[TowerTalk] Action against US Tower?

[randy at verizon.net]

Here is an unfortunate example of what can happen when those who
can provide technical expertise fail to do so:

http://ethics.tamu.edu/ethics/tvtower/tv3.htm

As the URL would indicate, it's a page discussing the ethics etc.,
of such matters.

They state near the beginning of the page that the names of the
parties have been changed, due to possible pending litigation, but
I'm sure many on TT are already familiar with the tragedy, which
took the lives of several individuals, some years ago.

As has been said, if you already *have* existing cables, figuring
out the routing isn't the question... but specifications for the cables,
pulleys, tensioning, etc. isn't so clear. I can almost understand their
reluctance to advise on "upgrading", i.e. installing larger diameter
cables than originally were called for, making a cable go over a 
pulley whose size is constrained by what will fit....

It's as bad as if General Motors came out and said "We aren't
about to give you the specifications for brake pads for a 1998
XYZ-500, and we don't have any more, but will still sell you a 
new XYZ-500. Use due care not to crash into anything when
applying brake pressure to the brake pedal of any GM product.
Always ensure that the brakes on GM products are properly
maintained".

FWIW I'm told that the failure mode of such cables can be from
the inside-out, so good visual appearance may mean nothing.

I've got a 72' and a 89' UST recently purchased and soon to go
up, freshly removed-from-service from someone who DID
maintain them, including changing the cables, so I'm content,
for now, with the cables... but not forever. The previous QTH
as well as the new one are both within a few miles of salt water...

What does the XLC Prime Directive say about the mfr saying
NOTHING?

73,
Randy
KZ4RV


On 6 Jun 2006 at 6:58, Bill wrote:

> You are very right JC, although they are probably more damned if they don't.