The potential impact on your flying - no pun intended - is very real. Analysts estimate that between 61,000 and 125,000 new cellular telephone towers will be needed in the next few years. According to a well-known consultant who helps companies find the best tower locations, these sites will be "especially in suburban and rural areas where few suitable tall structures are available to lease as antenna support platforms" - the same areas where general aviation airports tend to be located. It doesn't take very many obstructed approaches to effectively shut down an airport.
AOPA Airport Support Network (ASN) volunteers - AOPA members who watch over hometown airports, perhaps yours - usually are among the first to see the effects of planned towers. In August, AOPA ASN volunteer David Dodson discovered plans for a tower in the final approach path for Runway 27 at his airport, Elkhart (Indiana) Municipal. As planned, it would have been just three-quarters of a mile from the end of the runway. Wouldn't you hate to be a little low on that approach?
Using AOPA advice and resources, Dodson persuaded the tower builder to find a new location. That's the good news. The bad news is that Dodson reports other tower proposals popping up in his area "almost every day."
"One local farmer told me he was offered $10,000 per year with a guarantee of 25 years for just allowing a tower on his land," Dodson adds. "A guaranteed cool quarter million is quite an incentive."
Supposedly, the FAA will prohibit construction of towers or other obstructions that could reasonably get in the way of aircraft. The regulation is Part 77 of the federal aviation regulations (FARs), "Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace." (That regulation is in the members-only section of AOPA Online (www.aopa.org/members/files/fars/far-77.txt ). The trouble is that FAR Part 77 has few regulatory teeth. If a builder wants to erect a massive tower near the end of your public-use runway, the FAA would almost certainly issue a "determination of hazard." But Mr. Tower Builder could just laugh and build his tower, because an FAA determination of hazard has no provision for enforcement.
Despite that, FAR Part 77 works reasonably well in many cases, in part because no insurance company will risk its assets on something officially declared a hazard. Also, the FCC will refuse a license (assuming the obstruction is for something that requires an FCC license). Nonetheless, you can be sure that the current tower-building boom will result in many more towers cleverly planned so as to almost-but-not-quite touch the imaginary protection surfaces defined by the regulation.
The other problem is not so much with FAR Part 77 itself as with its use by some FAA officials more concerned with rules than reality. Such a case is playing out now in Alaska, where a broadcaster wants to erect a 360-foot agl (497 foot msl) tower less than 10 miles from Anchorage International Airport.
Even though the tower wouldn't technically meet obstruction standards, the FAA Air Traffic Manager in Alaska ruled it a hazard - partly because of the large number of VFR aircraft operating at low altitudes in that area, frequently in marginal visibility. Worse, VFR aircraft bound for nearby Merrill Field are required to fly below 600 feet shortly after passing the proposed location.
Of course, the tower company appealed the hazard determination. Against the advice of its own experts, the FAA Airspace and Rules Division stuck to the letter of the rulebook and overturned the hazard call. AOPA and the Alaska Airmen's Association are fighting for common sense in that case.
The FAA has long relied on state and local zoning authorities to protect pilots from obstructions. But most communities don't have land use plans or ordinances that protect airports, and rapid new tower construction is catching them unaware. A primer on the issue is AOPA's Guide to Land Use and Noise Issues, available free to members (www.aopa. org/members/files/guides/land_use/).
AOPA relies on members to help track tower infringements on airports and provides information to fight these problems. A good pilot is always learning. A better pilot is learning and getting involved with aviation issues. Are you a good pilot, or a better pilot?
