Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Time\s+for\s+a\s+Real\s+Tower\s+Question\s+TX\-489\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Time for a Real Tower Question TX-489 (score: 1)
Author: "Wilson" <infomet@embarqmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 13:29:14 -0500
Theres a local opportunity to get a TX-489 at a good deal. This tower looks nice, but the specs seem pretty optimistic to me. Do we have any first hand owner experience in the group? Has anyone had o
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-12/msg00103.html (7,380 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] Time for a Real Tower Question TX-489 (score: 1)
Author: K6OK via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 13:42:23 -0800
The US Tower engineering report, while correct when published, isn't right today and it's not right for your location. * TIA-222-F is an out of date standard. TIA-222-G, which replaced TIA-222-F, use
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-12/msg00110.html (8,457 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] Time for a Real Tower Question TX-489 (score: 1)
Author: "Steve, W3AHL" <w3ahl@att.net>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 19:54:04 -0500
I live near Wilson, but in another county in NC, where they wont even consider a permit based upon the condition that a tower would be retracted during a storm. My solution to the problem was to moun
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-12/msg00112.html (9,088 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] Time for a Real Tower Question TX-489 (score: 1)
Author: K6OK via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 20:32:50 -0800
TIA-222-G is silent on crankups. If any city or county won't accept a retracted crankup as meeting code they are within their rights to do so because there's no law, regulation or code to point to th
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-12/msg00118.html (7,904 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] Time for a Real Tower Question TX-489 (score: 1)
Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 10:36:29 -0500
No municipality can "refuse to consider" an amateur radio antenna proposal. Nor can they incorrectly apply commercial statutes to your "auxiliary personal use" application. If they have added reasona
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-12/msg00126.html (8,441 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] Time for a Real Tower Question TX-489 (score: 1)
Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 12:38:48 -0500
Its true. But often the threat of the dialog is enough to have people who refuse to even consider to consider a reasonable proposal. Ed even though that is legally correct sometimes unfortunately you
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-12/msg00127.html (10,112 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] Time for a Real Tower Question TX-489 (score: 1)
Author: <lemii@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 17:08:53 +0000
even though that is legally correct sometimes unfortunately you have to engage a lawyer to force the issue Larry KA5TXL Sent from Windows Mail No municipality can "refuse to consider" an amateur radi
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-12/msg00135.html (9,632 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu