Thanks Joe for this reference, totally new information for me. I am located
a fair distance directly south of an Oregon State Airport (a 900 foot
undulating grass strip called Wakonda Beach Airport which someone mows in
the summer). For for all practical purposes the few pilots I know consider
it an emergency strip. Think it gets around 7 landings a year the last time
I looked (reported to the Oregon State Aeronautical Dept at least). Winter
use all but requires floats with the water that collects on the strip. Don't
think anyone living along the perimeter of the strip owns a plane, but the
elk sure love it, herds of over 20 can make the turf look like the receiving
end of an artillery barrage!!
While I knew I was well under any height concern I did the work and was
rewarded with some information regarding distances from and about the strip
that I didn't know, plus the knowledge that my tiny 80 feet AGL was not a
problem. Bet there are many amateur tower owners near airports who have
never done a height FAA check.
I was curious about what APCO stood for there in the big state of Texas so
looked it up on the old internet. I noted one of the sponsors as EF Johnson
Technologies, now owned by JVCKENWOOD Corporation. I assume the latter EF
Johnson morphed from the old original EF Johnson Company that we old timers
know so well? Easy to guess what the new parent sprang from!!
Thanks again for sharing the site.
Don W7WLL
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Jarrett
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 6:50 AM
To: Mark Stennett ; Kim Elmore ; L L bahr
Cc: towertalk@contesting.com ; Armadillo Mailing List
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] [DILLO] Re: New Proposed Texas Tower Regulation
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
To: Kim Elmore ; L L bahr
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>
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
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
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
|