Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Tower Collapse in South Dakota

To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Tower Collapse in South Dakota
From: Pete Smith N4ZR <pete.n4zr@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2023 16:33:52 -0500
List-post: <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
I think if I were in charge I'd require a setback of 50% of the height of the tower or the distance to an occupied structure on the adjacent property, whichever is larger.

73, Pete N4ZR

On 1/21/2023 12:43 PM, David Gilbert wrote:

I think ham radio tower installations have far too unpredictable potential failure modes to make generalizations.  Many are short enough to be relatively stiff and would tend to lay down in the case of a failed guy.  Some are overloaded and/or vulnerable to twisting, which would tend to bring them down in a heap.  Others are poorly maintained and could fail in all sorts of ways.  The results could be different in every case, and I've seen pictures of several of them.  If I was making rules for private tower installations I'd require that set back as well.

73,
Dave   AB7E



On 1/21/2023 10:27 AM, sawyered@earthlink.net wrote:
The point wasn't about saying that tall commercial towers are built like
most ham towers or that they should be.  There was a statement made that the "lay down" failure of this tower is a reason why municipalities require the
tower be set back on property lines more than the height of the tower
(referring to ham towers).  My point was that most ham towers wouldn't fail
that way.


Ed  N1UR

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
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
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>