Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] New Proposed Texas Tower Regulation

To: "Kim Elmore" <cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net>, "L L bahr" <pulsarxp@embarqmail.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] New Proposed Texas Tower Regulation
From: "Mark Stennett" <Mark@stennett.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2015 22:38:51 -0600
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
No tower is exempt from FAA siting requirements, regardless of height. You 
wouldn't put a 10 foot tower at the base of a runway, would you? All 
structures, permanent or temporary have to pass a number of FAA tests, 
including slope. Until recentl, I worked in broadcast radio doing 
engineering work for the last 30 years, 20 of those on a corporate level. We 
acquired a radio station once that had a studio microwave tower that was 60 
foot tall. Even though it was at least 10 feet shorter than the surrounding 
tree line, it was required to bear an Antenna Structure Registration Number 
and be top lit due to proximity to a local airport. It did not pass the 
slope test.

This is a very sloppy bill. It would be far easier to leverage the FAA to 
tighten up the temporary structure rules than to try to make these guys 
tower experts. The tail is trying to wag the dog here.

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/gisTools/gisAction.jsp?action=showNoNoticeRequiredToolForm
 
[https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/gisTools/gisAction.jsp?action=showNoNoticeRequiredToolForm]

73 de na6m
-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Elmore <cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net>
To: L L bahr <pulsarxp@embarqmail.com>
Cc: "towertalk@contesting.com" <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 12:30:54 -0600
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] New Proposed Texas Tower Regulation


This comes directly from wind observing towers for wind farm siting. They 
are all under 300' tell and do not subject to FAA obstruction marking 
requirements. These are erected essentially overnight and several aerial 
applicators have run into them because they have no obstruction lighting or 
markings.

The curtiledge languages essentially exempts almost all of us.

Kim N5OP

"People that make music together cannot be enemies, at least as long as the 
music lasts." -- Paul Hindemith

> On Feb 7, 2015, at 11:55, "L L bahr " <pulsarxp@embarqmail.com 
[mailto:pulsarxp%40embarqmail.com]> wrote:
>
> FYI
> Lee, w0vt
>
>
> http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=84R&Bill=HB946 
[http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=84R&Bill=HB946]
>
>
>
> Please read and pass this to all Amateur Radio Operators who have towers. 
This “COULD” be detrimental to all of us. There are things I am not 
certain of that I would like answers to or to clarify so that we could write 
to our legislature to either kill this bill or more narrowly define it so 
that it is not “ALL INCLUSIVE” in nature. It is my understanding that 
the Crop Duster Association is behind this because some pilot either through 
stupidity or an accident killed himself by flying into an obstruction. (I 
have many times pulled off the road and watched these guys. Several times I 
have witnessed them doing stupid reckless maneuvers) While I am an advocate 
for safety and common sense, I do not think everyone should “PAY” for 
the actions of a very small few. If a bill like this must exist, it should 
define a specific distance around the “WORK/FLY ZONE” and not every 
tower in the state. We should write our representatives to kill or modify 
this bill.
>
>
>
> SECTION 1.  Subchapter B, Chapter 21, Transportation Code
>
>
>
> Section 21.071 (a) 1, 2, 3 clearly define “MOST” Amateur Radio towers.
>
>
>
> Section 21.071 (b) 1, 2 “APPEAR” to exempt many Amateur Radio Towers 
BUT does it? What is  the State’s legal definition of “curtilage”?
>
>
>
> Section 21.071 (e) 2, “APPEARS” to exempt Amateur Radio Operators as 
“a facility licensed by the Federal Communications Commission or any 
structure with the primary purpose of supporting telecommunications 
equipment” but then goes on to specifically define commercial radio 
service. The “and” seems to separate the two?
>
>
>
> Section 21.071 (f) 1, 2 “REQUIRES” notice and registration. You know 
FEES and PERMITS will soon follow.
>
>
>
> Section 21.071 (a), (b) appears to make it retroactive after September 1, 
2016.
>
>
>
>
>
> Are there any lawyers among us who could speak to this and guide us in 
writing a proper request to our representatives regarding this?
>
>
>
>
>
> What are your thoughts?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Larry Lowry
>
> Radio System Manager
>
> (936) 538-3770 Shop
>
> (936) 538-3711 Direct
>
> (936) 538-3775 Fax
>
> imagesWD5CFJ
>
> qrcode.17489151
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com [mailto:TowerTalk%40contesting.com]
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk 
[http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk]
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com [mailto:TowerTalk%40contesting.com]
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk 
[http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk]
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>