FAA REVIEW OF PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER---PART 2

FAA Review Practices and Standards

FAA JO 7400.2K has a number of requirements for the performance of their reviews. Section 5-2-2 a. states that “Obstruction Evaluation Group (OEG) personnel must administer aeronautical studies with the coordinated assistance of Airports, Technical Operations Services, Frequency Management, Flight Standards, Flight Procedures Team, Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Homeland Security Representatives”. All of these organizations were “coordinated” in less than a week.   This is quite an impressive array of Federal agencies to respond  in such a timely fashion.

Section 6-2-2  requires that a completeness review of the submission must be done before the review starts. Exceptions may be made for emergency situations, but it is not clear whether an upcoming county planning agency meeting would qualify as an “emergency”.

Section 6-2-3 discusses the coordination of the work among the various Divisions that are involved, and it exempts several organizations from certain reviews of temporary structures or from non-substantive changes, but it is not clear how this tower could benefit from any of the exemptions.

Section 6-3 discusses the various types of adverse effects that could result from construction of Hazards to Navigation, and how they can be evaluated and mitigated.  The list of hazards is quite extensive, as is the list of possible mitigation actions. The FAA was able to complete this review in less than one week, rather than the 2 months that would normally be scheduled.

Chapter 7 discusses the procedure for making the determination itself.  Section 7-1-1 states that “All known aeronautical facts revealed during the obstruction evaluation must be considered when issuing an official FAA determination. The determination must be a composite of all comments and findings received from interested FAA offices.  …”  Again quite a bit of work to do in one week.

Section 7-1-4 describes the content and options for issuing a Determination. The letter is required to include a full description of the structure, its location and height, and whether marking and/or lighting is recommended. Additional language relating to optional lighting is also discussed, as is the expiration date of the recommendation and the need for a supplemental notice to report start and completion of construction. 

Section 7-1-7 a.5. also says that "Copies of the determination must always [emphasis added] be accompanied by a copy of the submitted map and, if applicable, a copy of the surveys."  The FAA did include a map as page 4 of the original determination, but did not include it in the second Determination, which was only 3 pages long.  Perhaps they thought that the first map was sufficient. If so, then this Determination is relying on the first one and therefore the Determination is deficient.

There is also an important note that if construction cranes will be needed and they are higher than the facility that is proposed, an additional FAA Determination letter will be needed to address the construction cranes.  So, if DTI gets permission to construct this tower, we can expect to see yet another huge structure looking over our back yards, with flashing red lights to warn away the airplanes.  For as long as it takes to build the tower, and then, when some maintenance issue arises, to fix it

Lingering questions

Given the quick turnaround that the FAA provided to DTI, we wonder whether the FAA actually did a second, independent review of the hazards for the second tower site, or whether it just used the results from the first site. FAA guidance specifically does not allow this.  

Section 7-3-2 of 7400.2K discusses corrections to a determination, and says "…   Editorial changes that do not involve a coordinate change (of one second or more in latitude or longitude) or elevation change (of one foot or more) may be issued as corrections. In this case, no change to dates could be necessary.  Adjustments or corrections to a proposal that involve one or both of the above coordinate or elevation changes must be addressed as a new and separate obstruction evaluation study."

It is clear from this guidance that the FAA policy does not allow evaluations to be re-used if they exceed this criteria.  They are too site-specific and the results could be very sensitive to small changes. Unfortunately for DTI, the second tower site is 100 yards away from the first – much more than one second of arc.  Therefore, the FAA should NOT have used the results of the first study to approve the second.   

Curiously, the Determination of No Hazard that was issued for the second tower references the study done for the first tower (see the upper right corner where is says  “Aeronautical Study No. 2014-ASO-14040-OE, Prior Study No. 2013-ASO-1479-OE”).  Why would the FAA include this reference to the prior study if it performed a “new and separate obstruction evaluation study”?  Are they following their own procedures, or do they do favors for telecommunications tower construction companies?  

It must have been very tempting for a reviewer to use the simple Notice Criteria screening tool and see that the locations are only one foot apart, so it should not really matter. If you don’t read the actual application and carefully consider what you are told, it could be an easy mistake to make, especially under pressure from a frequent client in a difficult situation.

If you are the bureaucrat, you can say that it doesn’t really matter, because we can fix this later. We will just wait until they put up the tower, then go out and inspect it (required by their own procedure), and then if we really think it is a hazard, we can make them put a few lights on it.

This is fine for the FAA, but to the neighbors, it will be a nightmare. One that can come to life at any time, triggered by something as simple as a student pilot flying out of Martin County Witham Airport who gets lost during his first solo flight at night.  He gets lost, loses altitude, and has a heart-pounding close encounter with a tower that doesn’t have any lights on it (because the neighbors don’t want it lit up with flashing strobe or red lights into their bedrooms). The new pilot files a report of the near collision with the FAA, who orders a new aeronautical study, and decides that lights are necessary. What happens then?

On March 6, 2105, the intervenors filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request pertaining to the telecommunications tower at Sailfish Marina. It will be interesting to see what documentation the FAA releases, in response to our FOIA request that relates to these two Determination letters. 

We will be looking closely to see how the FAA coordinator presented the case to DOD and Homeland Security and what comments they provided back to him/her, as well as all the other parts of the FAA that should have been involved in this application.