On Jun 17, 2007, at 8:04 AM, texasexpediter wrote: > What is the maximum height a tower can be without falling under all > the lighting, painting etc. regulations?
Others have mentioned that it's 199 feet. Lower near airports. Oh... and you don't have to be NEAR an airport to have required lighting in mountainous or rolling terrain. Your tower might just happen to fall directly under the flight path of an approach corridor, or other aviation "busy" area and be very short, but it "adds" to a mountain already "in the way" of the corridor... and be required to have lighting... The "near airports" is actually a vertical gradient from the runway environment to the tower, and is hyper-complex in that the FAA has a bunch of rules surrounding it -- all of which are in the interests of aviation safety. Whether or not the airport has an instrument approach (where aircraft will be physically lower to the ground - especially non-precision instrument approaches with circle-to-land minimums listed) can come into play, as well as a whole pile of other things. Basically, it comes down to this: The FAA decides if the tower needs lights, and if it does -- the FCC enforces. Truly ANY structure can be required to be lighted. Look at the tops of buildings near airports sometime -- you'll see many have aviation red markers at their top corners or on the facade wall above the elevator shaft. They don't pay for the lighting system out of the "goodness of their hearts", that's for sure. I tried to read all the TERPS data and rules one time that I could get my hands on, to figure it all out and came away boggled. There's a LOT of rules the FAA folks follow to determine if a structure needs lighting. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
