I'm a pilot with ~4k hours, all in single engine airplanes. I learned to
fly from a farm field - a cow pasture.
I've known a lot of ag pilots over the years. They're generally good pilots
and don't take unnecessary chances. But when doing a job that's hundreds or
even thousands of acres, they tend to fly the fields at the beginning of
the project, then proceed under the assumption that no one erects anything.
If something goes up literally overnight, I can see where there might be a
problem.
"See and avoid" obstacles and other airplanes are the pilot's
responsibility. Period. If someone erects a tower in a few hours, it is
legally the pilot's responsibility to avoid it, and the NTSB will likely
point to "pilot error" as a cause if a VFR pilot hits an obstacle.
But legal doesn't cover it if you're at the bottom of a smoking hole.
Safety is more important that legality.
Luckily, (or unluckily if youu own a million dollar AG CAT airplane) many
operations are switching to drones - unmanned aircraft. They fly perfect
patterns and no human is at risk.
Thus the need for the FAA to actually have regulations around the
commercial use of UAVs.
73,
Mickey N4MB (PP-ASEL-IA)
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Kim Elmore <cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Roger, K8RI is a pilot and I'm a pilot (there are no doubt others on this
> list), though I'm a private pilot and don't fly commercially. I'm a
> research meteorologist at the National Severe Storms Laboratory. I have a
> bit over 1000 h in light planes flown out of mostly small, public fields.
> That said, I know a number of ag pilots and all are consummate
> professionals, so I'd like to set a few things straight.
>
> Long gone are the days of drunken yee-haw flying in converted Stearmans,
> Waco UPF-7s, N3Ns and TravelAires. The aircraft used today are all purpose
> built for the job and are hideously expensive -- the tuboprops run nearly
> a$1M each. All aerial applicators fly in VFR under FAA Part 91 regulations.
> These guys charge based on what's sprayed, how much is sprayed, the
> difficulty of the field and the transit distance. Each mile flown that
> isn't spraying some sort of product is a wasted pile of money, so they
> never go very high because climbing is slower that cruising, uses more fuel
> and exposes them to more traffic. They don't need to fly high because they
> fly over agricultural fields that aren't inhabited. FAA regs say they have
> to keep 500 feet from buildings and people in sparsely populated areas and
> that 500 feet is defined as a radius. They can be 10 ft off the ground and
> 500 feet horizontally from people and property while staying perfectly
> legal.
>
> Their spray patterns are optimized by computer programs and laid out such
> that they use GPS guidance, down to a few feet, and many fly using a kind
> of head-up display to show them the paths they are to cover and the most
> efficient routes to take. They don't fly at night nor in poor weather. They
> will regularly fly under wires because that's the only way they can cover
> the field; product is often dispensed automatically based on GPS. I'm aware
> of at least one accident in which a pilot was been killed when they
> encountered a wind farm met survey tower that had been erected in a
> agricultural field. These guys fly first thing in the morning, at sunrise,
> and towers are hard to see in such conditions. Commercial towers above 200
> feet must be in a data base within a certain period of time and appear on
> aeronautical maps.
>
> The FAA has absolutely no interest in regulating towers at heights below
> 200 feet, something for which we should be profoundly grateful. That said,
> they are considering ways to regulate the met survey towers, but are
> hitting snags in defining what they want to regulate such that it does
> what's needed and no more as well as meeting resistance from the survey
> companies. Thus, states have been talked into stepping into the abyss by
> aerial applicators. States do have the authority to regulate towers like
> this -- they do not have the authority to regulate airspace. Here's an FAA
> site about such towers and proposed ways to lark them:
> http://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2010/may/met_
> tower_power_point_st._cloud.pdf and another site at AOPA:
> http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2011/January/
> 26/FAA-proposes-guidelines-for-marking-meteorological-towers.
>
> This is something we should keep an eye on because legislators may
> otherwise write statutes that are far too broad such that they include
> things they needn't, like our towers, but it is a legitimate problem that
> needs to be addressed.
>
> Kim N5OP
>
> On 2/8/2015 11:35 AM, Gerry Creager - NOAA Affiliate wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> --
>
> Kim Elmore, Ph.D. (Adj. Assoc. Prof., OU School of Meteorology, CCM, PP
> SEL/MEL/Glider, N5OP, 2nd Class Radiotelegraph, GROL)
>
> /"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in
> practice, there is." //– Attributed to many people; it’s so true that it
> doesn’t matter who said it./
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|