New FAA regulations require towers under 200′ to be marked

Ummm, I believe the rule is 500' above any structure unless landing or taking off unless for an emergency. I went thru that in 1991 when the 160' Rohn 45G tower went up and the farmers down the road complained it interfered with their and their friends flying into/off their grass strip which had been in use since 1936. The family have lived there since 1896.
No AG flying ever, it was originally a dairy farm and now just used for hay to sell to the local horsey crowd, about 220 acres between fields and woods.

Turns out that strip was never registered and the FAA told them to move their dog leg out so as to not impact MY tower. So now they are registered as well as my tower (I didnt do it) which has become a turning point for the local air shows and a marker for props and choppers under VFR. There are no lights, paint or anything else except Rohn galvanizing. The tower was increased to 180' a few years later after a micro burst with lightning damaged the top section and with a 24' DOM mast part way down it comes in under 200' with enough margin.

We are all good friends now for a few decades and I even get to ride in the put puts including biplanes.

Carl

 

Not a problem with my indoor window loop

Putting up Towers is probably getting increasingly difficult for the majority of hams.

G3SEA/KH6

 

Now you've got me curious: where was your RSGB on this matter and did they try to fight said legislation?

 

Clearly you did not comprehend what you read.

-Your towers are within the 'curtilage" or your house and are exempt.

-Yes AG pilots will be checking the tower database when they plan their flights. Computers are marvelous things these days.

-A one time entry of towers is hardly an imposition on installers/owners.

The amount of hubris and ignorance in this thread is astounding.

 

This is TEH ZED, after all...

 

No, that isn't correct. As I posted in #58 above for agricultural operations:

14 CFR 137 AGRICULTURAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
Subpart C. Operating Rules
§ 137.49 Operations over other than congested areas.
Notwithstanding part 91 of this chapter, during the actual dispensing operation, including approaches, departures, and turnarounds reasonably necessary for the operation, an aircraft may be operated over other than congested areas below 500 feet above the surface and closer than 500 feet to persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures, if the operations are conducted without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface.

 

Hi Carl. Nice story...

At my house in Sioux Falls, SD from 1998-2010 this is the fun and games we had going on in JULY every year during the sioux falls air show... I'm sure everybody can tell which team this is. We lived 1/2 way between the runway end and outer marker for the approach to KFSD RWY 04... When opposing solos blew by down the length of the runway things would get rather loud at our house... What got both of us outside to take this photo and watch the blue angels practice was all the dishes rattling in the cupboard... previous turns had been done right over the house... and I'd seen them coming right at us thru the dining room sliding door. Grab lawn chairs.

Erika DD

 

I guess you didnt read or otherwise underst the first paragraph of my post.

What part of the following do you want explained

 

How did you know Im ex Navy! Watched them many times especially practicing. That yearly air show is well known and Ive been there once when my last GF flew us there. Tanya was an ex Russian Army pilot and US citizen who was transferred from NH to Las Vegas by Homeland Security.

What an absolutely beautiful home!

Carl
USN/USNR 1959-87
CWO4 Ret.

 

The legal argument that "any" routine operations below 500 feet does create a hazardous situation in and of itself, jumps right out of that operating rule.

If there was no potential hazard, then the 500 foot rule wouldn't exist.

 

Sorry, you are correct. I misread your post. The AG regulation didn’t apply.

 

Yes, it’s the exception which proves the rule so to speak.

There has to be an exception to normal minimum altitude for necessary low level operations like spraying, which is why that section exists. Notice it’s very limited to the dispensing and reasonably required approach, turnarounds and departure. For the rest of the flight the part 91 rules apply.

I believe the hazard sentence is there to so that the pilot AG must give due regard to, say, a person that wandered into a corn field being sprayed. Flying at just above the corn would obviously be a hazard to them, so the operation would need to be aborted until they were clear of the area.

 

"When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout."

 

Ad hominem much?

 

I am in the agribusiness world and we use aerial applicators regularly. My concentration area is forestry applications, so we contract fixed wing and rotary wing ships for various silvicultural projects. From my perspective, the chief benefit of this new regulation is to add another layer of collision avoidance designed to protect ag pilots of fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft operating in project areas close to one of these unmarked sticks. Out in rural areas, the most prominent towers these days are cell towers and most of them are free-standing and already in compliance with FAA marking and lighting protocol. We rarely see other towers that might remotely create an issue. Regardless, there are rare situations where unmarked towers exist in the vicinity of the ag field or the forested stand being treated. These structures may present a threat to the uninformed pilot. That said, I have been in this business for nearly 45 years and I have yet to hear of a collision between an ag pilot's ship and any kind of a communications tower in this part of the country. Most crashes (or hard landings) of which I am aware are largely mechanically related, but some have been related to tree contact, and some to pilot error. 73, Joe W4JF