places for fancy water slide parks, but I’m good with that.
Until Disney’s Mickey-Mouse Drones get hacked, that is.
Gee, if the park had won an easement against advertising banners, I’d be OK with that. But the blanket no-fly zone seems like something a bully would do. Kinda like the collateral damage from their copyright trolling for their beloved mouse…
Lets face it. US law grants sole control of airspace above 500 feet to the FAA. Since Disney couldn’t buy the sky to control advertising, they bought legislation instead. It’s an end-run around public airspace and in effect a sky-grab. I don’t exactly blame them for trying it, it’s their nature as a corporation, but I sure blame the government for handing them a public commons on a silver platter.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
