Why such a secret? Conspiracy??

alviolin said:

If they want, I'll come and hold up track also.

---

(in Grandpa Simpson voice) "Can I go home yet?!?"

------------------
1. Kumba 2. Millie 3. Mantis 4. Lightning Racer 5. Wicked Twister (front seat)
"The key to a happy life is moderation" -- Jon Stewart

You know, I kind of wrote off an earlier rumor about the FAA having an issue about the height of the ride but I heard it again from a more reliable person. Anyone else hear anything legit about this? That would be a better explanation of the hault of the vertical construction.

The only thing that makes me doubt the rumor is that I have a hard time believing CP would build a ride without having everything approved to the letter. Didn't a park out in California build a WT type shuttle ride that ended up being too high? I think they redesigned it for last year.

Yes, it was V2 at Six Flags (no surprise) Marine World. This is what RCDB had to say

V2 was closed for the start of the 2002 season while it was modified to be 150 feet tell. There is a 150 foot height limitation imposed by the city (the V2 was about 186 feet tall).

Anyway, I don't think that CP would start building without everything pre-approved, but I could be wrong. I believe that they are not doing much tower construction just to confuse us. They are doing a good job too!
*** This post was edited by rollercoastO3 11/8/2002 9:42:02 AM ***

A note though...

Semi-Vertical Velocity out at SFMW had to be redesigned because it violated city zoning laws...not FAA regulations.

------------------
James Draeger
-Captain Sarcasm

i am a student pilot but im not too sure on how the FAA regulates heights of buildings, but heres something to ponder-

no building or structure can be built above 2000 feet AGL (above ground level), that is federal airspace and must not be obstructed. also, buildings within a certain class airspace (airspace is broken down into A, B, C, D, E, G- class B and C being for major airports in major cities that have control towers) might have certain restrictions,. such as class B and C. im not sure what airspace sandusky lies under because i dont have those maps, but i would guess (because of MF) that it doesnt lie within B or C airspace. now, i believe there are two airports located near CP and if any of the approaches for the runways would be obstructed by a ride like this, then it would be a problem. i could probably get ahold of some maps of the area (and im not talking road maps) and maybe look up airspace restrictions. ill see what i can get

I know that Chicago had a building in the works (pre-9/11) that would to be half a mile high. They wanted the record back since Taiwan broke the record (their buildings really arent higher). If they were side by side, the people on the top floor of the Sears Tower could look down on the top floor of the Tawain Towers (I forget their names). The Sears tower also has a big radio tower added, but that isn't factored into the building's height. The Tawian Towers, build spires on top of their buildings to put the building height past the Sears Tower.

I was pretty sure when I heard about it, they wanted it to be a half mile high or higher. This of course would break the 2000 foot barrier, so now I get to my question.

Is it possible for the major cities to be granted special height clearance for their buidlings?

------------------
Launch: Tophat: Twistage: Brakes...

...Denial is an ugly thing.

I think its stupid to build buildings that high....If something like this happens again, Planes get highjacked and flown into some buildings, the buildings WILL collapse no matter what...with the intensity of the heat and the impact of the huge planes, no matter what you do they will collapse. And it would be a repeate of 9/11, They should build buildings at a reasonable height.

Although i REALLY think they need to improve our skies, to prevent any future attacks.

------------------
- Dennis

Totally off topic, but...

It is unlikely that another plane hijacking qua missle would succeed. Why? Because the passengers would take the plane down first. The "old" hijacking rules were to do what the hijacker tells you, so no one will get hurt. The rules have changed. Witness the Pennsylvania crash; as soon as the passengers on that plane realized what was up, they grounded the plane in the wilderness.

As a frequent flyer (50K+ miles last year alone) I'm convinced that current security "measures" are only to make people feel safe about flying so that the airline industry doesn't end up in even worse straits. Until very recently, the "security" in airports was still woefully poor. There have been any number of exposes counting the number of weapons that pass through our new tougher "security" undetected. To be fair, though, now that DTW has gone over to TSA-employed screeners, I've noticed they are much more careful than the airline-employed folks were. However, they still don't hold a candle to security in some of the other countries I've flown through.

Bottom line? There will be other attacks. They won't look like 9/11. You can bet the farm.

No, the FAA doesn't care how high a building, tower, etc. is. Unless it's by an airport. Planes in normal flight are in absolutely no danger of flying into a roller coaster (I think the legal minimum flight altitude is 500' above ground, but it's been a while since I learned it so I may be wrong). The FAA does care about the color of radio towers (NOT rollercoasters) and requires lights on everything (notice the blinking one on MF?). So no, the FAA doesn't regulate the heights of stuff, granted they aren't in the flight path of an airport.

And about waiting on the announcement so no one else can build a taller ride, come on. Coasters take years to design. They absolutely, positively, without a doubt had steel dragon in the works before MF was announced. MUCH before MF was announced. CP could have announced it a year early or not at all and SD would still have been the same.

--James

All airspace over 2000' is owned by the Gov't and is used for airline travel.