If I recall correctly there are rules about lighting and painting of towers
below 100 feet agl. If I recall correctly the gist is not allowed unless
due to a proximity to airport, helipad, or other reasons. That is why we
only light our portable tower at certain times due to temporary helipads.
On Feb 8, 2015 9:58 AM, "Paul Gilbert" <ke5zw@wt.net> wrote:
> 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 <Mark@stennett.com>
> *To:* Kim Elmore <cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net> ; L L bahr
> <pulsarxp@embarqmail.com>
> *Cc:* 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> <cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net>
> To: L L bahr <pulsarxp@embarqmail.com> <pulsarxp@embarqmail.com>
> Cc: "towertalk@contesting.com" <towertalk@contesting.com>
> <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> 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
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|