Disney Site Exclusion Zone
Thread Starter
Cool as a moosp
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
From: Mostly Hong Kong
Disney Site Exclusion Zone
Anybody know anything about the 5km aircraft exclusion zone that Disney are putting around their new entertainment site?
I heard that the HK government has prepared the law at Disney's contractual request, but are denying it exists or at best that it is "confidential."
Such a zone would cover the departure path of 07R/L and upset GFS as they transit to the south of Lantau. Plus it interferes with private flying HKG, such as it is.
I heard that the HK government has prepared the law at Disney's contractual request, but are denying it exists or at best that it is "confidential."
Such a zone would cover the departure path of 07R/L and upset GFS as they transit to the south of Lantau. Plus it interferes with private flying HKG, such as it is.
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,609
Likes: 0
From: Asia
moosp
If this is true, a quiet word by the HKIA authority in the ear of the government might convince them it is a bad idea and not in their interest, especially if it costs them tourism dollars because of the projected reduced capacity this would cause the airport. Talk about bighting your nose off despite your face.
If this is true, a quiet word by the HKIA authority in the ear of the government might convince them it is a bad idea and not in their interest, especially if it costs them tourism dollars because of the projected reduced capacity this would cause the airport. Talk about bighting your nose off despite your face.
Thread Starter
Cool as a moosp
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
From: Mostly Hong Kong
Yes, a first look at the departure performance shows that the RTOW on 07L/R would be reduced on most aircraft, (irrespective of the height of the exclusion zone.) but as the government says that the subject is "confidential" it is difficult to know.
On another thread that I posted this (in Private Flying) a reply reported that Paris has an exclusion zone that goes up to 5,000 ft so if that were applied to Hong Kong that includes everything on approach and departure to CLK.
What is worrying is the cavalier way an American commercial organisation has come into a foreign country and with the conivance of the local government bought our airspace for their own ends.
I appreciate that noise is a consideration for tourist ventures. So why don't they talk to the local operators about their requirements and our airspace? Under the current Air Navigation Order the 1500ft overfly restriction would have been enough to satisfy the most stringent noise requirements over what is in itself is a noisy, boistrous entertainment.
GFS needs to transit to south Lantau on casevac operations, will they be allowed to enter the Disney zone? Private flying at present uses that part of Lantau island - why should an exclusion zone of such magnitude be required when a 1500ft overflight height already in the legislation would cover any noise abatement problems?
Cultural imperialism or for the greater good of the people? You be the judge.
On another thread that I posted this (in Private Flying) a reply reported that Paris has an exclusion zone that goes up to 5,000 ft so if that were applied to Hong Kong that includes everything on approach and departure to CLK.
What is worrying is the cavalier way an American commercial organisation has come into a foreign country and with the conivance of the local government bought our airspace for their own ends.
I appreciate that noise is a consideration for tourist ventures. So why don't they talk to the local operators about their requirements and our airspace? Under the current Air Navigation Order the 1500ft overfly restriction would have been enough to satisfy the most stringent noise requirements over what is in itself is a noisy, boistrous entertainment.
GFS needs to transit to south Lantau on casevac operations, will they be allowed to enter the Disney zone? Private flying at present uses that part of Lantau island - why should an exclusion zone of such magnitude be required when a 1500ft overflight height already in the legislation would cover any noise abatement problems?
Cultural imperialism or for the greater good of the people? You be the judge.
Joined: Apr 2002
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 734
Likes: 28
From: Australia
Hello Kitty vs Mickey Mouse.
Well Fantasy Land at 5,000' to 5km should liven up the 25L/25R approaches.
Wind shear and now 'Goofy' double slam dunks....should make the old 13 IGS at Kai Tak in Typhoon Signal 3 look like a piece of cake!
This must be a wind up....
Wind shear and now 'Goofy' double slam dunks....should make the old 13 IGS at Kai Tak in Typhoon Signal 3 look like a piece of cake!
This must be a wind up....
Thread Starter
Cool as a moosp
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
From: Mostly Hong Kong
It is no wind up - but the size and height are still being kept "confidential" by the government. Even some in CAD standards are in the dark about it.
Maybe they will cut a segment off the northern side for CLK traffic?
Maybe they will cut a segment off the northern side for CLK traffic?
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,124
Likes: 16
From: GC Paradise
“Uncle Tung, we need to keep the vertical and lateral limits of the Disney Exclusion Zone secret for security reasons.”
“Good idea... Ah, is it because of the terrorists or the toxic waste?”
“Terrorists? I was thinking about the pilots!”
“What, are they becoming a problem again?”
“No, I think that they have been beaten into submission.”
“Does the Disney Exclusion Zone mean we’ll have to move the airport again?”
“Depends, how are construction company shares going at the moment?”
“Good idea... Ah, is it because of the terrorists or the toxic waste?”
“Terrorists? I was thinking about the pilots!”
“What, are they becoming a problem again?”
“No, I think that they have been beaten into submission.”
“Does the Disney Exclusion Zone mean we’ll have to move the airport again?”
“Depends, how are construction company shares going at the moment?”
Last edited by FlexibleResponse; 29th December 2003 at 15:04.
