This samething happened to a TV tower for a station in Tulsa, OK in the late 80s. It fell due to the results of a ice storm passing thru the area.

 

This is the 4th tower to come down in the past 2 years. This is why the FCC has tightened up it's regs. This is the major reason that the transition to HD has been slowed in some regions. In this area both ABC, CBS have LP SD digital and will be this way for another year. They have to have both of the tower strengthened before they can go full power digital. BTW they are both owned by the same co that is why it will be a year before it happens.

 

This also happened in Dallas, Texas in the mid 90's. Sadly, crewmen were on the tower when it fell. It knocked out UPN, WB, and a few more, but I forgot what stations they were at this time.

 

Two links to a story I remember that affected a few folks around the area I grew up in:

Interesting reads..

http://www.kplctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1690245&nav=0n4JLJP0
http://www.kplctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1718115

 

We had a tower colapse here a few years ago, before LIL arrived here.

DirecTV response: drop dead.
station affected's response: drop dead.
FCC response: drop dead.

 

We had a tower colapse here a few years ago, before LIL arrived here.

DirecTV response: drop dead.
station affected's response: drop dead.
FCC response: drop dead.

:rolling: They all gave you the same response must be all good then. !rolling My what did E* say? :blush:

 

Towers collapse with some regularity... usual causes are airplane hits, ice load, wind load or improperly securing the tower while performing maintenance/construction. Very rarely does a properly constructed/guyed/rated tower collapse all on its own. Unexpected/unusual ice and/or wind loads are things you can't really predict (hence unexpected) and build for.

Sure, it's a pain for the station(s) involved, and viewers get all up in arms if they can't see their Deal or No Deal, but sometimes things happen. I'm amused when people can't see their favorite shows for some reason and they start on the "well, the station should have known that ice could build up that much, and built a stronger tower" or "the station should have known a tornado could hit the tower, and built one that could take that kind of wind loads."

Of course, these folks have never been at a transmitter site when the tower's groaning (literally... you can hear it) under a severe ice load... and I'll never forget the one time I heard it, several hours before the tower in question failed.

 

No, the station should grant, and in fact the DBS companies should act without the grant of (since the station is not broadcasting and thus does not technically have any rights), an immediate blanket waiver for DNS for that network marketwide. Automatically and within 5 minutes of being informed of the situtation.

 

<Unexpected/unusual ice and/or wind loads are things you can't really predict>

I assume you mean predict how often they can/will occur.

Sorta like getting a building permit to build homes and business offices in a 200 year flood plain.

 

No, the station should grant, and in fact the DBS companies should act without the grant of (since the station is not broadcasting and thus does not technically have any rights), an immediate blanket waiver for DNS for that network marketwide. Automatically and within 5 minutes of being informed of the situtation.

But the station may still be broadcasting via cable and/or satellite depending on how the backhaul is set up.

 

So? The station is NOT broadcasting at full-power OTA, which is the only type of station covered under SHVIA.

Immediate and automatic DNS, marketwide, until full-power OTA is restored.

 

This is the 4th tower to come down in the past 2 years. This is why the FCC has tightened up it's regs. This is the major reason that the transition to HD has been slowed in some regions. In this area both ABC, CBS have LP SD digital and will be this way for another year. They have to have both of the tower strengthened before they can go full power digital. BTW they are both owned by the same co that is why it will be a year before it happens.

I know nothing about tower construction regs. hence the following question. Does the FCC regulate and permit tower construction and final inspection? If so that seems outside the FCC's role. I would think local building codes would be more applicable.

I do understand the FCC's regs. can cover tower issues that cannot be overridden by local zoning or building ordinances.

 

I know nothing about tower construction regs. hence the following question. Does the FCC regulate and permit tower construction and final inspection? If so that seems outside the FCC's role. I would think local building codes would be more applicable.

I do understand the FCC's regs. can cover tower issues that cannot be overridden by local zoning or building ordinances.

The current standard for broadcast towers is EIA RS-222G. The older standard RS-222 was in place during the TV building heyday of the 50's and 60's. Legally, an old tower does not need to be upgraded to the new standard unless new antennas are added.

The picture of the collapsed tower suggests that one of the guy wires failed due to excessive ice loading. The top of the tower "hinged" over and broke off. In some cases a tower designed for RS-222G could still fail when ice is heavier and thicker than predicted.

This article explains some of the RS-222G considerations:
http://beradio.com/mag/radio_changes_tower_standards/

 

I know nothing about tower construction regs. hence the following question. Does the FCC regulate and permit tower construction and final inspection? If so that seems outside the FCC's role. I would think local building codes would be more applicable.

I do understand the FCC's regs. can cover tower issues that cannot be overridden by local zoning or building ordinances.

Local codes are only related to where the towers can be built. Which is a NIMBY situation. The OTA transmitters & towers are under FCC gov regs. The FCC comes into stations every few years and inspects the station's facility. This includes the tower once it is constructed. If there is to be a change in what is mounted on the tower the station has to submit to the FCC the changes. If the changes don't fit the regs then the FCC comes out to survey these plans and oversee the work. Yes they will climg the tower to check the work is done to meet these regs. Local codes can not override these regs. It is the same as local codes can't over ride the FAA when it comes to airports.
Good article that explains the codes Tower Guy.

 

Why was this topic posted in the Dish Discussion Forum?

 

Why was this topic posted in the Dish Discussion Forum?

It is related to why customers will not receive their TV channel in Spokane area. It states in the article that it isn't being broadcast over the sat carriers and cable until the station can get something to replace the transmitter.

 

Maybe this event could be a springboard for what similar stations ought to do when a tower collapses, but please note that KSPS is a PBS affiliate. (http://www.ksps.org/day0.htm) The distant network rules are different for PBS than for the commerical networks.

 

It is related to why customers will not receive their TV channel in Spokane area. It states in the article that it isn't being broadcast over the sat carriers and cable until the station can get something to replace the transmitter.

DITTO!

Right on the button

Oh well.. It (this thread) had been moved anyhow

 

The FCC comes into stations every few years and inspects the station's facility. This includes the tower once it is constructed.

The FCC inspection generally stops at color and whether the lights (if required) are working. Making sure the tower doesn't collapse into a pile of dust is not their responsibility.

The FAA gives initial approval for the construction of towers ... for location and heights to make sure that they are not air hazzards. For communications towers the FCC then steps in --- Registering the tower for their records so that any communications services on that tower can be easily tracked.

The FAA doesn't care if a tower falls down except if an aircraft hit it or to update their records. The FCC doesn't care if the tower falls down either - but they do want to know what happened to the communications services that were on that tower.

But should the FCC stop by and pull out their color chart your tower better be painted "the right shade" of red and white (unless it is lit 24/7 and in their records that way).

 

The FCC inspection generally stops at color and whether the lights (if required) are working. Making sure the tower doesn't collapse into a pile of dust is not their responsibility.

The FAA gives initial approval for the construction of towers ... for location and heights to make sure that they are not air hazzards. For communications towers the FCC then steps in --- Registering the tower for their records so that any communications services on that tower can be easily tracked.

The FAA doesn't care if a tower falls down except if an aircraft hit it or to update their records. The FCC doesn't care if the tower falls down either - but they do want to know what happened to the communications services that were on that tower.

But should the FCC stop by and pull out their color chart your tower better be painted "the right shade" of red and white (unless it is lit 24/7 and in their records that way).

Last year the FCC came into the station where I worked and they had someone climb the tower and inspect it. They went thru and checked not only the sections but the reinforcement that had been done due to the new antenna attached to it. Their inspections have become more in-depth since almost all towers will have more than 1 full power transmitting antennas attached to it. In addition to this 2 stations in this area had their towers inspect they need to mount full power digital antennas added to them. They now have to be reinforced and then be inspected after the reinforcement is done before the antenna can be attached to the tower.

 

I'm only .8 of a mile from WJW-TV's tower. They just erected a brand new tower a few years ago (and removed the old "vintage" towers from the 50's).
I'd hate to see the damage done if that one (or any of the others in the neighborhood) fell. The WJW tower is closer to the streets and houses than the other stations who all have undeveloped land surrounding their towers.

 

Last year the FCC came into the station where I worked and they had someone climb the tower and inspect it. They went thru and checked not only the sections but the reinforcement that had been done due to the new antenna attached to it. Their inspections have become more in-depth since almost all towers will have more than 1 full power transmitting antennas attached to it. In addition to this 2 stations in this area had their towers inspect they need to mount full power digital antennas added to them. They now have to be reinforced and then be inspected after the reinforcement is done before the antenna can be attached to the tower.

Ummm... I've been inspected by the Commission... never had a tower inspected, other than to note that the paint was correct, and they glance at the logs to make sure the tower light notations are there.

The Commission doesn't regulate towers, other than to require that they be registered with the FAA. The FCC certainly doesn't send someone climbing on them, and the FAA also doesn't inspect towers.

Some towers are being reinforced for the second antenna/transmission line for the digital stuff. Some towers can already handle it. But the Commission isn't running around inspecting towers and requiring work on them - they don't a flyin' frack if the tower's up or not. It's your problem, not theirs.

 

If there is to be a change in what is mounted on the tower the station has to submit to the FCC the changes. If the changes don't fit the regs then the FCC comes out to survey these plans and oversee the work. Yes they will climg the tower to check the work is done to meet these regs. Local codes can not override these regs. It is the same as local codes can't over ride the FAA when it comes to airports.
Good article that explains the codes Tower Guy.

This is just plain disinformation.

Anybody can mount anything they want on a tower. If that tower comes tumbling down because of it, if it should damage someone else's property, the tower owner'll have to pay damages.

But there is absolutely not any requirement to notify anybody of anything you mount on a tower (oh, sure, you need to detune anything you mount on an AM tower, and if it's a DA, do a proof to show the pattern's not been wonked). And there's certainly not going to be a field agent "overseeing" anything.

 

The FCC inspection generally stops at color and whether the lights (if required) are working. Making sure the tower doesn't collapse into a pile of dust is not their responsibility.

The FAA gives initial approval for the construction of towers ... for location and heights to make sure that they are not air hazzards. For communications towers the FCC then steps in --- Registering the tower for their records so that any communications services on that tower can be easily tracked.

The FAA doesn't care if a tower falls down except if an aircraft hit it or to update their records. The FCC doesn't care if the tower falls down either - but they do want to know what happened to the communications services that were on that tower.

Exactly right on all points.

But should the FCC stop by and pull out their color chart your tower better be painted "the right shade" of red and white (unless it is lit 24/7 and in their records that way).

Part 17.23 makes FAA Circular AC 70/7460-1J (and other FAA documents, but 70/7460-1J is more relevant to this discussion) mandatory for Commission licensees, and specifies "aviation orange" and "aviation white" as the colors for marking structures.

Tower paint must meet Federal Standard 595 color #17875 for the white and color #12197 for the aviation orange.

Beyond that, and lighting, no federal agency cares anything at all about the tower.

 

Last year the FCC came into the station where I worked and they had someone climb the tower and inspect it. They went thru and checked not only the sections but the reinforcement that had been done due to the new antenna attached to it. Their inspections have become more in-depth since almost all towers will have more than 1 full power transmitting antennas attached to it. In addition to this 2 stations in this area had their towers inspect they need to mount full power digital antennas added to them. They now have to be reinforced and then be inspected after the reinforcement is done before the antenna can be attached to the tower.

That would have been a consulting firm likely hired by the station's insurance carrier (or the station) to determine if the tower could handle the load. Insurance related... somebody coverin' their backside.

If you care to disagree, please provide Part and Chapter of 47 USC to support the argument.