Roger, K8RI is a pilot and I'm a pilot (there are no doubt others on
this list), though I'm a private pilot and don't fly commercially. I'm a
research meteorologist at the National Severe Storms Laboratory. I have
a bit over 1000 h in light planes flown out of mostly small, public
fields. That said, I know a number of ag pilots and all are consummate
professionals, so I'd like to set a few things straight.
Long gone are the days of drunken yee-haw flying in converted Stearmans,
Waco UPF-7s, N3Ns and TravelAires. The aircraft used today are all
purpose built for the job and are hideously expensive -- the tuboprops
run nearly a$1M each. All aerial applicators fly in VFR under FAA Part
91 regulations. These guys charge based on what's sprayed, how much is
sprayed, the difficulty of the field and the transit distance. Each mile
flown that isn't spraying some sort of product is a wasted pile of
money, so they never go very high because climbing is slower that
cruising, uses more fuel and exposes them to more traffic. They don't
need to fly high because they fly over agricultural fields that aren't
inhabited. FAA regs say they have to keep 500 feet from buildings and
people in sparsely populated areas and that 500 feet is defined as a
radius. They can be 10 ft off the ground and 500 feet horizontally from
people and property while staying perfectly legal.
Their spray patterns are optimized by computer programs and laid out
such that they use GPS guidance, down to a few feet, and many fly using
a kind of head-up display to show them the paths they are to cover and
the most efficient routes to take. They don't fly at night nor in poor
weather. They will regularly fly under wires because that's the only way
they can cover the field; product is often dispensed automatically based
on GPS. I'm aware of at least one accident in which a pilot was been
killed when they encountered a wind farm met survey tower that had been
erected in a agricultural field. These guys fly first thing in the
morning, at sunrise, and towers are hard to see in such conditions.
Commercial towers above 200 feet must be in a data base within a certain
period of time and appear on aeronautical maps.
The FAA has absolutely no interest in regulating towers at heights below
200 feet, something for which we should be profoundly grateful. That
said, they are considering ways to regulate the met survey towers, but
are hitting snags in defining what they want to regulate such that it
does what's needed and no more as well as meeting resistance from the
survey companies. Thus, states have been talked into stepping into the
abyss by aerial applicators. States do have the authority to regulate
towers like this -- they do not have the authority to regulate airspace.
Here's an FAA site about such towers and proposed ways to lark them:
http://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2010/may/met_tower_power_point_st._cloud.pdf
and another site at AOPA:
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2011/January/26/FAA-proposes-guidelines-for-marking-meteorological-towers.
This is something we should keep an eye on because legislators may
otherwise write statutes that are far too broad such that they include
things they needn't, like our towers, but it is a legitimate problem
that needs to be addressed.
Kim N5OP
On 2/8/2015 11:35 AM, Gerry Creager - NOAA Affiliate wrote:
Actually, a lot of the wind energy business towers (can we build a wind
farm here?) are erected as Kim notes. Since I work with him and we talk
almost daily, I've got a pretty good idea of his acumen: I'm sure aerial
applicators have had close encounters, or worse, with wind towers. The real
question is, "Don't we need the FAA enforcing its own regulations?" rather
than, "Can we create another piece of patchwork state legislation to paint
a broad swath across the tower-using landscape?"
gerry
On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 10:38 PM, Mark Stennett <Mark@stennett.com> wrote:
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>
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> 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
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
--
Kim Elmore, Ph.D. (Adj. Assoc. Prof., OU School of Meteorology, CCM, PP
SEL/MEL/Glider, N5OP, 2nd Class Radiotelegraph, GROL)
/"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in
practice, there is." //– Attributed to many people; it’s so true that it
doesn’t matter who said it./
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|