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

Sun Feb 8 18:46:56 EST 2015

Thanks Joe for this reference, totally new information for me. I am located 
a fair distance directly south of an Oregon State Airport (a 900 foot 
undulating grass strip called Wakonda Beach Airport which someone mows in 
the summer). For for all practical purposes the few pilots I know consider 
it an emergency strip. Think it gets around 7 landings a year the last time 
I looked (reported to the Oregon State Aeronautical Dept at least). Winter 
use all but requires floats with the water that collects on the strip. Don't 
think anyone living along the perimeter of the strip owns a plane, but the 
elk sure love it, herds of over 20 can make the turf look like the receiving 
end of an artillery barrage!!

While I knew I was well under any height concern I did the work and was 
rewarded with some information regarding distances from and about the strip 
that I didn't know, plus the knowledge that my tiny 80 feet AGL was not a 
problem. Bet there are many amateur tower owners near airports who have 
never done a height FAA check.

I was curious about what APCO stood for there in the big state of Texas so 
looked it up on the old internet. I noted one of the sponsors as EF Johnson 
Technologies, now owned by JVCKENWOOD Corporation. I assume the latter EF 
Johnson morphed from the old original EF Johnson Company that we old timers 
know so well? Easy to guess what the new parent sprang from!!

Thanks again for sharing the site.

Don W7WLL

-----Original Message----- 
From: Joe Jarrett
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 6:50 AM
To: Mark Stennett ; Kim Elmore ; L L bahr
Cc: towertalk at contesting.com ; Armadillo Mailing List
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] [DILLO] Re: New Proposed Texas Tower Regulation

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 