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
|