Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] [DILLO] Re: New Proposed Texas Tower Regulation

To: "Paul Gilbert" <ke5zw@wt.net>, <dillo@armadillo.org>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] [DILLO] Re: New Proposed Texas Tower Regulation
From: "Gary J - N5BAA" <qltfnish@omniglobal.net>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 15:09:29 -0600
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
A number of members of our Ham Club are requesting a meeting with our State Rep (Rep Murr) tomorrow to get clarification on this subject regulation/law. We are also elevating it up to ARRL to have their legal people contact the legal people in Texas for a definitive ruling. There needs to be a clear definition about Ham Radio Towers or guess what - many many 2M repeater towers around the state which are not located near QTH's will become headaches beyond comprehension.

Gary J
N5BAA

-----Original Message----- From: Paul Gilbert
Sent: Sunday, February 8, 2015 10:51 AM
To: dillo@armadillo.org
Cc: L L bahr ; towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] [DILLO] Re: New Proposed Texas Tower Regulation

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


-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4281/9074 - Release Date: 02/07/15
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>