READ ALONGSIDE THE SOURCE
Okaloosa County BOCC — October 15, 2013 — L - Eglin AFB Approval — reading text
Part 1 of 1. These parts divide the reading text for browsing; they are not the source document's page numbers.
Machine-extracted text — 19-L - Eglin AFB Approval.pdf
Machine-extracted OCR text · Review label: Machine produced / unreviewed
Compare this copy with the preserved source. Review labels describe the recorded status of this file; they do not guarantee that the text is error-free. Spacing and line breaks are retained, with long lines wrapped to fit the screen.
ATTACHMENT
‘To: Gould, David T Civ USAF AFMC 96 TW/XP — IU
Cc: May, Glenn R CIV USAF AFMC 96 OSS/OSA; Morgan, Richard A Civ USAF AFMC
96 OSS/OSAR
sRectianRE isory Committee review |
memorial to
jaematicatin’ that. ee
DON ROSWELL
850.882-615@ (Ww)
850.803-0909 (C)”,
David Holland and Jimmy Webb have no problem. Ron Higdon offers the
following comment:
"Ron,
After thinking about what David said about TSPI it dawned on me that the
cell carriers had set up a 5GHz backhaul across the range. We had them
lower the power and they are now going to fiber. Those were the many MIAs
that came through some time back. A 5 GHz system on this tower could
potentially cause us issues with the FPS-16s. I need to know what they
intend to put on the tower.
Thanks,
Ron H.",
And we don't have any airfield surfaces concerns for Eglin. Seems like a
minor issue, but CEG needs to add Ron Higdon's comment about 5GHz systems in
their reply.
Ronald H. Allen, 46 TW/XPE
Range Planner/SAIC
phone: 850-882-3431/850-865-2553
email: ronald.allen.ctr@eglin.af.mil
Hm She Original Message-----
From: Heffernan, Thomas D Mr CIV USAF AFMC 96 TW/XPE
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 9:14 AM
To: Allen, Ronald H CTR USAF AFMC 96 TW/XPE; Fitzsimmons, Michael J CTR USAF
AFMC 96 TW/XPE
Cc: Curran, Sally J Civ USAF AFMC 96/TW; Tolbert, Robert T GS12 USAF AFMC 96
TW/XPE; Gould, David T Civ USAF AFMC 96 TW/XP
Subject: FW: Bluewater Cell Tower / Aviation Advisory Committee review
Guys,
CE is asking for a review of potential mission impact on this proposal.
Would it be best to have them run this through the RC3 or is this too
trivial?
thx