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

[Joe Jarrett]

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 at 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 at sbcglobal.net>
    To: L L bahr <pulsarxp at embarqmail.com>
    Cc: "towertalk at contesting.com" <towertalk at 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 at 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 at contesting.com 
    > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk 
    _______________________________________________



    _______________________________________________
    TowerTalk mailing list
    TowerTalk at contesting.com
    http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk