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

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by K4KYV, Oct 10, 2018.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Subscribe
ad: K5AB-Elect-1
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
ad: Left-3
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
  1. WF7A

    WF7A Subscriber QRZ Page

    Just an extreme example: Say an enterprising ham launches an aerostat (balloon on a tether)--attached to thin-gauge wire--that rises above 200 ft. Now what?

    (You gotta love the FARs, especially Part 91: You know you're in trouble when the first word under the first rule is "Except.")
  2. N3HGB

    N3HGB Ham Member QRZ Page

  3. W9RLG

    W9RLG Ham Member QRZ Page

    Oh I agree with ;you on the markings of the short towers, what I was getting at was the fact you sort of made a statement that it was illegal for crop dusters to fly lower than 200 feet after they had their training.

  4. KF5FEI

    KF5FEI Ham Member QRZ Page

    And the GPS may not always work -- some solar events can reduce or block satellite signals, which means the GPS is no bueno.
  5. K9STH

    K9STH Platinum Subscriber Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Depending on the FAA office involved, dealing with the paperwork, etc., for having a tower that requires FCC / FAA approval, is much more a pain in the posterior than the expense of painting / lighting.

    Been there, done that! Just do not make any applications for over 499-feet above ground unless going a lot higher. The FAA has to hold a public hearing for any tower 500-feet or over and they definitely do not like the hassle of doing so. Also, have been there, done that!

    Glen, K9STH
  6. N3HGB

    N3HGB Ham Member QRZ Page

    IIRC, they can't actually stop you from building it either, they'll just make sure your insurance carrier knows it is dangerous.
  7. KK5JY

    KK5JY Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Most don't.

    Remember, none other than A**L has repeatedly claimed that CC&R is the single biggest issue to ham radio. So if that's true, then this was a non-issue for amateurs to start with, since most people are doing good to have a flag pole vertical. :rolleyes: ;)
  8. K4KYV

    K4KYV Subscriber QRZ Page

    Years ago a well-known ham from the Philadelphia area put up a 120' tower. He decided to put a light on top for safety reasons even though it was not required, so he bought a light fixture and a red globe from the local hardware store and mounted it atop the tower. He was advised to immediately disable the light; here was the explanation:

    If the light remained on the tower, it would be recorded on the aviation charts. Once on the aviation charts, he would be required to maintain the light, even though the tower fell far short of the 199' rule. Furthermore, the entire lighting hardware would have to be type accepted by the FAA, and the price of type accepted lighting is highly inflated, probably costing almost as much as the tower itself. He would have been required to immediately report temporary outages of the light to the FAA. He removed the light and kept the tower for years without incident.
    WD4IGX and KK5JY like this.
  9. KA2RRK

    KA2RRK Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    I remember not long ago a guy on the air wanting to paint an light a 40ft tower.
    I recon so it would be huge compared to the HO model train set?

  10. ND6M

    ND6M Ham Member QRZ Page

    "training" is only one part of the certification process

    They can fly lower than 200 feet ONLY IAW their Agricultural aircraft operating certificate.

    It depends if the area is "congested" or not.

    Even in a non congested area they can not commute @ less than 500 feet AGL and can only fly lower than that while actually in the process of actual spraying, aligning for a spray run, turning out/ ect.

    The FAA legal definition of "congested" is not a hard and fast number.
    KK5JY likes this.

Share This Page