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@stennett.com>
*To:* Kim Elmore <mailto:cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net> ; L L bahr
<mailto:pulsarxp@embarqmail.com>
*Cc:* towertalk@contesting.com <mailto:towertalk@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@sbcglobal.net>
To: L L bahr <pulsarxp@embarqmail.com>
Cc: "towertalk@contesting.com" <towertalk@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@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@contesting.com <mailto:TowerTalk%40contesting.com>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com <mailto:TowerTalk%40contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|