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
To: Kim Elmore ; L L bahr
Cc: 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>
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
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|