[TowerTalk] [DILLO] Re: New Proposed Texas Tower Regulation
Gary J - N5BAA
qltfnish at omniglobal.net
Sun Feb 8 16:09:29 EST 2015
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 at armadillo.org
Cc: L L bahr ; towertalk at 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 at midcom.org
> <mailto:mike at 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 at wt.net]
>> *Sent:* Sunday, February 08, 2015 9:58 AM
>> *To:* dillo at armadillo.org <mailto:dillo at armadillo.org>; L L bahr
>> *Cc:* towertalk at contesting.com <mailto:towertalk at 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 at stennett.com>
>>
>> *To:*Kim Elmore <mailto:cw_de_n5op at sbcglobal.net> ; L L bahr
>> <mailto:pulsarxp at embarqmail.com>
>>
>> *Cc:*towertalk at contesting.com <mailto: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>
>> <mailto:cw_de_n5op at sbcglobal.net>
>> To: L L bahr <pulsarxp at embarqmail.com>
>> <mailto:pulsarxp at embarqmail.com>
>> Cc: "towertalk at contesting.com"
>> <mailto:towertalk at contesting.com> <towertalk at contesting.com>
>> <mailto: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 <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 at contesting.com <mailto:TowerTalk%40contesting.com>
>> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk at contesting.com <mailto:TowerTalk%40contesting.com>
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at 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
More information about the TowerTalk
mailing list