I get why they want to do this, but it would certainly be silly up here in
the northeast. Our trees are taller than 50' so shorter towers would just
make the woods blink.
73,
Sean WA1TE
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 16:08 Donald Chester <k4kyv@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It looks like this one was sneaked in over us, but it has the potential
> of severely affecting amateur radio towers and antennas. I have seen no
> mention of this from ARRL, and the news just appeared a couple of days ago
> in discussions on QRZ.com and the Tower Talk reflector.
>
> New rules would require alternating orange and white paint and
> obstruction lighting on towers and poles over 50' tall. Apparently
> meteorological testing towers and cellphone masts have been popping up
> unexpectedly in rural areas serviced by crop dusters, and this has become a
> concern not only by crop dusters, but other low-flying air traffic like
> medical evacuation and news-reporting helicopters. Towers, poles and masts
> between 50' and 200', below the current minimum height (except near an
> airport) of 200 feet, out in open fields, have resulted in collisions with
> the masts or their guy wires.
>
> As part of new FAA funding legislation, submitted as H.R.636, "In
> addition to medical reforms, the legislation requires the FAA to develop
> regulations for marking towers between 50 and 200 feet tall to improve
> their visibility to low-flying aircraft and help prevent accidents."
>
>
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/636/text#toc-H30D0818F111541BFBEF0B8CAE5702C4B
> or
> https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr636/text
>
> This the organisation that has lobbied for the legislation:
>
> http://www.agaviation.org/Files/policyinitiatives/Advocacy%20Papers/Tower%20Issue%20Paper%20FINAL.pdf
>
> Here is some of their recent propaganda:
>
> http://www.agaviation.org/files/policyinitiatives/Tower%20Public%20Outreach/ad2.pdf
>
> http://www.agaviation.org/files/policyinitiatives/Tower%20Public%20Outreach/ad6.pdf
> http://www.agaviation.org/towerspolicy
>
> The location definitions and the exclusions MAY let most amateurs out of
> the requirement, if the tower is located fairly close to the house and
> associated structures (the farmstead curtilage): (ii) EXCLUSIONS.—The term
> “covered tower” does not include any structure that— (I) is adjacent to a
> house, barn, electric utility station, or other building...
>
> Towers with a shelter (dog-house in broadcast engineering parlance) near
> the base to house the antenna tuning unit might be excluded. It all
> depends on how the bureaucrats define "adjacent", "building", "curtilage",
> etc.
>
> http://thelawdictionary.org/curtilage/
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/curtilage
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/curtilage
>
> The motivating concern with this legislation is isolated towers out in the
> middle of a field on prime farm land that may be serviced by crop sprayers,
> which explains why the 'curtilage' of a house or farm outbuilding
> supposedly exempts the tower. The danger we face is the propensity of
> government agencies to enact 'one-size-fits-all' wording in laws and
> regulations, so that in fact they are still applicable in situations
> totally removed and unrelated to the purpose behind the legislation.
> Typical of the government to use a back hoe where a garden spade would have
> done the job.
>
> It would be VERY expensive for most hams to paint their towers and mark
> them with obstruction lighting, or install obstruction markers on wire
> antennas. This has the potential of affecting those of us living in rural
> areas as severely HOAs and zoning ordinances are affecting hams in urban
> residential areas. It could particularly be a problem for topband
> operators, since our most effective antennas are likely to exceed 50 feet
> in height.
>
> Don k4kyv
>
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|