Is there a hard and fast rule that nothing can "penetrate" such airspace? Or are exceptions allowed? I would have to imagine the latter. Why else would they even propose this height if they knew it wouldn't fly with the FAA?
I don't want to return to that FAA discussion mess we had a couple years ago. But the FAA report in Kevin's link states that anything above 499' violates protected airspace. So exceptions to that rule have always been allowed.
What business would an airplane have being so low to downtown like that? LOL
I would say none, and that's why every building over 499' gets approved. But the greater height of this one apparently triggered a period for public comments that ended on May 22nd. I would think we will get a final ruling relatively soon.
What business would an airplane have being so low to downtown like that? LOL
no biz, but it can happen. pilot not qualified, nor is airplane equipped to fly in zero visibility conditions that suddenly came upon them, crashes into something.
I'm no expert on FAA regulations, but this is my best guess: any structure greater than 499' high within a certain distance of ABIA requires a detailed air navigation study to be conducted. A structure less than 499' high but greater than a certain height requires an FAA application and notice and standard hazard lighting, but no detailed study.
I'm no expert on FAA regulations, but this is my best guess: any structure greater than 499' high within a certain distance of ABIA requires a detailed air navigation study to be conducted. A structure less than 499' high but greater than a certain height requires an FAA application and notice and standard hazard lighting, but no detailed study.
That's my interpretation too. There is also apparently a certain height that triggers further study as a "Circularized" case with a period for public comments. That's what happened with this project. That is also the case for the revised Republic Tower. But oddly enough only the tallest corner at 710' was moved to "Circularized" status while the other three corners at 708' and 709' were not.
Good news! Curios how many large developments are simply stuck in Austin's permitting mess? FAA's input here has me thinking of Dallas' tallest (BOA) which as I recall was capped by the FAA due to proximity to Love Field.
__________________
How long will Austinites tolerate NIMBY politicians?
Was it Indeed or 6x that went through the process? I remember speculation and indignation on here that the height might be reduced, but it wasn't in the end.
Was it Indeed or 6x that went through the process? I remember speculation and indignation on here that the height might be reduced, but it wasn't in the end.
It was Indeed. That ridiculous discussion was based on ignorance of the FAA process and rules. To be fair, most of us were all just learning about FAA stuff back then.
It was Indeed. That ridiculous discussion was based on ignorance of the FAA process and rules. To be fair, most of us were all just learning about FAA stuff back then.
We were still growing up (above the 499' plateau)! Teenager city problems
Prev
Linear Mode
