Narrative:

There is a tremendous amount of small aircraft and helicopter's that fly in and out of pns. To my concern, I feel a hazard to navigation still exists on the airport property, even though the top 140' of an FAA microwave tower was removed in late 1989. The need for this occurrence was brought to light by myself, through the auspices and concerns by the fine office of yours, the airline pilot's assn air safety division, NASA ASRS, operations officer at pns, and my visit and letter to the editor of the pensacola news journal. All concern brought to light the FAA's folly of erecting said tower based on an erroneous internally generated impact study. I'm no rocket scientist, but on my first viewing of the tower going up, I was sure it impacted existing approachs to the INS runways, at least requiring a NOTAM similar to crane obstruction on or near an airport. Until I raised the question, not even a NOTAM existed. Although the present reduced height satisfies the FAA's own rules for any obstruction on or near airport and runways under, I believe, FAA part 77, I personally believe that it still is not right. There is no authority with the gumption to insist on additional and/or the complete removal of the tower. My contention is that the FAA has satisfied their own rules. There still exists a stub of the originally erected tower that reaches far above the height of the existing tree tops in that area. Why should it not be further removed below the tree top level, if not completely to the ground. I would like to have those authorities within the FAA nationwide put on notice to be more prudently careful concerning the erection of towers and obstructions that conflict with aircraft close aboard an airport throughout this great country of ours. Who knows what predicament might present itself for some unfortunate innocent pilot and possibly his passenger struggling to maintain altitude and direction during a complicated emergency landing--might still impact that lone tower. The tower serves no earthly purpose. It was a mistake to erect it so close. When will it come down? When will it be over? They say, 'it's over when the fat lady sings!' will the fat lady please sing? Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: called the air traffic manager at pns TRACON. The atm stated that the FAA's position is that the microwave tower is not a hazard to navigation. They had planned to remove the tower when F&east personnel came to install another microwave tower. However, due to congressional pressure, the FAA has stated in the local newspaper that the plan to remove the tower within 90 days.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MICROWAVE TWR OBSTRUCTION DEEMED A HAZARD TO NAVIGATION BY THE REPORTER.

Narrative: THERE IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF SMA AND HELI'S THAT FLY IN AND OUT OF PNS. TO MY CONCERN, I FEEL A HAZARD TO NAV STILL EXISTS ON THE ARPT PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH THE TOP 140' OF AN FAA MICROWAVE TWR WAS REMOVED IN LATE 1989. THE NEED FOR THIS OCCURRENCE WAS BROUGHT TO LIGHT BY MYSELF, THROUGH THE AUSPICES AND CONCERNS BY THE FINE OFFICE OF YOURS, THE AIRLINE PLT'S ASSN AIR SAFETY DIVISION, NASA ASRS, OPS OFFICER AT PNS, AND MY VISIT AND LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE PENSACOLA NEWS JOURNAL. ALL CONCERN BROUGHT TO LIGHT THE FAA'S FOLLY OF ERECTING SAID TWR BASED ON AN ERRONEOUS INTERNALLY GENERATED IMPACT STUDY. I'M NO ROCKET SCIENTIST, BUT ON MY FIRST VIEWING OF THE TWR GOING UP, I WAS SURE IT IMPACTED EXISTING APCHS TO THE INS RWYS, AT LEAST REQUIRING A NOTAM SIMILAR TO CRANE OBSTRUCTION ON OR NEAR AN ARPT. UNTIL I RAISED THE QUESTION, NOT EVEN A NOTAM EXISTED. ALTHOUGH THE PRESENT REDUCED HEIGHT SATISFIES THE FAA'S OWN RULES FOR ANY OBSTRUCTION ON OR NEAR ARPT AND RWYS UNDER, I BELIEVE, FAA PART 77, I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT IT STILL IS NOT RIGHT. THERE IS NO AUTHORITY WITH THE GUMPTION TO INSIST ON ADDITIONAL AND/OR THE COMPLETE REMOVAL OF THE TWR. MY CONTENTION IS THAT THE FAA HAS SATISFIED THEIR OWN RULES. THERE STILL EXISTS A STUB OF THE ORIGINALLY ERECTED TWR THAT REACHES FAR ABOVE THE HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING TREE TOPS IN THAT AREA. WHY SHOULD IT NOT BE FURTHER REMOVED BELOW THE TREE TOP LEVEL, IF NOT COMPLETELY TO THE GND. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THOSE AUTHORITIES WITHIN THE FAA NATIONWIDE PUT ON NOTICE TO BE MORE PRUDENTLY CAREFUL CONCERNING THE ERECTION OF TWRS AND OBSTRUCTIONS THAT CONFLICT WITH ACFT CLOSE ABOARD AN ARPT THROUGHOUT THIS GREAT COUNTRY OF OURS. WHO KNOWS WHAT PREDICAMENT MIGHT PRESENT ITSELF FOR SOME UNFORTUNATE INNOCENT PLT AND POSSIBLY HIS PAX STRUGGLING TO MAINTAIN ALT AND DIRECTION DURING A COMPLICATED EMER LNDG--MIGHT STILL IMPACT THAT LONE TWR. THE TWR SERVES NO EARTHLY PURPOSE. IT WAS A MISTAKE TO ERECT IT SO CLOSE. WHEN WILL IT COME DOWN? WHEN WILL IT BE OVER? THEY SAY, 'IT'S OVER WHEN THE FAT LADY SINGS!' WILL THE FAT LADY PLEASE SING? CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: CALLED THE AIR TFC MGR AT PNS TRACON. THE ATM STATED THAT THE FAA'S POS IS THAT THE MICROWAVE TWR IS NOT A HAZARD TO NAV. THEY HAD PLANNED TO REMOVE THE TWR WHEN F&E PERSONNEL CAME TO INSTALL ANOTHER MICROWAVE TWR. HOWEVER, DUE TO CONGRESSIONAL PRESSURE, THE FAA HAS STATED IN THE LCL NEWSPAPER THAT THE PLAN TO REMOVE THE TWR WITHIN 90 DAYS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.