On 12/26/2013 1:37 PM, Jim Lux wrote:
I was pointing a few possible problems to show to others what can happen
or give another possibility
to do not put in risk life or property but what was the response?
supportive? destructive?
Indeed.. but one aspect that comes up a LOT on TT is the whole thing
of "code compliance" or "good engineering practice". Whether it's
guying, strength of materials, or grounding practices, there's a huge
amount of room to maneuver, depending on what one's risk acceptance
strategy is.
I think that the original topic here was an excellent example of
someone who has a situation where "if it falls down, nobody will care,
other than the builder", which is decidedly not the case when the
local planning department is asking for wet stamped drawings from a PE
(or maybe it is, and asking for excessive documentation is a way to
restrict antennas and towers).
I didn't see anything fundamentally "unsafe" in the pictures. Unlike a
lot of field day pictures you see, there's nobody standing underneath
the towers being pulled up, so if his manky tow rope does fail, he
winds up with some bent scrap metal, not a trip to the ER or a call to
the coroner.
Jim, I had somewhat the same feeling until I scrolled down to the
"selfie" of the guy taken from the top of one of those homebrew 200'
towers made from chain-link fence top-rail. You can clearly see the
safety lanyard made from dacron rope with frayed ends that is holding
him in place. While I greatly admire the vigor of an 85 year old guy who
fabricates and installs 200' towers by himself, nobody should be under
any allusions that what he is doing is remotely safe (at least when it
comes to the climbing part of it).
73, Mike W4EF............
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|