A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

I hate cell towers



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old June 18th 04, 03:00 AM
John R
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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.

  #52  
Old June 18th 04, 03:06 AM
John R
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



"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.

  #53  
Old June 18th 04, 03:08 AM
John R
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Permit to use aircraft radio frequencies on ground C. J. Clegg General Aviation 23 January 20th 05 07:23 PM
Cell Phone in small plane Ron Home Built 1 August 6th 04 02:10 PM
Jews Hate Palestinians Paminifarm Naval Aviation 40 June 11th 04 04:01 PM
Planes & Cell phones Greg Copeland Piloting 52 June 10th 04 10:38 PM
i HATE bush - i HATE bush - i HATE bush - i HATE bush - i HATE bush - i HATE bush - i HATE bush - Cub Driver Military Aviation 0 October 29th 03 11:21 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.