|[AMRadio] "FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016" to affect towers and masts over 50 feetin height.|
w5jo at brightok.net
w5jo at brightok.net
Tue Jul 19 13:47:36 EDT 2016
With all due respect Jack.
If you are a pilot then you know the rules about minimum altitude and it is
not below 200 ft. over a "congested" area. Any pilot who flies that low is
courting disaster in may realms, not including towers. Engine failure
between 50 and 200 ft. is almost always fatal. By the way, some FAA
inspectors consider a barb wire fence creates a congested area and a tower
certainly creates one. There are common sense restrictions near airports of
various runway lengths, under 3200 ft. the slope is 50 to 1 and over that
runway length is it 100 to 1 for tower heights.
Even helicopters must meet the minimum altitude restrictions. This law is
aimed at a very few pilots in an increasingly smaller number. Most farmers
have gone to ground based chemical application over aircraft, so why
regulate something with this broad an implication nationwide for so few who
have options to avoid the problem.
Then we look at the incidents of tower strike over the past few decades and
find that it almost does not exist. The movement in Texas was brought forth
by the widow of a crop duster who hit a 40 ft. TV tower adjacent to the
rural house owner of the field he was working. He knew, as do all crop
dusters, to preview your application area at a safe altitude before starting
application. He didn't do that. A blanket restriction like this is
unnecessary. Most strikes like this involve crop dusters and, if they do
their job properly, a tower is not a danger.
Security Act of 2016" to affect towers and masts over 50 feetin height.
This will be unpopular in this forum, but here goes..................
As an amateur radio operator for close to sixty years and a pilot for over
forty years I can appreciate both sides of the argument. For the sake of
discussion, let's assume both activities are hobbies and that the hobbyists
in each harbor beliefs that their hobby is the more important. Of course,
that is an invalid premise since towers have a potential detrimental impact
on non-hobbyist aviation interests. Let's ignore that aspect for now.
The lack of a tower may make communications difficult or impossible. An
unlighted tower can kill people. Which is more important? From my
perspective, the aviation side of the equation wins - hands down.
More information about the AMRadio mailing list
This page last updated 23 Nov 2017.