As they say in the movie..... "Cabolaro"....Cowboy....
We have pilots in our group....
What are the regs covering this type of work.
Paul
On 2/8/15 10:41 AM, Wm5l wrote:
I can only speak from limited experience about crop dusters. I grew up
farming cotton, corn, wheat and milo in Hill county in high school. We
used aircraft a lot to spray the crops. I knew one pilot that was
killed when showing off, doing stunts in his duster like flying below
telephone lines. They used to laugh and brag about coming back to the
strip and having Cotton boll's hung in the landing gear. Personally I
am fascinated by aviation but some of the antics displayed by some of
these pilots are insane! Just last year while living next to the
airport in ElDorado, TX I went over and spoke to one of the guys
dusting one afternoon while he was refilling his chemicals that he was
spraying. I asked him why I never heard him on 123.0 calling approach
and departure on my scanner as it is an uncontrolled airport. He
stated "we don't ever do that we just do our own thing". It would seem
to me that some common sense or basic safety practices might eliminate
all this nonsense. Jim WM5L.
Sent from Big Jim's iPhone
On Feb 8, 2015, at 10:07, Mike Simpson - Midcom, Inc. <mike@midcom.org
<mailto:mike@midcom.org>> wrote:
Paul, I also find it somewhat ironic and a bit amusing that the onus
for rule implementation (and even enforcement?!?!) of this bill,
should it become law…gets tossed right back in your very own
department’s lap! Wonder if that will mean you personally, since you
are their “go-to” comms guy!
If so, your current “Army of one” will need some serious new manpower! J
*From:*Paul Gilbert [mailto:ke5zw@wt.net]
*Sent:* Sunday, February 08, 2015 9:58 AM
*To:* dillo@armadillo.org <mailto:dillo@armadillo.org>; L L bahr
*Cc:* towertalk@contesting.com <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>;
Armadillo Mailing List
*Subject:* Re: [DILLO] Re: [TowerTalk] New Proposed Texas Tower
Regulation
We had a 35 foot wooden telephone pole at the office in Anauhac. It
use to have a lowband ant and a VHF DB264 on it. I had to do a FAA
determination and then circularize it for approve at 45 feet due to
the proximity to the local airfield.
Even without the antennas, the FAA wanted a "steady burning red
light" on it.
We built a tower in Winnie and removed the pole.
However, this bill really has nothing to do with the FAA jurisdiction.
In fact the FAA told the crop dusters, that the towers are legal
under their rules and nothing else could be done by the FAA
Interesting fact, the tower owners COULD voluntarily paint and light
the towers.
Mostly what the dusters are after are the meteorology towers located
in wind farms which are often located in crop fields.
Drive around West Texas, you will see them everywhere.
But if you paint and light voluntarily, from that day on you are
required to do so just as if you were mandated to do so.
Now this bill proposes to create a state level of mandated marking
and painting (interesting they did not include lighting, but I guess
crop dusters do not fly at night) to towers that the FAA will not
extend mandated marking to.
It seems to me this is overreach by state rule into a federal rule
area...among other issues.
I also thought crop dusters had certain procedures they had to follow
before dusting a field....like go look at it for obstructions and
have spotters?
Paul,ZW
On 2/8/15 8:50 AM, Joe Jarrett wrote:
To further this discussion, even a relatively short tower at
a residence could be at an illegal height. It has to do with how
close you are to an airport. Do you know how close your nearest
airport is? I bet you don't.
There is a test available on the Internet called Towair. Google
Tow air, enter a lat and long and a tower height and the software
will tell you if your tower is legal.
For example, I ran a 40 foot tower in Lakeway about 200 yards
back into where all the houses are. Towair told me that such a
tower would require registration with the FAA and might require
lighting. Some of the houses there are close to 40 ft high!
Joe Jarrett
Texas State APCO Frequency Coordinator
----- Original Message -----
*From:*Mark Stennett <mailto:Mark@stennett.com>
*To:*Kim Elmore <mailto:cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net> ; L L bahr
<mailto:pulsarxp@embarqmail.com>
*Cc:*towertalk@contesting.com <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
*Sent:*Saturday, February 07, 2015 10:38 PM
*Subject:*[DILLO] Re: [TowerTalk] New Proposed Texas Tower
Regulation
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
73 de na6m
-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Elmore <cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net>
<mailto:cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net>
To: L L bahr <pulsarxp@embarqmail.com>
<mailto:pulsarxp@embarqmail.com>
Cc: "towertalk@contesting.com"
<mailto:towertalk@contesting.com> <towertalk@contesting.com>
<mailto: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
>
>
>
> 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
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com <mailto:TowerTalk%40contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|