Actually, a lot of the wind energy business towers (can we build a wind
farm here?) are erected as Kim notes. Since I work with him and we talk
almost daily, I've got a pretty good idea of his acumen: I'm sure aerial
applicators have had close encounters, or worse, with wind towers. The real
question is, "Don't we need the FAA enforcing its own regulations?" rather
than, "Can we create another piece of patchwork state legislation to paint
a broad swath across the tower-using landscape?"
gerry
On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 10:38 PM, Mark Stennett <Mark@stennett.com> wrote:
> 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> 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
>
>
>
--
Gerry Creager
NSSL/CIMMS
405.325.6371
++++++++++++++++++++++
“Big whorls have little whorls,
That feed on their velocity;
And little whorls have lesser whorls,
And so on to viscosity.”
Lewis Fry Richardson (1881-1953)
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|