I hate cell towers

[Jay Honeck]

Has anyone else grown annoyed by the proliferation of cell towers with
strobe lights?

Every time we're coming into land in Iowa City -- especially when Mary is
flying, and I'm concentrating exclusively on traffic avoidance -- I spot one
or more cell tower strobes out of the corner of my eye, and momentarily
tense up. There always follows a nervous moment or two while we determine
that it's really not another aircraft...

Who is the idiot that decreed that all cell towers should have *strobe*
lights on them? What was wrong with the simple red lights that other
obstructions sport?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[EDR]

In article <itlzc.90691$3x.12580@attbi_s54>, Jay Honeck
> wrote:

> Who is the idiot that decreed that all cell towers should have *strobe*
> lights on them? What was wrong with the simple red lights that other
> obstructions sport?

FAR Part 77.
Also, you can get on the FAA's mailing list for your Region to be
notified of any proposed towers to be built in your state. The
notification will give the lat/lon, MSL/AGL, owner, frequencies/power
of the primary user.

[Jay Masino]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Every time we're coming into land in Iowa City -- especially when Mary is
> flying, and I'm concentrating exclusively on traffic avoidance -- I spot one
> or more cell tower strobes out of the corner of my eye, and momentarily
> tense up. There always follows a nervous moment or two while we determine
> that it's really not another aircraft...

Relax, this is our hobby. :) Actually, I never seem to notice the cell
tower strobes. Relatively, cell towers are pretty low to the ground.
It's those darn 1000' radio towers that bug me.



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Steve Robertson]

So what if the cell towers did had red lights instead of white strobes? Most
every plane with an electrical system has a red light on the wing and lots of
'em have a blinking red beacon. So, shouldn't "momentarily tense up" when you
see a red light, too?

Best,

Steve Robertson
N4732J 1967 Beechcraft Musketeer A23-24

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Has anyone else grown annoyed by the proliferation of cell towers with
> strobe lights?
>
> Every time we're coming into land in Iowa City -- especially when Mary is
> flying, and I'm concentrating exclusively on traffic avoidance -- I spot one
> or more cell tower strobes out of the corner of my eye, and momentarily
> tense up. There always follows a nervous moment or two while we determine
> that it's really not another aircraft...
>
> Who is the idiot that decreed that all cell towers should have *strobe*
> lights on them? What was wrong with the simple red lights that other
> obstructions sport?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> So what if the cell towers did had red lights instead of white strobes?
Most
> every plane with an electrical system has a red light on the wing and lots
of
> 'em have a blinking red beacon. So, shouldn't "momentarily tense up" when
you
> see a red light, too?

Only at night!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[zatatime]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:43:42 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:
>
>Who is the idiot that decreed that all cell towers should have *strobe*
>lights on them? What was wrong with the simple red lights that other
>obstructions sport?


All cell towers don't. Only those 200 feet high or more.

HTH

z

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:itlzc.90691$3x.12580@attbi_s54...
> Has anyone else grown annoyed by the proliferation of cell towers with
> strobe lights?
>
> Every time we're coming into land in Iowa City -- especially when Mary is
> flying, and I'm concentrating exclusively on traffic avoidance -- I spot
one
> or more cell tower strobes out of the corner of my eye, and momentarily
> tense up. There always follows a nervous moment or two while we determine
> that it's really not another aircraft...

If it's something you don't want to hit, does it really matter if it's a
tower or another aircraft?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:W4nzc.30964$2i5.5283@attbi_s52...
> > So what if the cell towers did had red lights instead of white strobes?
> Most
> > every plane with an electrical system has a red light on the wing and
lots
> of
> > 'em have a blinking red beacon. So, shouldn't "momentarily tense up"
when
> you
> > see a red light, too?
>
> Only at night!
>
> :-)
Right! Now, if you hear a siren as well....

[Bob Noel]

In article <itlzc.90691$3x.12580@attbi_s54>, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

> Who is the idiot that decreed that all cell towers should have *strobe*
> lights on them? What was wrong with the simple red lights that other
> obstructions sport?

maybe because strobes are easier to see than the simple red lights.
I kind of like the idea of enhancing the visibilities of things
that would be bad to hit.

If everyone had ADS-B, then we could have little ADS-B transmitters
on towers (neat idea - but will never happen because we'll never
get ADS-B).

--
Bob Noel

[steve]

I bet if you were to collide with a cell tower with NO strobe, you'd be on
the FCC's ass like **** on velrco to get a strobe on it.
"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:itlzc.90691$3x.12580@attbi_s54...
> Has anyone else grown annoyed by the proliferation of cell towers with
> strobe lights?
>
> Every time we're coming into land in Iowa City -- especially when Mary is
> flying, and I'm concentrating exclusively on traffic avoidance -- I spot
one
> or more cell tower strobes out of the corner of my eye, and momentarily
> tense up. There always follows a nervous moment or two while we determine
> that it's really not another aircraft...
>
> Who is the idiot that decreed that all cell towers should have *strobe*
> lights on them? What was wrong with the simple red lights that other
> obstructions sport?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Has anyone else grown annoyed by the proliferation of cell towers with
> strobe lights?

Technically, these are not cell phone towers - those are pretty low. These are PCS
towers. That makes no practical difference, since people are going to be calling them
"cell phones" forever, but that's why you're seeing more of them. The PCS towers are
tall enough to require strobes, and the wireless world is moving to PCS.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> If it's something you don't want to hit, does it really matter if it's a
> tower or another aircraft?

Good point.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Jay Honeck]

> > If it's something you don't want to hit, does it really matter if it's a
> > tower or another aircraft?

Yes. The towers are 200 feet off the ground, mostly lost in the ground
clutter, and are certainly not anything I'm worried about hitting.

My greatest fear is that one day these goofy strobes MAY distract me from
*real* traffic.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> maybe because strobes are easier to see than the simple red lights.
> I kind of like the idea of enhancing the visibilities of things
> that would be bad to hit.

Well, if you have to worry about hitting a 200 foot tower five miles from
the airport, you are in deeper doo-doo than any strobe is going to help...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Anton Ish]

Actually the strobes indicate when calls are being placed. The red
light is stil there to let you know there is a tower underneath.

I had a funny thought - what if on landing you came in and say Mary
wrapped the wheels around a power line and your only salvation upon
finding out that you survived was the cell tower you had the township
remove?


On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:43:42 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>Has anyone else grown annoyed by the proliferation of cell towers with
>strobe lights?
>
>Every time we're coming into land in Iowa City -- especially when Mary is
>flying, and I'm concentrating exclusively on traffic avoidance -- I spot one
>or more cell tower strobes out of the corner of my eye, and momentarily
>tense up. There always follows a nervous moment or two while we determine
>that it's really not another aircraft...
>
>Who is the idiot that decreed that all cell towers should have *strobe*
>lights on them? What was wrong with the simple red lights that other
>obstructions sport?

[Cub Driver]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 21:52:05 GMT, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>maybe because strobes are easier to see than the simple red lights.

Increasingly, I am seeing strobes within red traffic lights, and even
within red octagonal stop signs. They do increase awareness, but of
course in the end will lead to accidents at the traffic lights / stop
signs that are not so equipped.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

[m pautz]

In the old days, tower requirements were white and orange paint to bring
attention to the tower during the daytime and Blinking Red lights to
bring attention to the tower during the night time. (remember the white
and orange towers???)

Sometime in the 70's the rules were changed such that the towers did not
need the white/orange paint if they had 24 hour stobe lights.

Keeping a tower painted is quite pricey compared to the operating cost
of Stobe lights; to say nothing about how ugly it would be with a
proliferation of white/orange cell towers.

Marty Pautz

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article <itlzc.90691$3x.12580@attbi_s54>, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Who is the idiot that decreed that all cell towers should have *strobe*
>>lights on them? What was wrong with the simple red lights that other
>>obstructions sport?
>
>
> maybe because strobes are easier to see than the simple red lights.
> I kind of like the idea of enhancing the visibilities of things
> that would be bad to hit.
>
> If everyone had ADS-B, then we could have little ADS-B transmitters
> on towers (neat idea - but will never happen because we'll never
> get ADS-B).
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"steve" > opened mouth and inserted foot...
> I bet if you were to collide with a cell tower with NO strobe, you'd be on
> the FCC's ass like **** on velrco to get a strobe on it.

Even more so if it didn't have a red light, either. :~)

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > Who is the idiot that decreed that all cell towers should have *strobe*
> > lights on them? What was wrong with the simple red lights that other
> > obstructions sport?

Steve...read the whole thing before engaging mouth...ah, I mean keyboard.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:C8vzc.93394$3x.71344@attbi_s54...
> > > If it's something you don't want to hit, does it really matter if it's
a
> > > tower or another aircraft?
>
> Yes. The towers are 200 feet off the ground, mostly lost in the ground
> clutter, and are certainly not anything I'm worried about hitting.
>
> My greatest fear is that one day these goofy strobes MAY distract me from
> *real* traffic.

Someday a wingtip strobe may distract you from another, closer, aircraft
that doesn't have strobes. :~)

[Flyin'[email protected]]

How far are cell towers above AGL? The ones I have seen are only maybe a
couple hundred feet.

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:
> "steve" > opened mouth and inserted foot...
> > I bet if you were to collide with a cell tower with NO strobe, you'd be
> > on the FCC's ass like **** on velrco to get a strobe on it.
>
> Even more so if it didn't have a red light, either. :~)
>
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > > Who is the idiot that decreed that all cell towers should have
> > > *strobe* lights on them? What was wrong with the simple red lights
> > > that other obstructions sport?
>
> Steve...read the whole thing before engaging mouth...ah, I mean keyboard.

--
Mike Flyin'8

[Tom Sixkiller]

"m pautz" > wrote in message
news:XACzc.37718$eu.24221@attbi_s02...
> In the old days, tower requirements were white and orange paint to bring
> attention to the tower during the daytime and Blinking Red lights to
> bring attention to the tower during the night time. (remember the white
> and orange towers???)
>
> Sometime in the 70's the rules were changed such that the towers did not
> need the white/orange paint if they had 24 hour stobe lights.

Didn't that have something to do with visibility during fog (the strobes)?

[m pautz]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

> "m pautz" > wrote in message
> news:XACzc.37718$eu.24221@attbi_s02...
>
>>In the old days, tower requirements were white and orange paint to bring
>>attention to the tower during the daytime and Blinking Red lights to
>>bring attention to the tower during the night time. (remember the white
>>and orange towers???)
>>
>>Sometime in the 70's the rules were changed such that the towers did not
>>need the white/orange paint if they had 24 hour stobe lights.
>
>
> Didn't that have something to do with visibility during fog (the strobes)?
>
>

You're testing my memory; I can't remember the reasons. I used to be a
broadcast engineer at the time. All I remember was the advent of the
strobe in replacing the red flashing beacons. The strobes were so
bright that they could be visable during daylight hours and the need for
the white/orange requirement went away. I presume that the change was
strictly due the advancement of technology and the developement of high
power strobes. I am almost hesitant at posting this since it is a
presumption.

Marty Pautz
"promote a society that respects its elders; before it is too late"

[Peter Duniho]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> Increasingly, I am seeing strobes within red traffic lights, and even
> within red octagonal stop signs. They do increase awareness, but of
> course in the end will lead to accidents at the traffic lights / stop
> signs that are not so equipped.

Just like when they added the third brake light to motor vehicles, there was
an increase in rear-end accidents with vehicles that didn't have the third
brake light.

Yeah, right. Your "of course" leaves something to be desired.

Pete

[Tom Sixkiller]

"m pautz" > wrote in message
news:iKEzc.25961$Hg2.690@attbi_s04...
>
>
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Didn't that have something to do with visibility during fog (the
strobes)?
> >
> >
>
> You're testing my memory; I can't remember the reasons. I used to be a
> broadcast engineer at the time. All I remember was the advent of the
> strobe in replacing the red flashing beacons.

Likewise...but I vaguely recall (my memory is going almost a fast as my
knees) at least one factor was that the strobes were much more visible
during fog.

I'm dead sure that the fog issue was not the ONLY one.

Or, was it just a dream? :~)


> The strobes were so
> bright that they could be visable during daylight hours and the need for
> the white/orange requirement went away. I presume that the change was
> strictly due the advancement of technology and the developement of high
> power strobes. I am almost hesitant at posting this since it is a
> presumption.

Most likely you're right...that the technology was there and they, wisely,
took advantage of it.

[G.R. Patterson III]

wrote:
>
> How far are cell towers above AGL? The ones I have seen are only maybe a
> couple hundred feet.

Typical height of a cell tower is 60'. Typical height of a PCS tower is 180'.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Anton Ish wrote:
>
> I had a funny thought - what if on landing you came in and say Mary
> wrapped the wheels around a power line and your only salvation upon
> finding out that you survived was the cell tower you had the township
> remove?

He hasn't given any indication that he wants the towers removed. He wants the
*strobes* removed.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Well, if you have to worry about hitting a 200 foot tower five miles from
> the airport, you are in deeper doo-doo than any strobe is going to help...

Not necessarily. That strobe could help correct a nasty case of lack of situational
awareness. Of course, that lack might also be corrected by an unlighted tower, but
the cure might prove fatal to the patient.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[zatatime]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:02:42 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
wrote:
>>
>> How far are cell towers above AGL? The ones I have seen are only maybe a
>> couple hundred feet.
>
>Typical height of a cell tower is 60'. Typical height of a PCS tower is 180'.
>
>George Patterson
> None of us is as dumb as all of us.

The height is actually dependant on terrain. Typical values may be in
a flat land area, but where I live they are closer to 100 - 150 feet
high. I don't think this can be applied bas a rule of thumb beyond a
local area.

z

[Flyin'[email protected]]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > How far are cell towers above AGL? The ones I have seen are only maybe
> > a couple hundred feet.
>
> Typical height of a cell tower is 60'. Typical height of a PCS tower is
> 180'.
>
> George Patterson
> None of us is as dumb as all of us.

My only reason for asking is this, if we are not supposed to fly lower the
500ft AGL, why would this be a concern? The only location I could see that
this would matter is in the approach path.

--
Mike Flyin'8

[EDR]

> My only reason for asking is this, if we are not supposed to fly lower the
> 500ft AGL, why would this be a concern?

That's not true! Only in certain areas.

[Flyin'[email protected]]

EDR > wrote:
> > My only reason for asking is this, if we are not supposed to fly lower
> > the 500ft AGL, why would this be a concern?
>
> That's not true! Only in certain areas.

Please explain. I am only a student pilot and would like to know what areas
could one be less that 500 AGL without issues, other than approach or
departure.

--
Mike Flyin'8

[Jay Honeck]

> Someday a wingtip strobe may distract you from another, closer, aircraft
> that doesn't have strobes. :~)

That's what I like about you, Tom: In your world, no matter how bad the
problem is, it can *always* get worse!

How's that saying go? "It's impossible to be too cynical"?

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> He hasn't given any indication that he wants the towers removed. He wants
the
> *strobes* removed.

Right.

Man, my sentence structure must be garbled lately -- it seems like everyone
is misinterpreting my posts!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
...
> Please explain. I am only a student pilot and would like to know what
areas
> could one be less that 500 AGL without issues, other than approach or
> departure.

Read the relevant portion of Part 91.

You may fly below 500' in sparsely populated areas or over water.

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

> You may fly below 500' in sparsely populated areas or over water.

While this is true, my point is still this: Putting strobe lights on top of
every cell tower in town has created a much more confusing visual picture
for pilots coming in to land in Iowa City, and has done little to enhance
safety.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:%AJzc.36952$2i5.35791@attbi_s52...
> While this is true, my point is still this: Putting strobe lights on top
of
> every cell tower in town has created a much more confusing visual picture
> for pilots coming in to land in Iowa City, and has done little to enhance
> safety.

That has nothing to do with my reply. But since you asked... IMHO, if the
towers are high enough to warrant anti-collision lights, then it really
doesn't matter what kind of light is there, and it's a good thing for them
to be there, whether they are a flashing red light, or a white strobe.

Especially if you're talking about "pilots coming in to land in Iowa City",
since those pilots are presumably flying at the lower altitudes at which a
200' tower would be an issue.

That said, you're welcome to your opinion. You can't please everyone all of
the time, that's for darn sure. In spite of the enhanced visibility, plenty
of people made similar comments about the third brake light and about
"daytime running lights".

I would be interested to hear how you came to the conclusion that the
strobes have "done little to enhance safety". What scientific study have
you accomplished to prove that statement? None, of course. It's only your
opinion. As long as you recognize that the strobes may indeed enhance
safety, even though you don't realize it, I guess that's okay. But your
statement makes it sound like you actually *know* your claim is true, even
though you don't.

Pete

[EDR]

In article >, >
wrote:

> EDR > wrote:
> > > My only reason for asking is this, if we are not supposed to fly lower
> > > the 500ft AGL, why would this be a concern?
> >
> > That's not true! Only in certain areas.
>
> Please explain. I am only a student pilot and would like to know what areas
> could one be less that 500 AGL without issues, other than approach or
> departure.

The "regs" say 500 feet from any person, vehicle or structure in
uncongested areas.
Nowhere, however will you find a definition of "uncongested" or
"congested".
You will also find references to such things as "open air assemblies of
people".

[EDR]

In article >, Peter Duniho
> wrote:

> Read the relevant portion of Part 91.
> You may fly below 500' in sparsely populated areas or over water.

That's it! That's the word, "sparsly populated", not "uncongested"!
There is no definition for either of those words in the FAA lexicon.

[EDR]

In article <%AJzc.36952$2i5.35791@attbi_s52>, Jay Honeck
> wrote:

> > You may fly below 500' in sparsely populated areas or over water.
>
> While this is true, my point is still this: Putting strobe lights on top of
> every cell tower in town has created a much more confusing visual picture
> for pilots coming in to land in Iowa City, and has done little to enhance
> safety.

Aw, come on Jay!!!
They are the 21st Century equivalent of the original mailroute
bonfires. How else are you going to find the homedrome when you're
scudrunnin? Learn the pattern, mark them as waypoints on that big,
color GPS or you'in.

[mike regish]

I hate those things. I usually don't look directly at the light the entire
time I'm stopped adn every time I catch the strobe flash out the corner of
my eye, I get ready to go thinking the light has changed.

I think they're a bad idea touted by somebody who had some money to make on
them.

mike regish

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 21:52:05 GMT, Bob Noel
> > wrote:
>
> >maybe because strobes are easier to see than the simple red lights.
>
> Increasingly, I am seeing strobes within red traffic lights, and even
> within red octagonal stop signs. They do increase awareness, but of
> course in the end will lead to accidents at the traffic lights / stop
> signs that are not so equipped.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
> The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
> Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:fDIzc.55160$HG.2608@attbi_s53...
> > He hasn't given any indication that he wants the towers removed. He
wants
> the
> > *strobes* removed.
>
> Right.
>
> Man, my sentence structure must be garbled lately -- it seems like
everyone
> is misinterpreting my posts!

What posts?

[Peter Duniho]

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
> That's it! That's the word, "sparsly populated", not "uncongested"!
> There is no definition for either of those words in the FAA lexicon.

No, you're right, there's not. One of those "funny" places in the FARs
where the FAA never really tells exactly what they mean.

I like to think of it this way: if it's actually possible to be below 500'
and at least 2000' laterally from the nearest man-made structure, that's
"sparsely populated". :) Or in other words, if you can't get 2000'
laterally away from the nearest man-made structure, thus rendering the
theoretical "below 500' AGL" allowance moot, that's NOT "sparsely
populated".

To state it yet another way: if you can apply the regulation to get below
500', then you're in "sparsely populated" terrority.

Pete

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:55:02 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>Just like when they added the third brake light to motor vehicles, there was
>an increase in rear-end accidents with vehicles that didn't have the third
>brake light.

I am sure there was, and that it will increase over time as they
become more rare.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

[Paul Sengupta]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:itlzc.90691$3x.12580@attbi_s54...
> Has anyone else grown annoyed by the proliferation of cell towers with
> strobe lights?
>
> Every time we're coming into land in Iowa City -- especially when Mary is
> flying, and I'm concentrating exclusively on traffic avoidance -- I spot
one
> or more cell tower strobes out of the corner of my eye, and momentarily
> tense up. There always follows a nervous moment or two while we determine
> that it's really not another aircraft...
>
> Who is the idiot that decreed that all cell towers should have *strobe*
> lights on them? What was wrong with the simple red lights that other
> obstructions sport?

Near Cardiff airport in the UK there are a couple of 1000ft masts
that are actually used as visual reporting points. Wenvoe had a
period of having strobes up it. It looked very cool from the ground,
no idea about from the air as I didn't fly at the time. However within
a couple of years (maybe more, I lose track of time) it was back to
red lights.

Paul

[Cub Driver]

On 15 Jun 2004 19:41:51 GMT, wrote:

>Please explain. I am only a student pilot and would like to know what areas
>could one be less that 500 AGL without issues, other than approach or
>departure.

Mike, the requirement is that you stay 500 feet from anything manmade.
You can for example skim the surface of a frozen lake, either turning
to one side or climbing if you come across a snowmobile. (To cite an
example from my own experience.) Same over a lake that is not busy
with traffic. Same indeed over land, though I would wager that you'd
get into trouble in a wooded, built-up area such as I live in, in SE
New Hampshire. It's much more difficult over land to be sure you are
500 feet from a human or a human artifact such as a tent, for example.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

[Cub Driver]

On 15 Jun 2004 17:31:25 GMT, wrote:

>My only reason for asking is this, if we are not supposed to fly lower the
>500ft AGL, why would this be a concern? The only location I could see that
>this would matter is in the approach path.

First time I used Flight Sim, I was astonished at how unlike the local
terrain the image on the monitor was. It was full of cell phone
antennae, which I had never seen, and missing most of the landmarks I
regularly used.

I don't know if I've ever seen a cell-phone tower. (Plenty of towers,
of course, and I suppose some of them serve as cell-phone towers as
well.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

[Peter Duniho]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> I am sure there was

You are "sure"? How convenient. In that case, I'm just as "sure" that
there wasn't.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Well, if you have to worry about hitting a 200 foot tower five miles from
> the airport, you are in deeper doo-doo than any strobe is going to help...

Or you're in a helicopter.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[aaronw]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 05:59:46 -0400, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>Increasingly, I am seeing strobes within red traffic lights, and even
>within red octagonal stop signs. They do increase awareness, but of
>course in the end will lead to accidents at the traffic lights / stop
>signs that are not so equipped.

I have seen some of these strobe inside the red lights and the few
places I've seen them are generally when they are unexpected. it's a
two-lane divided highway or similar, and there is a solitary
intersection, and it's the only one for miles. It really gets your
attention there because, well, the light is unexpected in that area.

aw

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:04:03 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>You are "sure"? How convenient. In that case, I'm just as "sure" that
>there wasn't.

Fine. Don't drive in Boston during the Democratic National Convention
:)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

[John R]

zatatime wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:43:42 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
> >
> >Who is the idiot that decreed that all cell towers should have *strobe*
> >lights on them? What was wrong with the simple red lights that other
> >obstructions sport?
>
> All cell towers don't. Only those 200 feet high or more.

I thought we werer talking in the thread about towers in the vicinity of an
airport. Towers need not be 200 feet high to be lit when in the vicinity of
an airport.

[John R]

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone else grown annoyed by the proliferation of cell towers with
> > strobe lights?
>
> Technically, these are not cell phone towers - those are pretty low. These are PCS
> towers. That makes no practical difference, since people are going to be calling them
> "cell phones" forever, but that's why you're seeing more of them. The PCS towers are
> tall enough to require strobes, and the wireless world is moving to PCS.

That doesn't make sense at all. PCS operates in the 1850-1910 MHz and 1930-1990 Mhz
range. Some carriers, such as Verizon, offer digital Part 22 service in the 800 Mhz
range and they have many towers about 199 feet tall.

I can assure you that digital wireless service in the 800 Mhz band is here to stay and it
is NOT "PCS." .

On the other hand, T-Mobile implements GSM service in the bands that the FCC describes as
PCS. T-Mobile has often been concentrating on placing more antennas closer to the ground
level rather than fewer antenna sites at higher elevations. They use existing structures
whenever possible.

[John R]

EDR wrote:

> In article >, >
> wrote:
>
> > EDR > wrote:
> > > > My only reason for asking is this, if we are not supposed to fly lower
> > > > the 500ft AGL, why would this be a concern?
> > >
> > > That's not true! Only in certain areas.
> >
> > Please explain. I am only a student pilot and would like to know what areas
> > could one be less that 500 AGL without issues, other than approach or
> > departure.
>
> The "regs" say 500 feet from any person, vehicle or structure in
> uncongested areas.
> Nowhere, however will you find a definition of "uncongested" or
> "congested".
> You will also find references to such things as "open air assemblies of
> people".

It seems that FAA has purposefully let the "congested" definition open for
interpretation.