Tall towers

DavidKade

DavidKade

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
8
Location
St. Louis, Mo
Display Name
Display name:
David
On my way from KSET to KFWB, Springfield (MO) approach mentions the towers at Fordland. 2000agl, 3600msl. I'm at 4500msl. These are impressive.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    366 KB · Views: 127
I used to be based at SGF and, yes, those towers are quite impressive. A flock of 'em at 2,000' AGL. You definitely don't want to be scud running out east of Springfield.

Taking off to the east and eastbound out of Springfield Downtown (3DW) it's hard not to bust the overlaying class Charlie before talking with departure...those towers are staring you in the face and all you want to do is climb...fast...

Then there are the towers that are in the pattern at Springfield Downtown but that's a whole 'nother topic.

Nice shot of the towers BTW.
 
DavidKade said:
On my way from KSET to KFWB, Springfield (MO) approach mentions the towers at Fordland. 2000agl, 3600msl. I'm at 4500msl. These are impressive.
Click to expand...

Grew up not far from what at the time were billed as The World's Tallest Towers by the station that owned them. 2,060 and 2,063' just west of 3H4 in North Dakota.
 
There is a batch of 2000' towers just south of KAMW. I've seen them poking through the tops of the clouds getting vectored for the ILS to 01. I think Tony has a picture of them when he was between layers.
 
LDJones said:
Grew up not far from what at the time were billed as The World's Tallest Towers by the station that owned them. 2,060 and 2,063' just west of 3H4 in North Dakota.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly because 2000' is the tallest that can be licensed without being considered a hazard to aviation...like 2000' isn't a hazard...
 
timwinters said:
Quite possibly because 2000' is the tallest that can be licensed without being considered a hazard to aviation...like 2000' isn't a hazard...
Click to expand...

What's the significance of 2000'? No tower in the US determined to be a hazard to navigation by the FAA will be licensed by the FCC.
 
roncachamp said:
What's the significance of 2000'? No tower in the US determined to be a hazard to navigation by the FAA will be licensed by the FCC.
Click to expand...

I don't know, but I've seen that stated numerous times and that seems to be why there are so many 2000' AGL towers out there and so few taller.

From wiki:

In the United States, the FAA and the FCC must approve all towers exceeding 200 feet (61*m) in height. Furthermore, it is very difficult to get permission for structures over 2,000 feet (610*m) high. The FCC presumes them to be inconsistent with the public interest, while the FAA presumes them to be a hazard to air navigation, resulting in poor airspace usage. A significant burden of proof is placed on the applicant to show that such a structure is in the public's best interests. Only when both agencies have resolved all legal, safety, and management concerns is such an application approved.
Click to expand...

That quote is out of the "list of tallest structures in the US" article. Also in the article is a State by State list of towers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_structures_in_the_United_States

A quick scan of the list reveals that the two towers in ND that Jonesy mentions plus one in CA are the only three in the US over 2000' and all three are barely over.
 
Last edited:
Got some pretty impressive towers in the Charlotte area. Whenever I go to KJQF I get to play tag with them.
 
timwinters said:
From wiki:
In the United States, the FAA and the FCC must approve all towers exceeding 200 feet (61*m) in height. Furthermore, it is very difficult to get permission for structures over 2,000 feet (610*m) high. The FCC presumes them to be inconsistent with the public interest, while the FAA presumes them to be a hazard to air navigation, resulting in poor airspace usage. A significant burden of proof is placed on the applicant to show that such a structure is in the public's best interests. Only when both agencies have resolved all legal, safety, and management concerns is such an application approved.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That's not quite accurate. The FAA and FCC have no authority to stop a tower from being built, that's state or local jurisdiction. But the FCC won't issue the required broadcast license if the FAA declares the proposed tower to be a hazard to air navigation and nobody builds towers they cannot use.
 
Last edited:
executioner3.jpg
 
Although there is no absolute height limit for antenna towers, both agencies have established a rebuttable presumption against structures over 2,000 feet above ground level. The FCC has a policy that applications filed with the FCC for antenna towers higher than 2,000 feet above ground will be presumed to be inconsistent with the public interest and the applicant will have a burden of overcoming that strong presumption. The applicant must accompany its application with a detailed showing directed to meeting this burden. Only in the exceptional case, where the Commission concludes that a clear and compelling showing has been made that there are public interest reasons requiring a tower higher than 2,000 feet above ground, and after the parties have complied with applicable FAA procedures, and full Commission coordination with FAA on the question of menace to air navigation, will a grant be made. See 47 CFR § 1.61 Note.

The FAA presumption against construction of structures over a certain height is set forth in the FAA rules. A proposed structure or an alteration to an existing structure that exceeds 2,000 feet in height above the ground will be presumed to be a hazard to air navigation and to result in an inefficient utilization of airspace and the applicant has the burden of overcoming that presumption. Each notice submitted under the FAA rules proposing a structure in excess of 2,000 feet above ground must contain a detailed showing, directed to meeting this burden. Only in exceptional cases, where the FAA concludes that a clear and compelling showing has been made that it would not result in an inefficient utilization of the airspace and would not result in a hazard to air navigation, will a determination of no hazard be issued. See 14 CFR § 77.17(c).
Click to expand...

http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/policy/dtv/lighting.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top