Should Permanent TFRs become Restricted or Prohibited Airspace?

ARFlyer

En-Route
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
3,187
Location
Central AR
Display Name

Display name:
ARFlyer
I got talking to a fellow CFI on this topic today while sitting around. We both have noticed that there are local TFRs that hang around more or less permanently.

Wouldn't it just be easier to make the airspace Restricted or Prohibited? Most of these TFRs are small and low altitude. A good example is the semi-permanent TFR west of Texarkana over the Red River Army Depot. It is there most of the year for either weapon or building demo.
 
I got talking to a fellow CFI on this topic today while sitting around. We both have noticed that there are local TFRs that hang around more or less permanently.

Wouldn't it just be easier to make the airspace Restricted or Prohibited? Most of these TFRs are small and low altitude. A good example is the semi-permanent TFR west of Texarkana over the Red River Army Depot. It is there most of the year for either weapon or building demo.

There is no practical difference between a TFR and a restricted area for a pilot. My *guess* is there is a difference for ATC. I would think s TFR is more ATC's Juridiction whereas a restricted area ATC would need to consult with controlling authority. I'm positive that's over simplified, so maybe our ATC folks can join in.

AFAIK, a prohibited area is an entire different ballgame. Nothing goes through, not even an IFR with a clearance. Pilot must still stay clear even if IFR and clearance takes you through.

That's my take on it...
 
I got talking to a fellow CFI on this topic today while sitting around. We both have noticed that there are local TFRs that hang around more or less permanently.

Wouldn't it just be easier to make the airspace Restricted or Prohibited? Most of these TFRs are small and low altitude. A good example is the semi-permanent TFR west of Texarkana over the Red River Army Depot. It is there most of the year for either weapon or building demo.

Disney is a prime example....:mad2::mad2::mad2:
 
Disney is a prime example....:mad2::mad2::mad2:

With all due respect... Who cares about the Disney TFR? Call up tracon and you are likely fine. I've never understood the big to-do about that.
 
Then just cancel the TFR.....:dunno::dunno::rolleyes:
I don't see what's wrong with positive control..??

To be honest, I live in Orlando and have visited Disney for years. I always HATED the low flying airplanes. It was truly a distraction. Banner towers, Sky writers.. It was never Joe pilot trying to land ISM. It was a nusance. Now, did the aircrews have a right to do it? Yes. Does the vacationer paying big bucks for a once in a lifetime trip have the right to not be bothered?? Probably not from a legal standpoint... But it's still annoying none the less. I am perfectly fine with craft transiting for a nearby airport. I do not like a commercial advertisement in the sky (noise included).
Now, the reason they received the TFR is for security. At least that's the reason they gave. That one I'm not buying, but I'm still glad it happened.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't it just be easier to make the airspace Restricted or Prohibited?

Good God, NO! That is what they originally hoped for!

"We'll call it temporary even though we really want to take away that freedom of travel permanently. Later on, it will be easier to change them to permanent or restricted."

They should all be forced to undergo a sunset review on a 2 year basis, where they have to show there is good cause for them. And the ones that are accepted must show that the times and sizes are justified.

Chomp, chomp, chomp! - that is the sound of your airspace being gobbled up! Every one of them increases your chance of being subject to a violation.
 
No point in cluttering sectionals with any more permanent airspace.

The hazard TFRs such as Red River don't meet the requirements for prohibited airspace. I suppose the activity is some what close to restricted airspace but there's a heck of a lot more going on in restricted areas than just some UXO going off.
 
The Disney TFR is permanent because Congress passed a law requiring the FAA to make the TFR permanent. The law doesn't say to prohibit flight over Disney, it says to make specific NOTAMs permanent:

SEC. 521. (a) IN GENERAL .—The Secretary of Transportation—
(1) shall, without regard to any fiscal year limitation, maintain in full force and effect the restrictions imposed under Federal Aviation Administration Notices to Airmen FDC 3/2122, FDC 3/2123, and FDC 2/0199...


So we have permanent NOTAMs, not restricted areas.


-Paul
 
Then you'll get people circling over it staring at the ground, talking to no one.

It's not nice to rain aluminum on a theme park.

People can still do that, just a little higher up.

That TFR serves no purpose, IMO.

BTW, Disney is petitioning the FAA to be exempt from the TFR they begged for on "safety grounds", so they can fly hundreds of drones around the park. I guess the don't even really believe their own fear mongering.
 
People can still do that, just a little higher up.

That TFR serves no purpose, IMO.

BTW, Disney is petitioning the FAA to be exempt from the TFR they begged for on "safety grounds", so they can fly hundreds of drones around the park. I guess the don't even really believe their own fear mongering.

It serves a HUGE purpose from a Disney customer standpoint. I agree nothing from a security standpoint. It's simply too small to ever stop anything.

As far as Disney petitioning... So what??? The (hidden) purpose was to enhance guest experience. The drones will accomplish that. Looking at it from the supposed "security" side, again, so what?? Is Disney going to bomb their own parks??
 
If a bunch of drones start buzzing around, it seems like the next step would be to pull one out of the back of an SUV in a parking lot and try to get it lost in the crowd.
 
If a bunch of drones start buzzing around, it seems like the next step would be to pull one out of the back of an SUV in a parking lot and try to get it lost in the crowd.

You are not familiar with Disney apparently...
 

Disney will spend millions on orchastrating the drones.. Patterns coriagraphed perfectly. Rehearsed up the wazoo. All with transponders with GPS tracking. They DO NOT do things minor league. There is no way a rogue drone would get in there unless it had some stealth technology.
 
I think the (too many) permanent TFRs should be allowed to go away. Including the one that Disney got put up so that banner tows wouldn't distract people at their parks like they do along the beach. I'm usually too busy doing things in the beach to be bothered by the banners, when I'm not watching the plane to see what is flying by anyway. Wouldn't bother me while at the park, either. Security, nothing--Disney wants neither distraction nor competition for their paying guests' money. Think about it, Disneyland doesn't even have a toll free phone number . . . .
 
I think the (too many) permanent TFRs should be allowed to go away. Including the one that Disney got put up so that banner tows wouldn't distract people at their parks like they do along the beach. I'm usually too busy doing things in the beach to be bothered by the banners, when I'm not watching the plane to see what is flying by anyway. Wouldn't bother me while at the park, either. Security, nothing--Disney wants neither distraction nor competition for their paying guests' money. Think about it, Disneyland doesn't even have a toll free phone number . . . .

Sour grapes??? Wtf does a toll free number have to do with anything????

Disney is about transporting you into an immersive themed experience. It's not a day at the beach.

"Those who understand will never have to ask. Those that have to ask will never understand."
 
Disney is a special one off...

Disney had repeatedly lobbied congress and the FAA to place Disneyland and Disney World within a restricted area. After all, as Kritchlow said, Disney want's their parks to be immersive and they cant control banner towers and sky writers who might advertise a competitor hotel, park or other activity nor did they like the noise and traffic congestion of the non-commercial & commercial overflights and sight-seeing tours.

For years they were repeatedly shot down. The closest they got was in 1998 when they opened Animal Kingdom. They requested again a restriction over the park and the FAA granted a "wild-life noise-sensitive area" which requested but did not require pilots to remain at least 2,000 ft AGL above the area.

In the wake of 9/11, the FAA implemented a number of TFR's including the one over Disney. At the time they were intended to be temporary but Disney decided to change tactics. Instead of trying to get a restricted or prohibited exclusion for Disney, they managed to get exactly what they wanted all while appearing to be in the interest of "National Security" and not once mentioning "Disney" by name by having congress force the FAA to maintain the perpetual upkeep of the existing TFR placed over the park in response to 9/11.

Buried in a 450 page appropriations bill proposed in July 2003 and signed in January 2004, (Public Law 108-199) is the following section:
Section 521(a) IN GENERAL. -- The Secretary of Transportation --
1) shall, without regard to any fiscal year limitation, maintain in full force and effect the restrictions imposed under Federal Aviation Administration Notices to Airmen FDC 3/2122, FDC 3/2123 and FDC 2/0199; and
2) May not grant any waiver or exemptions from such restrictions, except --
A) as authorized by air traffic control for operational or safety purposes;
B ) with respect to an event, stadium, or other venue --
i) for operational purposes;
ii) for the transport of team members, officials of the governing body, and immediate family memers and guests of such team members and officials to and from such event, stadium or venue;
iii) in the case of a sporting event, for the transport of equipment or parts to and from such sporting event;
iv) to permit a broadcast rights holder to provide broadcast coverage of such event, stadium or venue;
and
v) for the safety and security purposes related to such event stadium or venue; and
C) to allow the operation of an aircraf in restricted airspace to the extent necessary to arrive at or depart from an airport using standard air traffic control procedures.


So basically, Congress mandated that the FAA perpetually enforce several post-9/11 "security notams/TFRs" specifically 2/0199 covering high-occupancy events (aka those annoying pop up notams that show up with very limited notice anytime some event draws a crowd) and 3/2122 & 3/2123 covering Disneyworld and Disneyland.

From my research, the FAA doesn't seem to like these TFR's anymore than the pilots... They're a pain to determine if an event will require the TFR, its painful to keep controllers, FSS stations and most importantly pilot aware of the notam given its nature and there is also an incomplete plotting of all facilities large enough to have the required occupancy.

As such, it is possible that despite a pilot doing everything they are supposed to do in a pre-flight obtaining all relevant information, they can land and find out they busted the event TFR because they flew over a stadium that had an unannounced event.

The law also killed an entire cottage industry of banner flyers, sky writers and sight-seeing tours in Orlando; less so in Anaheim.

AOPA is lobbying to have them killed but the TFR is/was temporary and it cannot simply be removed or changed to a restricted/prohibited area by the FAA as congress would still ultimately have to approve the removal of the TFR.

The FDC notams have been superseded by new notams but the new notams refer back to the originals under which the TFR was established. It should be noted that at the same time the sporting event and Disney TFR's were initially created, other TFR notams went out such as 3/2127 which established an ADIZ around NYC and 3/2290 which restricted VFR overflight of Chicago and which allowed Mayor Richard M. Daley to bulldoze Meigs Field in the middle of the night.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't it just be easier to make the airspace Restricted or Prohibited?

The actual answer to your question is No. A TFR notam by definition is temporary and it is within the FAA's authority to issue a TFR notam for any reason as long as it is temporary.

A permanent change to the airspace requires considerably more work including how that change might disrupt traffic flows, create additional noise, complaints or other issues. As such there is a period of public comment on proposed airspace rules.

While the FAA ultimately has the authority to decide how to change the airspace in the US, they go through several rounds of opinion to ensure the airspace does not become too burdensome on controllers, pilots, passengers, homeowners, et al. As such, airspace changes typically involve a "request for comment" period before proceeding to updating maps and the like. Most of the time, the changes involves changing the shape, altitude or speed of an airspace and the FAA is aware they may be "missing" something.

For example, the Class B airspace around PHL was redesigned several times in 2012/2013 because they identified issues with arrivals and departures from satelite airports and they wanted to avoid forcing those airports from having to have clearance into or out of the bravo for takeoff and landing from another airport other than the airport served by the approach/departure facility
 
Good God, NO! That is what they originally hoped for!

"We'll call it temporary even though we really want to take away that freedom of travel permanently. Later on, it will be easier to change them to permanent or restricted."

They should all be forced to undergo a sunset review on a 2 year basis, where they have to show there is good cause for them. And the ones that are accepted must show that the times and sizes are justified.

+100000000000

Chomp, chomp, chomp! - that is the sound of your airspace being gobbled up! Every one of them increases your chance of being subject to a violation.
 
I don't know if it should be made into an R Area or not but frankly, it ought to be charted. I got into discussion with the charting guys with the FAA back in the original DC ADIZ nonsense. Why can't you chart it? We can't chart "temporary" airspace? Well you've darn well done it in the past...remember the purple dot sectionals for the olympics. These showed the special temporary flight restrictions over RFK and Byrd stadium in the soccer prelims.
 
I don't see what's wrong with positive control..??

To be honest, I live in Orlando and have visited Disney for years. I always HATED the low flying airplanes. It was truly a distraction. Banner towers, Sky writers.. It was never Joe pilot trying to land ISM. It was a nusance. Now, did the aircrews have a right to do it? Yes. Does the vacationer paying big bucks for a once in a lifetime trip have the right to not be bothered?? Probably not from a legal standpoint... But it's still annoying none the less. I am perfectly fine with craft transiting for a nearby airport. I do not like a commercial advertisement in the sky (noise included).
Now, the reason they received the TFR is for security. At least that's the reason they gave. That one I'm not buying, but I'm still glad it happened.

Banner towers at Disney are a distraction? It's Disney. Can you even hear them over the other noise? It's not a wilderness experience. Lots of banner towers over San Francisco last weekend. I could hear them but they were not a distraction.

That said, I don't think the problem with drones are going to be their use as weapons or danger to airplanes. Someday soon one of the larger ones will unintentionally go out of control and hit a kid. Then we will hear about it.
 
It serves a HUGE purpose from a Disney customer standpoint. I agree nothing from a security standpoint. It's simply too small to ever stop anything.

As far as Disney petitioning... So what??? The (hidden) purpose was to enhance guest experience. The drones will accomplish that. Looking at it from the supposed "security" side, again, so what?? Is Disney going to bomb their own parks??

It doesn't really matter what their hidden motives are, it matters how they sold it to the FAA. You can't claim aircraft overhead are dangerous, except for *our* aircraft. Not if you are being honest and consistent, anyway.
 
For years they were repeatedly shot down. The closest they got was in 1998 when they opened Animal Kingdom. They requested again a restriction over the park and the FAA granted a "wild-life noise-sensitive area" which requested but did not require pilots to remain at least 2,000 ft AGL above the area.
But, now, the Animal Kingdom is outside the TFR, so you still see sky writers overhead.
 
Banner towers at Disney are a distraction? It's Disney. Can you even hear them over the other noise? It's not a wilderness experience. Lots of banner towers over San Francisco last weekend. I could hear them but they were not a distraction.

That said, I don't think the problem with drones are going to be their use as weapons or danger to airplanes. Someday soon one of the larger ones will unintentionally go out of control and hit a kid. Then we will hear about it.


:yeahthat::yeahthat:
 
Perhaps we should be asking our representatives to explain why we have Permanent TFRs (an oxymoron if there ever was one).
 
For those of you still using paper maps, it might be nice if a "TFR" that is planned to be in place for an entire map cycle could be, you know, depicted on the map the way they are on my iPad. Talk to the FAA... lol

But we don't need more permanently walled-off airspace. Aside from enabling it to be depicted on a map (see above), what would making it permanent accomplish? I already see TFRs on my map.

Regulations are extremely difficult to undo. Make regs only when there is no less permanent or more effective way of doing something.
 
Disney will spend millions on orchestrating the drones.. Patterns choreographed perfectly. Rehearsed up the wazoo. All with transponders with GPS tracking. They DO NOT do things minor league. There is no way a rogue drone would get in there unless it had some stealth technology.

You're not familiar with Disney, are you?

They really don't do all these crazy glamorous things themselves. They dream up new stuff and they operate. They're not builders and they do a lot of things minor league. They don't build their rides, they didn't build the monorail, they don't even build their parks, they contract all of that out. Even the new stuff, like My Disney Experience and MagicBands was done by outside people.

Will they spend millions? Oh yes, because they're going to hire consultants to do it all.
 
I got talking to a fellow CFI on this topic today while sitting around. We both have noticed that there are local TFRs that hang around more or less permanently.

Wouldn't it just be easier to make the airspace Restricted or Prohibited? Most of these TFRs are small and low altitude. A good example is the semi-permanent TFR west of Texarkana over the Red River Army Depot. It is there most of the year for either weapon or building demo.

The downside to making a TFR permanent is the permanency.
 
You're not familiar with Disney, are you?

They really don't do all these crazy glamorous things themselves. They dream up new stuff and they operate. They're not builders and they do a lot of things minor league. They don't build their rides, they didn't build the monorail, they don't even build their parks, they contract all of that out. Even the new stuff, like My Disney Experience and MagicBands was done by outside people.

Will they spend millions? Oh yes, because they're going to hire consultants to do it all.

What difference does it make that they use contractors?
 
You're not familiar with Disney, are you?

They really don't do all these crazy glamorous things themselves. They dream up new stuff and they operate. They're not builders and they do a lot of things minor league. They don't build their rides, they didn't build the monorail, they don't even build their parks, they contract all of that out. Even the new stuff, like My Disney Experience and MagicBands was done by outside people.

Will they spend millions? Oh yes, because they're going to hire consultants to do it all.

Of topic but where do you get that idea from?

Disney is not in the business of construction so of course they dont build their parks or rides as it'd be like an architect acting as a general contractor and building their own house. They might have drawn up the plans and worked out all the details but they'd pay a lot more, take a lot longer and probably have more mistakes if they didnt have someone step in to manage the work crews and building process.

Disney is well known for being secretive and playing things close to the vest in their development of new attractions and they cant control it if they outsourced everything as you indicated. I also can find very little evidence that MagicBands were developed external to Disney and if you can show proof of this, I'd be interested in seeing it.
 
What difference does it make that they use contractors...
...to build Walt Disney Imagineering Research & Development designs? Can't speak to particulars about rides and parks but I know WDI has made some significant advances in robotics and coordinated control, and I expect and "drone" work they do will benefit from it.

Nauga,
and build to print
 
You're not familiar with Disney, are you?

They really don't do all these crazy glamorous things themselves. They dream up new stuff and they operate. They're not builders and they do a lot of things minor league. They don't build their rides, they didn't build the monorail, they don't even build their parks, they contract all of that out. Even the new stuff, like My Disney Experience and MagicBands was done by outside people.

Will they spend millions? Oh yes, because they're going to hire consultants to do it all.

If you mean they contract a construction company to hammer and weld, than right.. They don't build their own rides. That said, WED/WDI was the force and brains behind it.

Don't get me started on Magic Bands.
 
It doesn't really matter what their hidden motives are, it matters how they sold it to the FAA. You can't claim aircraft overhead are dangerous, except for *our* aircraft. Not if you are being honest and consistent, anyway.

I don't believe Disney was looking at it from a safety issue, but more of a guest experience issue.
 
"It's a small world after all... It's a small world after..."

BRRRRRRRRRT!

Horrible song and singers killed, and problem solved. Next!
 
Then you'll get people circling over it staring at the ground, talking to no one.

It's not nice to rain aluminum on a theme park.

Disney would probably find a way to charge the tourists for the aluminum, too.
 
I don't believe Disney was looking at it from a safety issue, but more of a guest experience issue.

Right, but they sold it to the FAA as a safety issue (OMG, terrorists!). They really can't have it both ways. Well, they probably can because Di$ney.
 
I got talking to a fellow CFI on this topic today while sitting around. We both have noticed that there are local TFRs that hang around more or less permanently.

Wouldn't it just be easier to make the airspace Restricted or Prohibited? Most of these TFRs are small and low altitude. A good example is the semi-permanent TFR west of Texarkana over the Red River Army Depot. It is there most of the year for either weapon or building demo.
NO, ! they should be eliminated.
 
Depends on what the "Temporary" in Temporary Flight Restriction means. Or what the definition of "is" is, to paraphrase a famous person. All legalese.

Cheers
 
Back
Top