[TowerTalk] [DILLO] Re: New Proposed Texas Tower Regulation
Roger (K8RI) on TT
K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net
Sun Feb 8 16:42:43 EST 2015
I can't imagine many hams that are not aware of the nearest airport that
is open year around, registered with the FAA, and given a designator
such as our local airport's KIKW. Normally, private, sod strips do not
count, but SOME do, so check if for no other reason than being a good
neighbor.
What I can imagine is hams not knowing of the FAA's regulations of
towers in an airport area. There is a gradual slope going out aligned
with the runways. Within the airport area there is also a much steeper
slope in directions not aligned with the runways. So you can go higher,
sooner if not aligned with a runway. Several hams that are close to the
airport and not in line with runways, were told they could go 10' above
the trees. (I believe that was on an individual basis with the FAA's
blessings)
IF your antenna would extend into the area equal to, or above the slope,
THEN the FAA wants to hear from you. If not, they are glad you called,
but don't care about the tower/antenna(s)
Planes flying the GPS 06 (IFR Approach) into KIKW fly directly over my
house, but they are nearly 1000 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) I don't
remember the exact height as I've not flown since 2007 and no longer
have the local approach plates (charts which are kinda pricey), but they
have just started to descend from that altitude.. The new electronic
system is so much easier than those small charts. Imagine having to
read a B&W chart and directions with dictionary size print in a bouncing
airplane, while flying the airplane, talking to approach control,
writing down their instructions and maintaining altitude within a 100
feet. That's plus 100, minus nothing. That gets down to only about 10
feet on the last part of the ILS.
Some years ago, I was on final for runway 36. Gear down and flaps full @
40 degrees. As I was over the new "upscale" subdivision, coming up on
US-10 which runs E/W just South of the airport, something just didn't
seem right! Then I realized I was seeing a guy on a tower. Mind you,
this is in an area where even the trees have been shortened. I went
full power and rolled slightly to starboard to make sure I cleared the
tower with the guy working at the top. At full power and max RPM the
2-blade prop tips would go supersonic and they were LOUD! That prop was
"probably" about 20 feet from the man on the tower. They called the
airport to complain. The tower was gone before dark.
I can understand the crop dusters not liking those towers as they are
almost invisible under the best of conditions and completely invisible
if anywhere in line with the sun, BUT They are supposed to be aware of
those obstructions. When my top antennas were at 130 feet, I've seen
the planes "GO AROUND" them when spraying for mosquitoes.
OTOH I try to make sure and stop by operations and refresh their
memories as to where my tower is located <:-))
The Aircraft and Owners Association took a very negative view of those
meteorological towers being less than 200 feet so they didn't need to be
lighted. They alluded to, no they out right called it greed, but those
companies were/are operating according to established practices. They
do't need to go higher for the information the need, so why do it with
all the extra paperwork and responsibility that goes with a taller and
lighted tower.
I strongly disagree with the jury that found the company who owned the
tower he hit liable for a wrongful death. Now counties, townships, and
states will take it upon themselves to regulate what is the FAA's domain
and already established at 200 feet.
73
Roger (K8RI)
On 2/8/2015 9:50 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
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
--
73
Roger (K8RI)
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
More information about the TowerTalk
mailing list