[BC] FAA RF rulemaking

[Mike McCarthy]

Like I said before, let the FAA take it to the FCC for the FCC to address 
through a NPRM.  The FAA doesn't have the statutory authority to issue 
emission limits for FCC licensees.  They've tried in the past and failed.

And every application I've filed for Part 90 at airports, the FAA adds 
about 10-15dB to the emission limits defined by the FCC in their 
determination of no hazard.  If find that to be backdooring themselves into 
the arena of spectrum management which they have no business and it 
blackmails the proponents of near-by radio systems.

It would be akin to the NRC telling coal firing plants how much 
non-radioactive waste they can produce.

(For those who don't know, most unburned coal is very lightly radio 
active.  After burning, coal coke/ash is quite a bit more radioactive...as 
in 100 times more and actually rises into the arena of proper 
disposal/treatment for slightly radioactive industrial waste. There have 
been a few deaths attributed to radio active poisoning at coal plants, 
particularly those workers who dealt with the waste product.)

MM

At 08:01 AM 6/28/2006 -0500, Richard Fry wrote
>>In these cases, there were emissions which were not compliant
>>with existing rules.  So I fail to see why the FAA's shorts are all
>>in a bind.  The rules are already in place.
>____________
>
>Wasn't the big problem that the FAA wanted (wants) to apply lower limits 
>on radiated fields than required by the FCC?
>
>IIRC, the FAA also assumed that the radiation pattern of the broadcast 
>antenna was the same for harmonics and spurious signals as for the 
>fundamental (which it is not), and may even have assumed it was all isotropic.
>
>RF
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
>http://www.radiolists.net/