Keep in mid that many ham repeaters are co located on towers Taft may be
impacted by this bill and what may happen due to costs or loading issues.
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
|