A bill proposed by Texas Republican Congressman Troy Nehls seeks to revoke the no-fly zone above Disney theme parks, which has been in place since 2003. The bill is part of a larger effort by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis to dissolve the Reedy Creek Improvement District, a special district set up by the state legislature to manage the affairs of Walt Disney World Resort.
The no-fly zone was established in 2003 as a security measure for guests and cast at Disney parks. It prevents aircraft from flying within three miles and 3,000 feet of the resort’s airspace. However, Nehls argues that the no-fly zone is an outdated measure that limits access to airspace and imposes unnecessary restrictions on pilots. He believes that revoking it would open up new opportunities for aviation and tourism in Central Florida.
Disney has argued against dissolving the no-fly zone, citing safety concerns for its guests and cast. From a Disney Spokesperson, they said: “We believe that this restriction is still necessary to ensure our guests’ safety and security while visiting our parks. We are monitoring developments closely and will continue to work with Congress as needed on this issue."
Other stakeholders have also voiced their opposition to the bill, citing potential risks posed by aircraft flying over densely populated areas such as Disney theme parks. For example, John Cox, president of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), said: “We understand why some people want this restriction lifted but we must be mindful of public safety when making decisions about airspace access."
Despite these arguments against dissolving the no-fly zone, Nehls remains confident that his bill will pass through Congress.
The fate of Nehls' bill remains uncertain at this time; however, it is clear that both sides are passionate about their respective positions on this issue. As developments unfold in Congress regarding this matter, it is important for all stakeholders involved to stay informed about any changes or updates related to the proposed legislation.
Comments