• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

AM 1240's Tower light

E

ElmoreGantry

Guest
Im not sure if this falls under the FCC rules violations or not, but the tower light in Southaven at AM 1240 is OUT. But this tower is under 500 feet I believe. Just curious since Flinn owns this station(just happened to be driving by and noticed.)
 
> Im not sure if this falls under the FCC rules violations or
> not, but the tower light in Southaven at AM 1240 is OUT. But
> this tower is under 500 feet I believe. Just curious since
> Flinn owns this station(just happened to be driving by and
> noticed.)
>
Don't know if the rules have changed or not, but it sounds like a violation unless he has notified the FCC.

The Commission fined Telecorp Communications, Inc. $80,000 for failing to comply with Commission rules regarding proper lighting of antenna structures. FCC rules say that antenna structures that are located close to airports, or that are greater than 200 feet in height, must comply with painting and lighting rules to ensure air safety. Antenna structure owners are required to monitor their tower lights daily or have an automatic alarm system installed to warn of an outage. If there is a malfunction, the tower owner is required to notify the FAA if the major antenna structure lights are inoperative and cannot be repaired within 30 minutes. This lets the FAA issue a Notice to Airmen ("NOTAM") advising aircraft of the outage and of the location of the tower.
 
If it WAS lit but is now unlit, it's a violation unless they have a waiver on file. Otherwise, everything Muddy said applies.

<P ID="signature">______________
Never hold a cat and a dustbuster at the same time.</P>
 
Re: A "trend" here?

Wonder who owns the 1,000+ foot tower at Stage Road (U.S.64) and Brother Blvd? The "steady" lights (non-flashing) at 3, or 4 intermediate levels have been out for weeks!

Do I detect a pattern of neglect here? One owner, multiple violations at multiple sites?

Consider the Bartlett tower reported to the FAA.


>
> The Commission fined Telecorp Communications, Inc. $80,000
> for failing to comply with Commission rules regarding proper
> lighting of antenna structures. FCC rules say that antenna
> structures that are located close to airports, or that are
> greater than 200 feet in height, must comply with painting
> and lighting rules to ensure air safety. Antenna structure
> owners are required to monitor their tower lights daily or
> have an automatic alarm system installed to warn of an
> outage. If there is a malfunction, the tower owner is
> required to notify the FAA if the major antenna structure
> lights are inoperative and cannot be repaired within 30
> minutes. This lets the FAA issue a Notice to Airmen
> ("NOTAM") advising aircraft of the outage and of the
> location of the tower.
>
 
Re: A "trend" here?thinking aloud

> Wonder who owns the 1,000+ foot tower at Stage Road (U.S.64)
> and Brother Blvd? The "steady" lights (non-flashing) at 3,
> or 4 intermediate levels have been out for weeks!
>
> Do I detect a pattern of neglect here? One owner, multiple
> violations at multiple sites?
>
> Consider the Bartlett tower reported to the FAA.
>
>
> >
> > The Commission fined Telecorp Communications, Inc. $80,000
>Im not sure who's tower that is at Bartlett and US 64.Thinking aloud.....I just draw a blank.
 
> Don't know if the rules have changed or not, but it sounds
> like a violation unless he has notified the FCC.

What you're saying is basically correct. They have to notify the FAA within 30 minutes of finding the tower light out, but, unless they have an automatic alert system, they only have to check the tower lighting once a day, or twice if they have both daytime and nighttime lighting. The lights going out and not being reported, however, is not normally an FCC violation in and of itself, at least not immediately. It would only be an FCC violation if it were the result of noncompliance with other FCC rules regarding lighting. Most of those violations are violations regardless of whether or not the lights work. I believe the FCC does have some requirements regarding fixing broken lights, but I seem to remember it being something like a 45 or 90 day timeframe.
 
> Don't know if the rules have changed or not, but it sounds
> like a violation unless he has notified the FCC.
>
> The Commission fined Telecorp Communications, Inc. $80,000
> for failing to comply with Commission rules regarding proper
> lighting of antenna structures. FCC rules say that antenna
> structures that are located close to airports, or that are
> greater than 200 feet in height, must comply with painting
> and lighting rules to ensure air safety. Antenna structure
> owners are required to monitor their tower lights daily or
> have an automatic alarm system installed to warn of an
> outage. If there is a malfunction, the tower owner is
> required to notify the FAA if the major antenna structure
> lights are inoperative and cannot be repaired within 30
> minutes. This lets the FAA issue a Notice to Airmen
> ("NOTAM") advising aircraft of the outage and of the
> location of the tower.
As far as I know, this is still true.
 
A different tower light question?

> If it WAS lit but is now unlit, it's a violation unless they
> have a waiver on file. Otherwise, everything Muddy said
> applies.
>

This is slightly off subject, but what's the ruling on
radio/broadcast towers on top of skyscrapers?

Or even lights on top of the buildings themselves?

Here in Nashville, we have three 400+ ft. skyscrapers
(two with towers) that have not replaced their burned
out lights. Nashville Intl is about 8 miles away, so
maybe since it's out of the flight pattern, it doesn't
matter.

Just odd that we have two buildings with any warning
lights out of our entire skyline. It used to be
about 50%.

I wondered if something had changed with the FAA or FCC.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by tibbs on 06/24/05 02:51 PM.</FONT></P>
 
Re: A different tower light question?

I think, but am not 100% sure that buildings which are brightly and continuosly lit (such as the Batcave over that way) can get a waiver for obstruction lighting.

<P ID="signature">______________
Never hold a cat and a dustbuster at the same time.</P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom