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! ☺
From: Paul Gilbert [mailto:ke5zw@wt.net]
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 9:58 AM
To: dillo@armadillo.org; L L bahr
Cc: 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
|