Narrative:

On jan/xx/97 during a drive past the roc airport, I noticed the installation of a new cellular telephone tower. The tower was located on airport property approximately 100 ft northeast of the roc airport beacon. I observed that the tower was not marked in aviation red/white although it was substantially taller than the airport beacon and closer to runway 4/22 than the airport beacon. The beacon is appropriately marked. I also observed that the tower obstructed the airport beacon to the northeast of the airport. I reviewed my terminal charts and NOTAMS and noted that this obstacle was not accounted for. I became concerned because other obstacles which are both shorter and further from the airport than this new tower are depicted on the approach plates. On jan/yy/97 I contacted the roc FSDO and roc tower. FAA contacts at both locations were unaware of the cellular installation. On jan/zz/97 I contacted the ny regional airways facilities office. I verified the tower location and ht. The airways facilities office also provided me with the case number (information attached) for the installation. The airways facilities office told me that the FAA had chosen not to conduct public hearings for this installation. The office was unaware that the installation impeded view of the roc beacon and they were unaware that the obstacle was not listed on navigation charts. Tower location: 43 degrees 7 mins 09.83 north, 77 degrees 40 mins 57.08 west. Ht: 80 ft AGL, 628 ft MSL. Safety concerns: 1) the obstacle is not listed on navigation charts and there are no published NOTAMS to advise aviators of the obstacle. The obstacle is taller than other obstacles which are listed on the navigation charts. In fact this obstacle is the second tallest obstacle on the airport property. (The ATC tower being the tallest.) how does a pilot see and avoid an obstacle they don't know is there? 2) the obstacle obstructs view of a visual NAVAID, the roc airport beacon, to the northeast. There is no NOTAM advising aviators that NAVAID performance is degraded. 3) the obstacle is not conspicuously marked for day operations and is very difficult to see. The tower is gray in color and the associated building is brown. Both are very well camouflaged by the local terrain, especially during the winter months. Such an inconspicuous installation in close proximity to the runways and in the circle-to-land area for IFR approachs is a hazard to air navigation. 4) access to airport property: who has access to this on-airport cellular installation? Do phone company personnel have unlimited access? What precautions are taken to insure that people and vehicles are properly controled during ILS operations? Are airport security regulations adhered to? 5) electromagnetic interference (EMI): what effect does the electromagnetic radiation from this cellular installation have on aircraft communication, navigation receivers and avionics? Have all possible intermodulation distortion products been accounted for, evaluated and determined safe for ILS CAT III and CAT ii approach environments? What about receiver desensitization or overload? 6) I'm concerned that there was no public hearing per part 77 regarding this on-airport installation. Aviators were not given an opportunity to comment on this installation. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that he was not only concerned about the obstructing tower lack of notice to airmen by charting, but the evaluate of the possible frequency interference to the low output transmitter wattage of the navigation/communication airport transmitters with the relative high power (100 watts) of the 36 cellular phone transmitters. He is also concerned that since the transmitters are apparently not used for aviation purposes, it could be considered in violations of airport aid funds. He further stated that he has learned through contact with the various FAA branches, and airport management, that there was a part 77 study accomplished, and a hazard determination issued. The airport manager assumed that the notice to airmen had been automatically given. He did note that there had been some NOTAM issued through the airport ATIS, but not consistently. He also stated that the coordinates for the tower location should have been 43.07 degrees instead of 43.70 degrees. Also, the tower is actually located 1200 ft off the side of the runway and not 100 ft. The representation of where the rotating beacon is shown on the airport diagram is in error!

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PVT PLT OBSERVED A HIGH CELLULAR PHONE XMITTER TWR ALONG SIDE OF THE MAJOR RWY OF THE ROC ARPT WHICH WAS NOT NOTAMED, INDICATED IN THE REMARKS SECTION OF THE AFD OR ON THE ARPT DIAGRAM FOR THE ARPT. HE BELIEVES THAT IT IS A HAZARD TO AIR NAV SINCE IT BLOCKS A PORTION OF THE NE SECTOR OF THE ARPT ROTATING BEACON LIGHT. HE IS ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT NAV-COM FREQ INTERFERENCE.

Narrative: ON JAN/XX/97 DURING A DRIVE PAST THE ROC ARPT, I NOTICED THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW CELLULAR TELEPHONE TWR. THE TWR WAS LOCATED ON ARPT PROPERTY APPROX 100 FT NE OF THE ROC ARPT BEACON. I OBSERVED THAT THE TWR WAS NOT MARKED IN AVIATION RED/WHITE ALTHOUGH IT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY TALLER THAN THE ARPT BEACON AND CLOSER TO RWY 4/22 THAN THE ARPT BEACON. THE BEACON IS APPROPRIATELY MARKED. I ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE TWR OBSTRUCTED THE ARPT BEACON TO THE NE OF THE ARPT. I REVIEWED MY TERMINAL CHARTS AND NOTAMS AND NOTED THAT THIS OBSTACLE WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR. I BECAME CONCERNED BECAUSE OTHER OBSTACLES WHICH ARE BOTH SHORTER AND FURTHER FROM THE ARPT THAN THIS NEW TWR ARE DEPICTED ON THE APCH PLATES. ON JAN/YY/97 I CONTACTED THE ROC FSDO AND ROC TWR. FAA CONTACTS AT BOTH LOCATIONS WERE UNAWARE OF THE CELLULAR INSTALLATION. ON JAN/ZZ/97 I CONTACTED THE NY REGIONAL AIRWAYS FACILITIES OFFICE. I VERIFIED THE TWR LOCATION AND HT. THE AIRWAYS FACILITIES OFFICE ALSO PROVIDED ME WITH THE CASE NUMBER (INFO ATTACHED) FOR THE INSTALLATION. THE AIRWAYS FACILITIES OFFICE TOLD ME THAT THE FAA HAD CHOSEN NOT TO CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THIS INSTALLATION. THE OFFICE WAS UNAWARE THAT THE INSTALLATION IMPEDED VIEW OF THE ROC BEACON AND THEY WERE UNAWARE THAT THE OBSTACLE WAS NOT LISTED ON NAV CHARTS. TWR LOCATION: 43 DEGS 7 MINS 09.83 N, 77 DEGS 40 MINS 57.08 W. HT: 80 FT AGL, 628 FT MSL. SAFETY CONCERNS: 1) THE OBSTACLE IS NOT LISTED ON NAV CHARTS AND THERE ARE NO PUBLISHED NOTAMS TO ADVISE AVIATORS OF THE OBSTACLE. THE OBSTACLE IS TALLER THAN OTHER OBSTACLES WHICH ARE LISTED ON THE NAV CHARTS. IN FACT THIS OBSTACLE IS THE SECOND TALLEST OBSTACLE ON THE ARPT PROPERTY. (THE ATC TWR BEING THE TALLEST.) HOW DOES A PLT SEE AND AVOID AN OBSTACLE THEY DON'T KNOW IS THERE? 2) THE OBSTACLE OBSTRUCTS VIEW OF A VISUAL NAVAID, THE ROC ARPT BEACON, TO THE NE. THERE IS NO NOTAM ADVISING AVIATORS THAT NAVAID PERFORMANCE IS DEGRADED. 3) THE OBSTACLE IS NOT CONSPICUOUSLY MARKED FOR DAY OPS AND IS VERY DIFFICULT TO SEE. THE TWR IS GRAY IN COLOR AND THE ASSOCIATED BUILDING IS BROWN. BOTH ARE VERY WELL CAMOUFLAGED BY THE LCL TERRAIN, ESPECIALLY DURING THE WINTER MONTHS. SUCH AN INCONSPICUOUS INSTALLATION IN CLOSE PROX TO THE RWYS AND IN THE CIRCLE-TO-LAND AREA FOR IFR APCHS IS A HAZARD TO AIR NAV. 4) ACCESS TO ARPT PROPERTY: WHO HAS ACCESS TO THIS ON-ARPT CELLULAR INSTALLATION? DO PHONE COMPANY PERSONNEL HAVE UNLIMITED ACCESS? WHAT PRECAUTIONS ARE TAKEN TO INSURE THAT PEOPLE AND VEHICLES ARE PROPERLY CTLED DURING ILS OPS? ARE ARPT SECURITY REGS ADHERED TO? 5) ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERFERENCE (EMI): WHAT EFFECT DOES THE ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION FROM THIS CELLULAR INSTALLATION HAVE ON ACFT COM, NAV RECEIVERS AND AVIONICS? HAVE ALL POSSIBLE INTERMODULATION DISTORTION PRODUCTS BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR, EVALUATED AND DETERMINED SAFE FOR ILS CAT III AND CAT II APCH ENVIRONMENTS? WHAT ABOUT RECEIVER DESENSITIZATION OR OVERLOAD? 6) I'M CONCERNED THAT THERE WAS NO PUBLIC HEARING PER PART 77 REGARDING THIS ON-ARPT INSTALLATION. AVIATORS WERE NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THIS INSTALLATION. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE WAS NOT ONLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE OBSTRUCTING TWR LACK OF NOTICE TO AIRMEN BY CHARTING, BUT THE EVAL OF THE POSSIBLE FREQ INTERFERENCE TO THE LOW OUTPUT XMITTER WATTAGE OF THE NAV/COM ARPT XMITTERS WITH THE RELATIVE HIGH PWR (100 WATTS) OF THE 36 CELLULAR PHONE XMITTERS. HE IS ALSO CONCERNED THAT SINCE THE XMITTERS ARE APPARENTLY NOT USED FOR AVIATION PURPOSES, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED IN VIOLATIONS OF ARPT AID FUNDS. HE FURTHER STATED THAT HE HAS LEARNED THROUGH CONTACT WITH THE VARIOUS FAA BRANCHES, AND ARPT MGMNT, THAT THERE WAS A PART 77 STUDY ACCOMPLISHED, AND A HAZARD DETERMINATION ISSUED. THE ARPT MGR ASSUMED THAT THE NOTICE TO AIRMEN HAD BEEN AUTOMATICALLY GIVEN. HE DID NOTE THAT THERE HAD BEEN SOME NOTAM ISSUED THROUGH THE ARPT ATIS, BUT NOT CONSISTENTLY. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE COORDINATES FOR THE TWR LOCATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN 43.07 DEGS INSTEAD OF 43.70 DEGS. ALSO, THE TWR IS ACTUALLY LOCATED 1200 FT OFF THE SIDE OF THE RWY AND NOT 100 FT. THE REPRESENTATION OF WHERE THE ROTATING BEACON IS SHOWN ON THE ARPT DIAGRAM IS IN ERROR!

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.