Proposal that would have required lighting and marking of short towers revised.

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by K4KYV, Oct 10, 2018 at 5:45 PM.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-3
ad: Left-2
ad: l-assoc
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Subscribe
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
  1. KK5JY

    KK5JY Ham Member QRZ Page

    This is true, but it's also not an excuse for breaking the FARs requiring 500ft separation minimum from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure in sparsely populated areas, and more over populated areas.

    I have done quite a bit of off-airport work, so I'm familiar with operation from grass strips in rural and suburban areas where various kinds of towers are quite common, but it's still the pilot's responsibility to know the area, know the obstructions, and stay clear of them.
     
  2. N3HGB

    N3HGB Ham Member QRZ Page

    Well sure it is, and a 200 foot tower around here is barely higher than the trees. That said, GPS is still no substitute for appropriate lighting and marking of towers where required. I am fine with the existing rule, we all know what it is by now.
     
    KK5JY likes this.
  3. W9RLG

    W9RLG Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    QPS, from what you are saying, Would suggest that you have never seen crop dusting here in the midwest. They sure don't fly above 200 feet when applying spray or crop cover. These guys sometimes fly as low as 50 feet maybe 100 feet. If they didn't they would get so much wind drift it would be useless to use them. Here in my fields alone the crop duster flies under the high tension wires from the distribution towers that run through the property. I also live in an MOA and the F-16's and A-10's sometimes fly as low as 400 feet. I have turned them in to their commander several times.

    Bob
     
  4. KB7QPS

    KB7QPS Ham Member QRZ Page

    Bob,

    I seem to be getting a lot of flak for my support of the FAA/FCC not requiring tower marking for 50ft to 199ft towers. It just doesn't seem necessary in my opinion as a blanket rule for all rural areas.

    Where I would like to build my dream QTH, crop dusting isn't done. No reason to put up tower lights and markings on a 60 feet tower when nobody flies at 60ft anyway.
     
    K4KYV likes this.
  5. KK5JY

    KK5JY Ham Member QRZ Page

    And now the FCC, FAA, and Congress all agree with you. Problem solved. :)
     
    KB7QPS likes this.
  6. N2EY

    N2EY Ham Member QRZ Page

    Yes, because the ARRL solved it.
     
  7. KK5JY

    KK5JY Ham Member QRZ Page

    That's pretty funny. :)
     
  8. K9STH

    K9STH Ham Member Volunteer Moderator QRZ Page

    RRK:

    Amateur radio operators are NOT limited to towers of 199-feet or lower. It is just that any antenna structure over 200-feet above ground, and, in specific cases within certain distances from an airport, heliport, etc., less than 200-feet above ground, must be registered with the FCC and FAA and properly lighted and, unless lighted with strobes along the tower, properly painted.

    Glen, K9STH
     
    KA2RRK and KK5JY like this.
  9. N2EY

    N2EY Ham Member QRZ Page



    All of which is a rather expensive and complicated requirement - and why there are so few amateurs with 200+ foot towers.

    If the new regulations had gone into effect as proposed, many towers that are much shorter would have been affected.
     
    KA2RRK likes this.
  10. W5TTP

    W5TTP Ham Member QRZ Page

    After attending a few recent hamfests, I wonder how most could maintain a 200 foot tower, painted, or not.
     
    KA2RRK and KK5JY like this.

Share This Page