In a message dated 96-03-19 02:13:07 EST, you write:
>So, I totally concur. Try to keep the FAA out of the picture
>if at all possible. Otherwise you will get to experience the
>essence of bureaucratic bumbling, IMHO.
>
>73 John W0UN
You have not lived until you have dealt with some FAA officials... Go to the
library and scan the back issues of any of the major flying mags for the past
two years regarding the FAA persecution of Bob Hoover... Check the EAA's -
Sport Aviation (best articles) / US Aviator / AOPA Pilot / etc. You would
swear that this could occur only in the old soviet union, or red china, etc.
, not here... But right here in the good ol hew hess of hay, you can/will
be persecuted if a federal bureaucrat decides he/she does not like you...
they have enormous power and the courts will look the other way...
Denny k8do@aol.com
>From Keith Morehouse-WB9TIY <blckhole@ripco.com> Tue Mar 19 16:57:50 1996
From: Keith Morehouse-WB9TIY <blckhole@ripco.com> (Keith Morehouse-WB9TIY)
Subject: FW: Contest News Releases - DXpedition
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960318161246.22223A-100000@morpheus>
Message-ID: <314EE78E.1116@ripco.com>
Joseph M. O'Brien wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Mar 1996 aa2du@netcom.com wrote:
> > >On Mon, 18 Mar 96 09:16:00 EST Zimmerman, Tammy-Beth, KA1WWP
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >The American Radio Relay League
> > >CONTEST NEWS RELEASE
> > >The ARRL Contest Advisory Committee and the ARRL Awards Committee
> > >have voted in favor of adding DXpedition scores to the club
> > >aggregate competition totals for active affiliated clubs in the
> > >ARRL International DX Contest.
>
> Being new to this debate, could anyone tell me what is the
> rationale behind this change?
Because the FRC and PVRC wanted it that way....
---------------------------###-----------------------------
PROBE ELECTRONICS 100 Higgins Road, Park Ridge IL 60068 USA
Keith J. Morehouse / WB9TIY / Society of Midwest Contesters
847-696-2828 FAX: 847-698-2045 e-mail: blckhole@ripco.com
---------------------------###-----------------------------
>From John Brosnahan <broz@csn.net> Tue Mar 19 17:13:35 1996
From: John Brosnahan <broz@csn.net> (John Brosnahan)
Subject: Towers near airports (W1PH)
Message-ID: <199603191713.KAA21241@lynx.csn.net>
>>After discussing the issue with local crop dusters, who BTW
>>don't maintain their required altitudes, I decided to paint the
>>towers anyway. No one flies low at night but the crop dusters
>>fly very low during the day, and aged galvanized steel is the
>>same color as sage brush out here.
>
>Since the crop duster's field is in the guide, it is also on the chart.
>This means that someone OTHER than the crop dusters. If some pilot were
>having trouble with his aircraft, he might opt to make a precautionary or
>emergency landing at that field, day or night.
>
>Painting the tower was probably a good idea.
>
>BTW - what "required" altitudes are you speaking of. The FAA has no
>required altitudes for takeoff or landing. 3 miles isn't terribly far from
>the airport, especially if you are directly in line with the runway.
>
>Bill Coleman AA4LR
"Altitude Restrictions: No person may operate an aircraft over
congested areas below an altitude of 1,000 feet........or below
500 feet above the surface of other areas (defined as open water
or sparsely populated areas); and not closer than 500 feet
to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure."
I am not speaking of landing and takeoffs. The crop dusters never fly
higher than 100ft in our rural areas, unless they have to avoid something.
They may cruise 20 miles at 100ft to go to and from a job. They now travel
on the opposite side of the county road and I can often look (slightly) down
on them while they are traveling over land that is 50-100 ft lower than mine!
It isn't an airport and it isn't a runway. It is an old guy with a gravel road
and a quonset hut!
This landing strip is a "hilly", gravel strip that is about 1500 ft long.
It has
NO LIGHTS. While it might be used in the daytime for an emergency it
could never be used at night. When a local pilot had a problem recently he
chose the paved county road in front of the strip rather than try to land
at the crop duster's strip. So it isn't the place of choice for emergencies
either.
The owner had delusions of grandeur when he put the strip in and
wanted to do maintenence for others from his barn, so he qualified
it for the Airman's Guide but his advancing years and the economy
have caused the strip to be rarely used. But it still caused me to have
to file the paperwork to be legal. Even the FAA said they didn't
care about the strip.
I am "not directly in the path of the runway" and in fact I am at exactly
right angles to the runway--which runs E-W and I am due S. I am about
18,500 ft from the runway which would indicate that I would not be
required to file any paperwork if I kept my towers below 185 ft except
for the fact that I am on slightly higher ground which reduces the height
required for filing to about 175 ft. And I wanted to be able to go to a full
199ft, so I chose to do it by the book.
I am also shielded from the runway by an AT&T tower that is directly
between me and the runway, which isn't lit or painted. While it is smaller
than my towers, it subtends a greater vertical angle when viewed from the
strip.
The FAA agreed that I didn't have to paint or light my towers. I have
gone beyond their requirements and painted my towers as an act
of good faith and concern. There is no traffic in the area at night,
except that from Denver's new airport-- at 20,000 ft. I am about 30 miles
from it but close to the North corridor. The good news about the new
airport is that the move has actually lessened private traffic in my area.
My point is that even an almost extinct dirt/gravel landing strip (if it
is in the Airman's Guide or on the charts) may require you to file the
FAA paperwork and you are then subject to the full force and measure
of a bureaucracy.
AA0RS is much closer to a private crop duster's strip that is used
more frequently, but seasonally. He never noticed any activity while
in the procurement stage for his house.It was only when spring came
that the activity became noticed. The FAA took the position of
not having any requirements for towers that are located near private
strips. The crop dusters protested at the initial special use hearing
for the towers but failed to show up for the follow up hearing that
was scheduled to allow the FAA to provide their input. The trees at the
end of the runway would cause the planes to be at 750ft over the towers
if they maintained their rate of climb after clearing the trees, but they just
didn't want to do so.
The FAA also indicated that the requirement for lighting and painting
was based on local conditons. They might not require a 300ft tower
to be lighted or painted if it were located in a remote area such as
the desert of Arizona.
Hope this clears things up and provides a "heads up" warning for
those considering new CONTEST station sites.
73 John W0UN
>
>
>
>Bill Coleman, AA4LR Mail: aa4lr@radio.org
>Quote: "Not in a thousand years will man ever fly!"
> -- Wilbur Wright, 1901
>
>
>
>
John Brosnahan
La Salle Research Corp 24115 WCR 40 La Salle, CO 80645 USA
voice 970-284-6602 fax 970-284-0979 email broz@csn.net
>From Ham <batchler@fsac3.pica.army.mil> Tue Mar 19 16:19:02 1996
From: Ham <batchler@fsac3.pica.army.mil> (Ham)
Subject: reply
Message-ID: <9603191119.aa00122@FSAC3.PICA.ARMY.MIL>
I sent a reply to a reply to a message I posted
after futher thought I regret having been so short
I no not rember the address of tha person
so I am apolozie here sri om I will do better next time
73 Laing
Please all remarks/replies/comments to
batchler@pica.army.mil
fax 201-724-5768
Laing Batchler KB3TS - F.R.C.
|