My experience with crank-up towers:
At around the first of July I went to another ham's home to help him
with some antenna work on his 40 ft crank-up, which was cranked down
to 20 ft.
I belted up around the outside-side of the tower with a waist belt
harness. With the tower being difficult to climb due to very little
to stand on, I made it up to height where the top of my head was even
with the top of the tower. As I tried to get a footing to get my
head above the top of the tower both of my feet slipped from the
toe-hold I had.
I slid down the face of the tower with the rope holding me against
the tower, landed on a seven foot step ladder with my but, bounced
off of that and landed at the base of the tower standing up.
I was not seriously injured, but had a lot of scratches and cuts
caused by my chest, elbows, hands and one knee (the leg that slipped
first) contacting the tower on the way down . If I had been leaning
forward with my head over the top of the tower, the fall would have
probably beheaded me or broken my neck.
I will go back and finish the job when the WX here gets cooler, but
this time I will take a 23 foot ladder with me and tie it to the
tower on the way up.
The moral of the story is: Never try to climb a nested crank-up if
you can't get the arch of your foot on a cross piece, and preferably
climb it with a ladder that reaches the top of the lower section. If
you can't get a good foothold, raise the tower until you can and then
block the tower from moving down with something that can't be smashed
by the tower. If I ever have to block a tower from sliding down I
WILL use a 4x4 to do it.
By the way, the gentleman I was helping said that he didn't know
there were that many cuss words in the entire English language.
73,
Tom
Amateur Radio Operator N5GE
Licensed since 1976
ARRL Lifetime Member
QCWA Lifetime Member
On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 12:10:50 -0700, "Dick Dievendorff"
<dieven@comcast.net> wrote:
>When I had a crankup, "lowered" was still supported by the same single steel
>cable as when all the way up, at least for my US Towers 89 footer.
>
>Bringing it down was to a point where a limit switch stopped the motor. But
>it was not "bottomed out" when fully nested. This is good, because the
>tension on the steel cable wasn't changing dramatically in the fully
>retracted position.
>
>If the steel cable should part or slip significantly with your fingers or
>toes between sections, the result could be injurious. Many suggest blocking
>the thing off with big wood or metal pieces inserted between sections, and
>usually we don't test the ability of the blocks to support the load without
>slip. It could be risky taking the tension off the cable and then apply
>tension again it when your task is complete. I'm not sure I'd trust a
>relatively untested block any more than the steel cable.
>
>I confess that I didn't usually bother, but I was always uncomfortable
>climbing my nested crankup and felt much better when I was standing at the
>top of the 20' or so nested tower. If you try to climb with your toes just
>touching the outer section, it's not often enough "grip". I guess I could
>have leaned a tall ladder against it and climbed that, it might have been
>safer.
>
>I feel much more comfortable climbing my newer guyed Rohn 55, even though
>I'm climbing much higher. I've also learned the joys of "full body arrest
>harness" rather than the old single Klein belt with one belt that I used to
>climb with. It's slower and more fatiguing to constantly clip and unclip the
>two shock lanyards as I climb and descend. But I'm now always tied off,
>which reduces my chance of a fall should I make a mistake or I suddenly lose
>function.
>
>Tower climbing is hazardous. You make various choices to reduce risk.
>Appropriate fall arrest gear is one choice, guyed versus crankup is another.
>
>73 de Dick, K6KR
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>Patrick Greenlee
>Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 11:45 AM
>To: towertalk@contesting.com
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Crankup Danger
>
>Wouldn't you ordinarily lower a crank-up tower before climbing? If it were a
>tilt over as well wouldn't you tilt it over instead of climbing it?
>
>Patrick AF5CK
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Wilson
>Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 1:22 PM
>To: towertalk@contesting.com
>Subject: [TowerTalk] Crankup Danger
>
>Well, if the tower should telescope while you are on it, the shearing off of
>fingers and the front of your feet might be considered an undesirable
>possibility.
>If you are on an upper section when the collapse occurs, you might get by
>with just some foot damage and being thrown to the ground as the section you
>are on drops into the next one down...
>Your plan is much like the old EZWay towers. There's a book for the two
>section 40 footer on BAMA. http://bama.edebris.com/manuals/ezway/rbs40
>WL
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>TowerTalk mailing list
>TowerTalk@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>TowerTalk mailing list
>TowerTalk@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>TowerTalk mailing list
>TowerTalk@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|