[TowerTalk] Here we go again.

[Roger (K8RI) on TT]

Ain't it though.
It appears that much of the rewrite was done by person or people who 
know nothing about tower, prorogation, or the FAA. I doubt they've seen 
the $6 million wrongful death suit awarded for the crop duster who hit a 
tower less than 200' and it was painted Red and White. Imagine were it 
low visibility.

73, Roger (K8R)I


On 7/28/2017 Friday 12:58 AM, Ken K6MR wrote:
> Sure is nice to know we live in the land of the free, isn’t it?  ;^(
>
> Ken K6MR
>
> From: Roger (K8RI) on TT<mailto:K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>
> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 21:46
> To: towertalk at contesting.com<mailto:towertalk at contesting.com>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Here we go again.
>
> A few years back, I wrote about getting involved with the zoning
> commission and tower were exempted.
>
> Well, they are at it again.  This rime I see a number of places they run
> afoul of existing regulations.
>
> For 200' lighting they measure from grade, the FCC measures height above
> average terrain.
>
> The township wants minimum visibility while the FAA wants maximum
> visibility AND  they've made the permitting process a hardship for new
> hams.  I think they also run afoul of both state and federal tower
> regulations.
>
> Gotta get my letters to the ARRL, FAA, and AOPA in the mail / e-mail.
>
> --
>
> 73
>
> Roger (K8RI)
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)