I'm not an expert on this, but here's what I understand. Whatever you do,
check with a reliable source before you do anything. While everyone tries
to help, it's best to be absolutely sure you know what you are doing.
As my good friend Wiley Bunn (SK) used to say "Never accept unvalidated
sources for critical information". Count me in that BIG group of
unvalidated sources on this subject.
> And I have another....We at N6IJ do not currently have an antenna
> structure that is required to be lighted. The Marina Municipal airport,
> with runways, 10,000 feet away, though is planning to lengthen the
runway,
> currently
> shorter than 3200 feet, to a longer length which has more stringent
> height limits to structures requiring lighting, and registration with the
> FAA/FCC. The new "inverted wedding cake" region determined by the
> longer runways, would be pierced by any new
> towers which we have plans for, and IS ALREADY PIERCED by existing
> 65 foot wooden antenna
> poles which we currently use. If/When the new airport plans are
> implemented, do we have to comply with the now required
> lighting/registration, AT OUR EXPENSE?
Here's what my FCC rulebook says:
>From 47 CFR Ch1 section 17.17 Existing Structures subpart b.
"No change in any of these criteria or relocation of airports shall at any
time impose a new restriction upon any then existing or authorized antenna
structure or structures."
If that doesn't work for you, try this:
Virtually every rule is prefaced by the phrase "Any construction or
alteration" Read the rules carefully before you get needlessly concerned!
If that doesn't work for you, and/or you alter your structure, try this:
Approach the FAA explaining why your structure is "non-hazzard". It's quite
possible (and often not difficult) to get an exemption or relaxation of
marking and lighting of towers and structures that, by the book, require
lighting or marking. Once the FAA blesses your structure and declares it no
problem, the FCC is effectively out of the picture.
I know for a fact that works, or at least it used to.
73 Tom
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|