On Fri, 21 Aug 1998 05:15:22 -0400 (EDT), w7ni@teleport.com (Stan
Griffiths) wrote:
> We create
>part of the problem ourselves by overloading our towers
Part of the problem is that the definition of "overload" seems to be a
proprietary and self-serving definition by one company. Can we get the
definition of overload out in the open?
>and billing the
>crashes to the insurance companies. If I were an insurance investigator, I
>wouldn't recommend paying on one tenth of the ham antenna and tower crashes
>I have heard about since they are due to dumb errors on the part of the owner.
I couldn't agree more. Like putting up a guyed tower among the trees.
I can certainly understand why one might do it. But one does accept a
common risk by doing so. It's like driving your new car with liability
and no collision. Keep your crystal ball clean
>
>Stan w7ni@teleport.com
73, y'all
Guy
Guy L. Olinger
k2av@qsl.net
Apex, NC, USA
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|