Arrl is aware of the the issue are working it. No need to contact ARRL at this
time.
Paul
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 8, 2015, at 3:09 PM, Gary J - N5BAA <qltfnish@omniglobal.net> wrote:
>
> A number of members of our Ham Club are requesting a meeting with our State
> Rep (Rep Murr) tomorrow to get clarification on this subject regulation/law.
> We are also elevating it up to ARRL to have their legal people contact the
> legal people in Texas for a definitive ruling. There needs to be a clear
> definition about Ham Radio Towers or guess what - many many 2M repeater
> towers around the state which are not located near QTH's will become
> headaches beyond comprehension.
>
> Gary J
> N5BAA
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Paul Gilbert
> Sent: Sunday, February 8, 2015 10:51 AM
> To: dillo@armadillo.org
> Cc: L L bahr ; towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] [DILLO] Re: New Proposed Texas Tower Regulation
>
> As they say in the movie..... "Cabolaro"....Cowboy....
>
> We have pilots in our group....
>
> What are the regs covering this type of work.
>
> Paul
>
>
>> On 2/8/15 10:41 AM, Wm5l wrote:
>> I can only speak from limited experience about crop dusters. I grew up
>> farming cotton, corn, wheat and milo in Hill county in high school. We used
>> aircraft a lot to spray the crops. I knew one pilot that was killed when
>> showing off, doing stunts in his duster like flying below telephone lines.
>> They used to laugh and brag about coming back to the strip and having Cotton
>> boll's hung in the landing gear. Personally I am fascinated by aviation but
>> some of the antics displayed by some of these pilots are insane! Just last
>> year while living next to the airport in ElDorado, TX I went over and spoke
>> to one of the guys dusting one afternoon while he was refilling his
>> chemicals that he was spraying. I asked him why I never heard him on 123.0
>> calling approach and departure on my scanner as it is an uncontrolled
>> airport. He stated "we don't ever do that we just do our own thing". It
>> would seem to me that some common sense or basic safety practices might
>> eliminate all this nonsense. Jim WM5L.
>>
>> Sent from Big Jim's iPhone
>>
>>> On Feb 8, 2015, at 10:07, Mike Simpson - Midcom, Inc. <mike@midcom.org
>>> <mailto:mike@midcom.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Paul, I also find it somewhat ironic and a bit amusing that the onus for
>>> rule implementation (and even enforcement?!?!) of this bill, should it
>>> become law…gets tossed right back in your very own department’s lap! Wonder
>>> if that will mean you personally, since you are their “go-to” comms guy!
>>>
>>> If so, your current “Army of one” will need some serious new manpower! J
>>>
>>> *From:*Paul Gilbert [mailto:ke5zw@wt.net]
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, February 08, 2015 9:58 AM
>>> *To:* dillo@armadillo.org <mailto:dillo@armadillo.org>; L L bahr
>>> *Cc:* towertalk@contesting.com <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>; Armadillo
>>> Mailing List
>>> *Subject:* Re: [DILLO] Re: [TowerTalk] New Proposed Texas Tower Regulation
>>>
>>> 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>
>>> <mailto:cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net>
>>> To: L L bahr <pulsarxp@embarqmail.com>
>>> <mailto:pulsarxp@embarqmail.com>
>>> Cc: "towertalk@contesting.com"
>>> <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com> <towertalk@contesting.com>
>>> <mailto: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
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4281/9074 - Release Date: 02/07/15
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|