Wednesday is a day to appreciate the folks who work on your tower.

NATE: The Communications Infrastructure Contractors Association has declared May 5 to be Tower Technician Appreciation Day “to pay tribute to the important work that communications infrastructure technicians conduct on a daily basis to enable a connected world.”

The proclamation highlights tower technicians for their skill sets, big responsibilities and demanding work environments.

Read the full proclamation.

In the tower biz, a lot of attention is paid to work supporting 5G, broadband infrastructure and emergency alerting. But of course tower techs serve broadcasters as well.

Gordon Smith, the president/CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters, joined in the appreciation.

“NAB salutes America’s tower technicians whose work is critical to the operation of broadcast radio and television stations. The particular skill set required, including working under dangerous conditions, is vitally important in preserving broadcasting’s uniquely local and resilient platform on which consumers and communities rely,” he said in a statement released by NATE.

The social media hashtag to use is #TowerTechAppreciationDay.

WASHINGTON—Eliminating injuries and fatalities in tower work is the aim of a new partnership of OSHA, NATE and the FCC.

 “The goal of the three-year partnership is to eliminate worker injuries and fatalities while performing wireless and telecommunications, tower erection and maintenance operations,” they said in an announcement.

“The partnership will address some of the industry’s frequently encountered hazards, including falls from height, electric, falling objects, tower collapses and inclement weather.”

The agreement was signed in an online ceremony involving officials of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, NATE: The Communications Infrastructure Contractors Association and the Federal Communications Commission.

They included Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor Loren Sweatt, NATE Chairman Jimmy Miller and FCC Chairman Ajit Pai.

Sweatt said demand for wireless communications and broadcast services has increased the need for construction, service and maintenance of towers around the country.

The effort is being done under OSHA’s Strategic Partnership Program.

This story originally appeared on TVT's sister publication Radio World.

No damage was caused to 5G cell towers in the U.S. over the weeknd as a result of “5G Global Protest Day,” according to reports.

Some organizations, like NATE, voiced concern over the potential risk of 5G protesters vandalizing or damaging towers here in the U.S., as has happened on a few occasions in the U.K. and Europe. The protests, of which there were only two in the U.S., according to The National Interest, appeared to have remained peaceful, however.

The FCC’s General Counsel, Thomas M. Johnson, said last week that the conspiracy theories that are much of the basis for these 5G protests are “long on panic and short on science.”

A full summary of the story is available on The National Interest website.

The author is an attorney with Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP. She represents telecommunications and broadband carriers across the United States.

Marking, lighting and maintenance responsibilities for multi-user communications towers can be confusing. Let’s try to sort things out by looking at what the FCC’s rules say.

The question of compliance responsibility is often a grey area. Part 17 of the Federal Communications Commission’s rules governs the construction, marking and lighting of “antenna structures,” which we generally refer to as “towers.”

Violations of FCC tower rules by owners and licensees can and will result in FCC penalties and fines. Although the tower owner is primarily responsible for compliance with the FCC’s tower rules, FCC licensee-tenants can also have significant responsibilities.

TOWER OWNER RESPONSIBILITY

Initial Construction: FAA No Hazard Determination, Antenna Structure Registration and Environmental Compliance Responsibility

In the initial construction of any tower, it is the tower owner who has the primary responsibilities for FCC tower siting rule compliance. These primary responsibilities include compliance with environmental rules and determining whether a new or modified tower requires a determination from the Federal Aviation Administration. If an FAA determination is required, then the tower owner must also register the tower on the FCC’s Antenna Structure Registration system.

The registration of a new tower on the FCC’s ASR system requires compliance with the FCC’s environmental rules to ensure that the environmental effects of proposed towers, including their effects on migratory birds, are fully considered prior to construction. Such compliance requires environmental notification under the ASR rules and under the environmental rules for environmental consequences.

Under the environmental rules, there are eight environmentally sensitive categories of construction:

1. on wilderness areas;
2. on wildlife preserves;
3. near threatened or endangered species or critical habitats;
4. near properties listed on, or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places;
5. on Indian religious sites;
6. in flood plains;
7. on wetland fill, deforestation or water diversion surface features; and
8. with high-intensity white lights in residential neighborhoods.

If a proposed tower construction falls within any one of these categories, the preparation of a formal environmental assessment is required before an FCC ASR will be granted.

Upon the grant of an FCC ASR, a tower owner may proceed with tower construction. It is the tower owner’s responsibility to notify the FCC, and where required, the FAA, of construction completion within five days. Likewise, a tower owner must also notify the FCC of the dismantlement of a tower.

Once constructed, any change or correction of a registered tower in the overall height of one foot or greater, or of geographic coordinates of one second or greater in longitude or latitude, requires a revised determination from the FAA and the filing of an application for modification of the existing ASR with the FCC.

The tower owner is also responsible for posting the ASR number at the tower site and providing a copy of the ASR to each tenant on the tower.

Additionally, the tower owner must notify the FCC of any change in ownership within five days.

Constructed Towers: Tower Painting and Lighting Responsibility

The primary responsibility for tower painting and lighting falls on the tower owner. Tower owners are responsible for observing the tower’s lights every 24 hours, either visually or by observing an automatic indicator designed to register any failure of such lights, to ensure that all such lights are functioning properly as required.

Alternatively, to detect any failure of tower lights, the tower owner must provide and maintain an automatic alarm system, and inspect the system every three months to ensure proper operation. The tower owner must also maintain the tower and clean and repaint the tower as often as necessary to maintain visibility as required by the FCC and FAA rules.

Any observed or known improper functioning of a top steady burning light or any flashing obstruction light on the tower, if not corrected within 30 minutes, must be reported immediately to the FAA. A further notification to the FAA must be given immediately upon resumption of normal operations.

The tower owner must keep a record for two years of any observed extinguishment or improper functioning of a tower’s lights including:

1. the nature of the extinguishment or improper functioning;
2. date and time;
3. date and time of FAA notification; and
4. the date and time of repairs or replacements made.

LICENSEE-TENANT RESPONSIBILITY

Pre-Collocation Responsibility

For FCC-licensed communications facilities locating on an existing tower, the FCC’s environmental rules apply to all FCC actions, including the granting of any FCC license or permit.

Even where no specific FCC authorization is required for a specific facility, a person or entity that is otherwise an FCC licensee is required to ascertain whether the collocation of an antenna on a tower may have a significant environmental effect under the FCC’s Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for Collocations.

Prior to locating an antenna on an existing tower, an FCC licensee must ensure that its collocation is permissible. To do so, the licensee should ensure that the tower went through the proper environmental review prior to construction by obtaining a certification from the tower owner that it complied with, and remains in compliance with, the FCC’s tower siting and environmental rules.

Painting and Lighting Responsibility

While a tower owner is primarily responsible for maintaining the painting and lighting of a tower, if an FCC-licensee-tenant on a tower is aware that the structure is not being maintained in accordance with the FCC’s rules and underlying ASR, or otherwise has reason to question whether the tower owner is carrying out its responsibilities, the licensee tenant must take immediate steps to ensure that the tower is brought into and remains in compliance.

Specifically, if there are FCC or FAA tower maintenance violations, an FCC licensee-tenant must:

1. immediately notify the tower owner;
2. immediately notify the site management company (if applicable);
3. immediately notify the FCC; and
4. make a diligent effort to immediately bring the structure into compliance 

If a tower owner does not comply with the FCC’s rules, the FCC could require each FCC licensee authorized on a tower to maintain the structure in accordance with the ASR and FCC rules for an indefinite time period.

Radio Frequency Radiation LevelsResponsibility

The responsibility for maintaining safe radio frequency radiation levels on any tower falls squarely on its FCC licensee-tenants. The RFR limits apply to all FCC licensees.

In instances where RFR limits are exceeded due to the emissions from multiple fixed transmitters, the responsibility for bringing the site into compliance is the shared responsibility of all licensee tenants. Tower owners are expected to allow licensees to take reasonable steps to comply with the FCC’s RFR requirements.

SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES REGARDING AM BROADCAST STATIONS

AM Broadcast Fencing Responsibility

A specific responsibility is placed upon AM broadcast licensee-tenants. AM broadcasters are solely responsible under the FCC’s rules for compliance with AM fencing rules. AM towers must be enclosed within an effective locked fence or other enclosure.

The FCC has clearly stated that the fencing responsibility does not shift to the tower owner where the licensee and the tower owner are different entities. In situations where required fencing is not completed before a tower is leased, the AM licensee-tenant must complete the process before locating its broadcast facility on the tower.

AM Detuning Responsibility

AM broadcast stations are required under the FCC’s rules to be protected from nearby tower construction and antenna installations that may distort an AM broadcast station antenna pattern. Anyone holding or applying for an FCC authorization proposing to construct or make a significant modification to a tower in the immediate vicinity of an AM antenna, or proposing to install an antenna on an AM tower, is responsible for completing an analysis and providing notice to the AM licensee, and for taking any measures necessary to correct resulting disturbances of the AM radiation pattern.

Tower and structure owners that do not hold FCC licenses are not directly responsible for complying with this AM detuning rule. But, FCC applicants and licensees cannot locate an antenna on a tower that required an analysis and notice, or is causing a disturbance to the radiation pattern of an AM station, unless the applicant, licensee, or tower owner takes appropriate steps to complete the required analysis and notice or correct the disturbance.

Where a tower owner does not complete a required AM detuning analysis or provide notice, the licensee-tenant becomes the responsible party. The FCC will prohibit a licensee from locating on a tower within certain distances of an AM station, unless and until the required analysis and notice process is completed.

CONCLUSION

Both tower owners and FCC licensee-tenants have significant responsibilities with regard to tower rule compliance. While the tower owner is primarily responsible for compliance with the FCC’s tower siting, maintenance and environmental rules, licensee-tenants have responsibilities with regard to locating an antenna on a tower, and can almost always be held secondarily responsible if a tower owner fails to comply. 

ALEXANDRIA, VA.—The Great TV Channel Auction and Repack is now underway, with television and FM radio broadcasters doing the necessary work to change frequency assignments and install new equipment. It is a lot of work, but progress is being made daily.

In addition to the repack project work now underway, the FCC is currently asking for comments about the repack process and reimbursement for affected Class A stations, low-power TV stations, translators and FM broadcasters; deadline is Oct. 26. In addition to the full-power repack, as many as 1,000 smaller stations are being moved in 10 phases, which will cause dislocation and incur some expenses for LPTVs and translators that were not protected in the repack. This also affects some FM stations colocated on TV towers.

In the event you’ve been lost in space for the past two years, the Channel Auction and Repack exists to shift TV broadcasters to VHF and lower-UHF channels, with the goal of freeing up spectrum for wireless services for mobile devices. A distant model was the BAS Relocation program from 2005 to 2010, which also had broadcasters giving up a slice of spectrum for the benefit of a cellphone company.

Since the process began in the spring of 2017 after a spectrum auction that yielded approximately $20 billion to the federal government, more than 120 full power and Class A television stations have moved off their pre-auction channels, according to Jean Kiddoo, chair of the FCC’s Incentive Auction Task Force.

“Approximately half of those stations chose to move before the first formal transition deadline,” she said. “The other half consists of stations that won incentive payments during the auction but elected to continue broadcasting by sharing a channel with another station, and have now implemented those channel-sharing agreements.”

NOW UNDERWAY

By the time you read this article, the first formal phase of the Channel Auction and Repack is now underway. Kiddoo said that the testing period for Phase 1 of the repack began Sept. 14 and ends Nov. 30. There are 82 full-power and Class A television stations scheduled to transition during Phase 1.

[Read: Transitioning To New Channels—Phase 1 Deadline Looms]

Obviously, re-assigning channels of TV broadcasters and radio stations is an expensive proposition, fraught with complex engineering challenges as well as concern about changes in propagation and coverage. Congress appropriated funds to pay for this work, and broadcasters have been receiving reimbursement.

“The initial reimbursement fund totaled $1.75 billion, and as of April 16, 2018, virtually all of that [$1.742 billion] has been allocated by the FCC,” Kiddoo said. “That represents 92.5-percent of total estimates for each station. “Stations have been able to draw down against their allocation by submitting invoices for eligible costs incurred since October 6, 2017.”

As for the remaining 7.5-percent of the projected costs and additional expenses, it appears to be on the way.

“Congress provided additional funding in the 2018 Omnibus Appropriations Act to reimburse reasonable costs incurred by full power and Class A broadcasters as well as previously-ineligible LPTV/TV translator and FM stations,” Kiddoo said. “The rulemaking to adopt rules and procedures to reimburse the latter is anticipated to be completed in the first quarter of 2019.”

How does this translate to the real world of actual broadcasters going through the repack work? Dale Scherbring, a regional director of engineering for Sinclair Broadcast Group and the company’s repack manager, said the project is keeping him busy.

“The Sinclair Broadcast Group’s engineering team has been working on 100 repacks for the company-owned stations and fulfilling contracts with our partner stations,” Scherbring said. “Phase 0 stations and one Phase 1 station have made the transition and are on the air.”

Phase 0 stations on the air include:

• WCHS (Charleston, W.Va.)
• WDSI (Chattanooga, Tenn.)
• WICD (Champaign, Ill.)
• WNUV (Baltimore, Md.)

The only Phase 1 station moved so far is KJZZ (Salt Lake City).

Scherbring said that the company’s Phase 1 stations currently in progress for repack work are:

• KBTV (Beaumont, Texas)
• KFDM (Beaumont, Texas)
• KMEG (Sioux City, Iowa)
• KPTH (Sioux City, Iowa)
• KMPH-CD (Fresno Calif.)
• KRXI (Reno, Nev.)
• WNWO (Toledo, Ohio)

“The remaining 88 stations are in various stages of equipment order, tower studies and overall planning,” he said.

MASSIVE SCOPE

There has been a lot of discussion about the massive scope of this project versus the relatively small size of the broadcast equipment manufacturing industry. In other words, would the manufacturers of transmitters, antennas and ancillary components be able to build high-quality and reliable equipment for the repack in the relatively short time frame for which the project is scheduled? Then, will there be sufficient crews to properly install it?

“The overall planning for our projects is showing no major issues,” Scherbring said. “The implementation of some projects is running into major weather delays for the tower crews, some vendor-delayed shipping issues, and in some cities major delays with local zoning permits.”

The NAB keeps its eye on the big picture across the country. Dennis Wharton, executive vice president of communications for the NAB, said that he is giving special attention to project timing—especially in the latter stages of the work.

“We remain concerned that the 39-month timeframe created by the FCC is simply insufficient to accommodate all the stations that have to be moved,” Wharton said. “It’s going to be especially difficult for stations in later phases that may not have already contracted for repack work. The tragic loss of four talented tall-tower workers reduced an already small pool of qualified tower dogs. In addition, the first couple phases have fairly long transition periods—132 days in the case of Phase 2. However, Phases 3 and beyond are very compressed—just 34 days in Phase 5—and any unexpected delays will affect scheduling like a stack of dominoes.”

Wharton also noted that many stations are linked with one or more other stations and cannot transition until those other stations have also transitioned. And due to cold weather and dangerous weather conditions, there are only so many months of the year that tower work is feasible in the northern states.

NEXT GEN TV

In the past couple of years, there has been a lot of discussion of ATSC 3.0 and Next Gen TV, and stations across the country are keeping this in mind now that repack work is upon them.

“I believe many stations being repacked will upgrade to equipment that can more easily transition to Next Gen TV,” Wharton said. “Some of this new equipment can move from the current standard to Next Gen TV transmission with the flip of a switch, so it does present an opportunity for stations to upgrade for the future.”

Sinclair Broadcast Group has been a avid proponent of ATSC 3.0, so the question came up as to what the company might be doing for the repack to prepare for an ATSC 3.0 future.

“Sinclair has maximized stations’ signal reach and included some vertical polarization elements in all the new antennas that are being purchased,” Scherbring said. “This will enhance ATSC 3.0 [operations], but the costs of these items are not reimbursable, so they are an extra cost to each station.”

STILL NOT CLEAR

There’s no question that the channel auction and repack is big—really big. In addition to the repack at full-power stations (which is fairly well known and documented), the FCC said that the number of affected low-power, translators and FM broadcasters is still not clear.

“We do not yet know how many FM or LPTV and translator stations will be affected by the repack,” the FCC’s Kiddoo said. “To date, construction permits for more than 1,500 of the roughly 2,100 LPTV/translator stations that filed applications in the special displacement window have been granted. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that the commission adopted in early August sought comment on eligibility requirements and reimbursement procedures for those FM and LPTV/translator stations that incur costs as a result of the repack.”

Therefore, it remains to be seen exactly what the costs and time schedule will be to complete all repack work. In the meantime, work is proceeding quickly across the country.

When asked if the repack was a good thing or just another regulatory nuisance, one broadcaster replied philosophically.

“We can all be armchair quarterbacks on Monday morning,” Sinclair’s Scherbring said. “These are the new rules we broadcasters must live with—we will make it happen.”

For all the latest news and insight on the repack, visit our repack silo.

Editor’s note: In May, I wrote an editorial about the recent Missouri TV tower collapse, with the headline “The Most Dangerous Job in America.” TV Technology reader Mike Pappas of Parker, Colo. disagreed with my assertion with the following response:

Tower climbing isn’t “the most dangerous occupation in the U.S.” It’s not even close. Over the last six years major strides in tower climbing safety training and improved best practices by the National Association of Tower Erectors (NATE) have substantially reduced the number of accidents and deaths. The biggest change has been the adoption of 100 percent tie-off at all times.

On the 2016 BLS listing of civilian occupations with high fatal work injury rates, tower climbing doesn’t even make the list.

My 21-year-old son Miles is a newly NATE-certified tower climber. He is working with an experienced crew that has a spotless safety record on a 1,000-foot TV tower as part of the repack. I can tell you as a parent I am confident that the company and crew he is working with are adhering to all OSHA and NATE requirements and best practices. I know he is safe and will be starting his junior year at The Citadel in August where he is working on his Mechanical Engineering degree.

Tower work isn’t the most dangerous occupation it’s not even close.

GIG HARBOR, MI.—The United Tower Alliance, LLC has announced a national UAV tower inspection service, provided by the UTA and 18 of its regionally based Performance Partners.

Coupled with a custom data delivery platform, the new service provides drone-powered tower surveys nationwide. A UTA Network Operations Center (NOC) has been operational since March and the Performance Partners have been training operators at the 2018 UTA Flight Academy, adding practical knowledge and real-life flight experience to the Part 107 license.

“Performance Partners are stable firms whose employees are technical experts around towers,” according to Ean Mercer of the UTA. “Anyone can fly a drone, but our commercial operators are also experienced tower professionals who have the access, familiarity and equipment to solve problems. They are also equipped with software tailored for your infrastructure needs.” The UTA added that it “does not sanction amateur, subcontractor or non-tower related flights or activity.”

[Read: What Broadcasters Need To Know About Using Drones]

The Alliance has custom software that delivers secure actionable data to the end client and is scalable for any national asset owner. The solution provides for the collection, management, analysis and comparison of data that is the highest quality imagery, according to the UTA..

“We came up with a method that uses our strengths to capitalize on the safest and most efficient people in the business” according to Jason Lerew Operations Manager of the UTA. “Our execution coupled with high end commercial UAVs and cloud based professional imagery leave everyone in the chain satisfied.”

All Performance Partner firms are NATE/STAR Participants whose employees have extensive local experience and have also undergone advanced flight training. These regional experts are available for scheduling UAV Tower Inspections at www.flyuta.com.

The National Association of Tower Erectors has designated Wednesday, May 9, as the second-annual Tower Technician Appreciation Day.

The event coincides with OSHA’s National Safety Stand-Down Week, and NATE encourages member companies and stakeholders to use this day to host events to pay tribute to the technicians they employ.

“NATE is ecstatic to declare Wednesday, May 9, 2018, as a day to honor our industry’s most precious resource, the tower technician workforce,” said NATE Chairman Jim Tracy of Burley, Wash. “Today’s skilled technicians are expected to possess the diverse skill set necessary to safely deploy and expand universal broadband, public safety communications and ubiquitous 5G coverage across North America, while repacking the broadcast spectrum. NATE is proud to highlight and salute these dedicated technicians who work tirelessly to meet both our present and future communications needs.”

[Read: Confessions Of A Tall-Tower Worker]

U.S. Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee Chair John Thune (R-SD) said, “They don’t have an easy job, but thanks to their dedication and unique skill set, the United States is continuing to expand its wireless broadband footprint, and we’re in a much stronger position in the race toward 5G.”

WASHINGTON—As policy-makers and analysts absorbed the potential ramification of T-Mobile's plan to acquire Sprint, questions arose about the $26.5 billion deal's impact on other ongoing spectrum issues—including the broadcast TV repack. Some observers expect that T-Mobile will quickly temper its challenges to broadcast spectrum assignments in an effort to lower its profile as it seeks regulatory approval of the merger. Others conjectured about the ripple effects of the deal, including what it means to tower construction and operations if the combined wireless carrier consolidates or reduces its buildout—possibly by reducing its tower count by about 15 percent initially.

Still others point to T-Mobile's funding of translators in rural areas for public TV stations in an effort to accelerate their spectrum moves so that T-Mobile can more quickly use the 600 MHz spectrum it acquired during the incentive auction.

The merger also highlights an irony of sorts since Sprint had its own dealings with broadcasters over a decade ago when it spent approximately $750 million to move the broadcast auxiliary services for ENG of nearly 1,000 TV stations after being allotted the spectrum in the 2 GHz band those operations occupied. The project commenced in 2005 and was completed in 2010.

OBSTACLES TO COMPLETION

Review of the merger plan at the Federal Communications Commission and Department of Justice may also involve issues such as labor relations. T-Mobile has had a "challenging time" with unions, a Washington attorney (who formerly staffed a Capitol Hill committee) told TV Technology. He noted that the White House is paying close attention to the opinions of labor, which may affect its decision—although he expects the merger to be approved by early next year.

Several law firms and trade associations (including the National Association of Broadcasters and CTIA: the Wireless Association) plus regulators (the FCC and DoJ) declined to speak on the record about the T-mobile deal, which surfaced on Sunday.

Legal and financial analysts are split on the likelihood of the merger receiving FCC and DoJ approval, often citing three previous attempts for the companies to join forces plus the failed attempt in 2011 by AT&T to acquire T-Mobile USA for $39 billion from Deutsche Telekom.

BTIG’s Walter Piecyk on Monday gave approval a 40 percent likelihood. Media analysts at MoffettNathanson put the odds at 50-50, while Wells Fargo savants concluded that the deal "won't be easy," noting that "the numbers become harder when looked at purely from a market concentration standpoint.”

"The market seems to be ascribing very low odds to approval," according to New Street Research analyst Jonathan Chaplin. Jeffries & Co. concluded that the FCC "seems open to evaluating the deal on its merits, though the DoJ could be an obstacle.”

A Washington attorney (who like others would only speak on background because of possible client conflicts) told TV Technology that he believes both DoJ and the FCC will approve the merger by 2019; he also expects the companies will push for an even quicker approval before the November elections, which could affect the policy landscape.

Michael Calabrese, director of the Wireless Future Project at New America, a non-profit think tank, called the merger "both tentative and relatively far off." Nonetheless, he cited reasons why the deal makes sense in light of T-Mobile's $8 billion purchase of 600 MHz spectrum, which it picked up in the broadcast incentive auction.

[Read: T-Mobile Takes The Most TV Spectrum For $8 Billion]

"I have no reason to believe they would change course," Calabrese told TV Technology. "The combined company would still need 600 MHz spectrum as soon as possible for indoor propagation; the lack of low-band spectrum has undermined T-Mobile’s quality-of-service for many years."

Calabrese also looked toward the emerging Fifth Generation (5G) ecosystems, noting that, "some degree of building penetration and economical coverage in sparsely populated areas is a competitive necessity."

T-Mobile's funding , much of it channeled through PBS, has helped PBS relocate 48 translators as of late April, with 144 more in progress, according to a report this week in a public TV periodical.

LOOKING FOR A BELLWETHER

Some analysts contend that the pending AT&T acquisition of Time Warner may affect approval of the T-Mobile/Sprint alliance. To their eyes, if AT&T beefs up its content armory, it will be appropriate for it to have another formidable carrier competitor rather than two smaller wireless providers. Together T-Mobile and Sprint have a total of 126 million customers, compared to Verizon's 150 million and AT&T's 142 million, according to Strategy Analytics.

[Read: T-Mobile, Fox TV Stations Partner On Repack]

Initial proponents of the merger point out that T-Mobile's extensive 600 MHz holdings and Sprint's collection of 2.5GHz spectrum plus both companies' mid-band spectrum assets will generate efficiencies for a variety of opportunities, including Internet of Things and other services, some of which are also envisioned for ATSC 3.0 features.

Another looming challenge is the FCC's auction of millimeter wave spectrum, scheduled to begin in November. According to analysts, T-Mobile may not have to bid extensively in that auction if (via the merger) it has control of Sprint's 2.5 GHz spectrum for capacity and propagation. T-Mobile President/CEO John Legere, who would head the merged company, said that he may ask the FCC for a waiver for T-Mobile and Sprint to coordinate their bidding strategies in that auction.

Towers are another factor in the merger proposal. According to the MoffettNathanson analysis, the merger could trigger the decommissioning of up to 35,000 towers and construction of 10,000 new towers. T-Mobile's current infrastructure would form the basis of the new facilities. Today the two companies operate a total of 110,000 towers, the analysts said, adding that 50,000 more towers may go up "over the coming years" if the merger is approved.

Depending on timing, that construction binge could affect the repack tower timetable, given the demand for building crews. Wells Fargo's analysis predicted that the combined tower construction budget of T-Mobile and Sprint could reach $40 billion in capital investment over three years.

Legere's focus on 5G as a strength of the combined company also poses a challenge to cable companies such as Comcast and Charter, which have put an emphasis on their wireless capabilities as their legacy cable video operations have lost subscribers.

As for the proposed merger's impact on the broadcast repack, most analysts have largely overlooked the potential connection so far, as they focus on more urgent competitive and financial aspects of the deal. One thing is certain: the tumultuous shifts in the airwaves will ripple through the many sectors of the digital eco-system during the next few years. 

For comprehensive news and information on the repack, visit TV Technology's repack silo.

The tower industry is applauding language in a measure that passed the House late last week that clarifies a tower marking issue that emerged over a year ago.

The passage of H.R. 4, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, in the U.S. House of Representatives included language offered by Representative David Rouzer (R-NC) that provided an important clarification to the 2016 FAA reauthorization related to the marking of certain telecommunications towers.

Specifically, the language clarifies that covered towers “shall be marked or entered into a de-identified database.” In a nutshell, the language clarifies that certain towers between 50 and 200 feet tall will not have to be marked if they are registered in an FAA location database.

[Watch: Working On A 1500-Foot TV Tower]

That amends the FAA’s Extension, Safety and Security Act of 2016, which if implemented could have forced expensive retrofits to potentially 50,000 existing towers, according to a release from the FCC. Other observers said it also would raise tower prices for the next generation of wireless services, but with little gain to air safety.

An industry-wide coalition of partner organizations, including the National Association of Broadcasters, lobbied for the revision, which will take effect not later than one year after the date of enactment of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.

“Absent changes made by this language in H.R. 4, our industry would have faced a tower marking mandate at a time when we are already experiencing a workforce shortage. This scenario would have had a significant economic impact on our industry and would have strained an already busy workforce with additional tower climbs required to mark towers,” said Todd Schlekeway, executive director of National Association of Tower Erectors (NATE).

Schlekeway said towers that are most dangerous – those that are temporary and difficult for pilots to see, such as Meteorological Evaluation Towers – would still require both marking and registration in the location database.

In addition to NATE and NAB, the Wireless Infrastructure Association, Competitive Carriers Association and CTIA were all on board with the wording change to the FAA’s tower rules.

The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (H.R. 4) now goes to the Senate.

Paul Fitts

ALEXANDRIA, VA.—Paul Fitts is one of the very few U.S. communications tower workers qualified to handle “tall” tower jobs, a skill that’s now very much in demand due to the on-going spectrum repack—by Fitts’ definition, “tall” is anything greater than 500-feet. At age 33, he’s also the chief operating officer of Vertical Technology Services, LLC, a firm specializing in the construction, inspection, remediation and rigging of tall television broadcast towers, and in his 13 years of ascending and descending towers belonging to numerous broadcast facilities and lessors, he’s certainly had his share of work-related experiences and has agreed to share some of them, along with his views on the on-going TV broadcast spectrum repack.

Asked about why he chose his particular line of work, Fitts explained that upon graduating from high school in 2002, he was undecided about what he wanted to do with his life.

“I [initially] worked as an assistant maintenance engineer at a 10-story high-rise,” said Fitts, noting that he soon decided he wasn’t cut out for it. “It was only for 10 months.”

It was at that time that several close high school friends who worked for a Frederick, Md., Tower service company, U.S. Tower, convinced Fitts to try out their line of work.

Just another typical day in a tall tower worker’s life—no boardroom meetings, and very few salespersons stop by to distract you.

“I knew I liked to climb since I was about 10,” he said, “I’d taken up rock climbing later on and decided to see if tower work wouldn’t be more rewarding than what I’d been doing. I was a little nervous for the first two days or so. After that it was OK. My first job was on a 400-foot tower in Baltimore. It was easy, all I had to do was snap in some cables.”

TOWER WORK ISN’T JUST MAKING ASCENTS AND DESCENTS

Fitts notes that there’s sometimes a misconception by the general public (and even tower owners themselves) that tower work only amounts to climbing and hanging antennas.

“We do tower inspections, looking at things like paint and corrosion, damaged tower structural members, guy line tension, whether or not a tower is plumb, the thickness of hollow members and also the condition of the foundation and anchors,” said Fitts, adding that many tower owners have an “out-of-sight, out-of-mind” attitude about guy line anchors and most of the anchor is below ground.

A tower worker’s job isn’t always hundreds of feet above the ground. It also involves occasional digging to look for the invisible “enemy”—rusty, corroded guy line anchors, such as these, which can topple a tower without warning.

“This is one of the first things we check,” said Fitts. “In some cases, we found some really serious corrosion has set in, undermining the integrity of the whole structure.”

A DANGEROUS PROFESSION?

When asked whether he viewed a workplace a quarter of a mile or more in the air as especially dangerous, Fitts observed that one could die just as easily from a 20-foot fall as in an uncontrolled descent from 2,000 feet.

“It’s only as dangerous as you make it,” he said. “There are lots of safety regulations. These can make you safe enough if you follow them.”

Asked if he had had any close calls, Fitts answered in the negative, but did relate an experience at an Indianapolis job site that could have gone very badly.

“We had just set the lower part of a tower crane, and an unexpected storm came up,” said Fitts. “We got hit by a 70 mile-per-hour straight line wind. It was very scary for a while, but no one got hurt.”

TRAINING IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE JOB

While the lack of a fear of heights, better than average manual dexterity and the ability to climb and function effectively while hundreds of feet above the ground are important attributes for workers in the tower erection and maintenance industry, they are only part of the skill set required, according to Fitts.

“Worker training in several areas is very important too,” said Fitts. “You have to know how to rig, the right way to handle a rescue if someone gets into trouble and also the safety procedures that must be followed when you’re doing tower work.” 

While drawing up a detailed “plan of attack” and ensuring that all parties involved is important in any project, it is especially crucial when you’re high off the ground and working with antennas and other items weighing hundreds or thousands of pounds, Fitts noted. The consequences of a slight misstep or the dropping of a hand tool, or even a bolt, while in the air, can have consequences much more severe than at ground level.

The view from a tower “candelabra” platform. Automobiles, satellite dishes and buildings take on an entirely different perspective when you’re seeing them hundreds of feet beneath you.

“You want to make sure that everything is completely thought out and rehearsed ahead of time,” said Fitts. Such planning even includes mapping and marking off the area in close proximity to the tower base, noting that this sometimes involves closing off employee parking areas at television stations. “Sometimes it’s hard to clear enough area on the ground to let us do what we have to do.”

GRAVITY ISN’T THE ONLY ENEMY

Fitts observed that keeping oneself safe from falls, mechanical injuries, too much sun, and RF exposure aren’t the only things a tower worker has to be vigilant about. Occasionally some of Mother Nature’s smaller creations also make life interesting.

“Bees and wasps sometimes like to nest in and around tower structures,” said Fitts, “We have to watch out for these,” noting that getting away from stinging creatures is a lot easier to do if you weren’t “tied-on” to a tower structure.

Flying insects with stingers aren’t the only pests that tower workers have to deal with either. Fitts recalls that he and his crew once faced a potentially life-threatening “invasion” while doing a job in Rayne, La.

“We were working on an 1,800-foot antenna there,” said Fitts. “There were rattlesnakes all over the place. We had to clear the snakes every day before we could start work.”

The weather may be dark and gloomy on the ground, but sunny and bright where the work is going on. A tall tower worker has to be prepared for just about everything.

NOT FOR EVERYONE, BUT…

Asked about what attracts people such as himself into choosing tower work as a career, Fitts was quick to reply.

“For some, it’s thrill-seeking—there’s definitely an adrenalin rush. The pay is good too. It starts fairly low, but you can advance very quickly in this field if you’re good. There’s also lots of travel, which appeals to some people.”

Would he choose tower work if he were starting over? “Absolutely,” he said. “There are few other occupations that I think I would enjoy as much.”

To Fitts, the most rewarding part of the job is a feeling of accomplishment and the knowledge that he’s doing something that few others do. “The real feeling of accomplishment comes when I’m watching over-the-air TV or listening to FM radio and knowing that I helped to make this possible.”

This, from the comms tower folks in WATERTOWN, S.D.—The National Association of Tower Erectors released a safety video highlighting the new ANSI/ASSE A10.48 standard. The video is the first to debut as part of Vol. 2 of the NATE Climber Connection series.

The A10.48 standard, “Criteria for Safety Practices with the Construction, Demolition, Modification and Maintenance of Communications Structures,” is described as the first comprehensive standard encompassing the entire tower construction, service and maintenance industry.

The Climber Connection Vol. 2 video includes an overview of the A10.48 standard and includes practical information on gin poles and rigging class guidelines for the industry to follow in accordance with the standard. The video also includes epic aerial views and footage of hard working tower crews in action at a communications tower site.

WASHINGTON—A bird conservation group estimates that approximately 750 tall towers in the United States have converted to flashing lights but that another 15,000 towers should make the switch.

Per recently adopted FCC and FAA guidelines, on which we've reported, tower owners are encouraged to switch or reprogram steady-burning red or white lights for flashing, to help birds and save energy costs while still protecting aviation. The American Bird Conservancy provided the 750-tower estimate in a new blog post. (New and altered towers standing more than 350 feet tall may only use flashing lights at night, under the new rules; but the FCC and FAA have been encouraging owners of older structures to extinguish non-flashing lights as well.)

The role of both tower lighting and guy wires in bird fatalities has long been a contentious one. ABC is among those that say steady red or white lights can disorient migratory birds flying at night, and it cited research that a reported 7 million birds die a year in collisions with towers. 

The group believes it is the only national organization with a program dedicated to addressing the problem of bird mortality caused by collisions with buildings (its website shown at right). The manager of its Bird Collision Campaign, Dr. Christine Sheppard, writes that flashing lights can reduce night-time bird fatality rates by as much as 70 percent.

The FCC and FAA’s guidelines provide steps for how towers taller than 350 feet above ground level and built before 2015 can convert to flashing lights. Guidelines for towers between 150- and 350-feet are expected to be released soon.

In an press release earlier this year, the FAA stated that “New tower lighting schemes should now follow the revised guidance (PDF), and operators of towers with the old lighting system should submit plans explaining how and when they will transition to the new standards.”

WATERTOWN, S.D.— In the run-up to the U.S. TV spectrum repack, the National Association of Tower Erectors released a video on the impact of weather conditions on tower techs as part of it’s 2016 Climber Connection campaign. The repack, which could start sometime next year, is expected to put pressure on tower crews. (See “Repack Faces Tower Crew Shortage,” Dec. 28, 2015.) Tower fatalities spike in 2006, when crews faced the digital TV transition deadline, according to the Wireless Estimatortower fatality tracker.

More recently, the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill added to the tower industry workload with regulations requiring that “covered towers” to be “clearly marked,” according to Ashley Ludlow of Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth.

“Buried deep in its legislative bowels is Sec. 2110, a little-publicized provision that could have serious repercussions on small tower owners, particularly those in rural areas,” she wrote.

The NATE video appears to employ drone footage of techs working on tall steel, while tower tech Brent Jarvis explains the dangers of extreme heat and cold on tower-climbing personnel.

“Heat stress is the number one weather-related killer in the United States,” he said. “Heat and cold injuries are 100 percent preventable.”

NATE is a non-profit organization dedicated to the safety of its membership. It previously published a YouTube video stressing the importance of “100 percent tie-off,” a reference to the ropes and safety harnesses used to tether climbers to a tower. In it, Don Doty, a tower industry veteran, emphasized that the “centerpiece of federal regulations regarding fall protection is 100 percent tie-off, all the time, when above the six-foot level.”

LOS ANGELES— The sale of the Poole Tower Complex on Mt. Wilson to InSite Towers Development, LLC, has closed, according to the deal broker, Media Services Group.

Rising almost 6,000 feet above sea level, the Poole Tower Complex was first developed in the 1950’s by the late Los Angeles broadcaster John H. Poole. Poole was granted the first commercial UHF television construction permit in Los Angeles for KBIK Channel 22 in 1951. In 1953, the station moved to Mt. Wilson and changed call letters to KBIC-TV. In 1959, the complex became home to Poole-owned KBIG-FM.

Among the current Los Angeles stations at the Poole Tower Complex today are iHeartMedia’s KBIG-FM and KYSR-FM, MundoFOX 22 KWHY-TV and KXOS-93.9 FM.

Bob Heymann of the Chicago office of Media Services Group served as the exclusive broker representing Poole Properties, Inc.

Also see...
February 26, 2015
Tower Site on Mt. Wilson for Sale
A four-tower complex that is part of RF-heavy Mt. Wilson, 6,000 feet above Los Angeles, is for sale.

April 7, 2015
Los Angeles Tower Site Is Full of History
After more than 60 years, the family of broadcasting pioneer John H. Poole is selling a tower site he built from the ground up, way back in 1953, atop California’s iconic Mount Wilson.

“Who knows what evil lurks inside some tubular tower members?” The owner of this tower found out the hard way that things on the inside are not always as they appear on the outside. (Photo credit: ERI)

ALEXANDRIA, Va.—In the “good old days,” a radio or television station’s transmitting facility received a lot of attention. Before the FCC relaxed its remote-control rules, larger radio plants and all television operations were staffed with on-site engineering personnel, and most remotely located (as in “mountaintop”) FM and TV transmitter plants were equipped with living quarters to ensure that someone would be there for sign-on during periods of bad weather.

There’s even one Washington, D.C.-area radio station that designed its new art deco transmitter building for public tours when it opened for business in the early 1940s. It had a receptionist, toilet facilities for both sexes and a large circular elevated catwalk for a 360-degree view of the giant Western Electric 50 kW transmitter located down below.

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately as the “bean counters” view things), such niceties have all but disappeared due to the arrival of ultra-reliable transmitters, sophisticated remote control and monitoring systems, automation, and the ever-increasing demands for doing more with a constantly shrinking number of staff members.

The once well-oiled transmitting facilities of yore are just memories, and it’s an unfortunate fact of life now that today’s facilities don’t always get much attention unless something breaks. To make matters worse, only a vanishingly small number of stations have even one full-time transmitter engineer on staff. For at least a couple of decades now, it’s been common practice to use contract engineering help or, in group operations, to cycle “the transmitter guy” among multiple facilities.

With the widespread distribution of a station’s content via satellite and cable today and the shrinking of equipment profiles, perhaps transmitting facilities don’t command the respect they once did. However, at most broadcast operations the transmitter plant represents one of the largest, or perhaps the largest investment, so it really doesn’t pay to skimp on preventative maintenance.

“Emergencies” at a broadcast transmitting plant are nothing new as evidenced by this Jan. 1929 magazine cover. It’s labeled “A Broadcast Engineer’s Christmas.”

Think too about continuity of operations in times of storm-related or other emergencies when there is no cable service and/or perhaps a break in the connectivity for feeding DirecTV or Dish Network. During such times it’s vitally important to be able to stay on the air to provide emergency information.

A little bit of preventive maintenance can go a long way in ensuring continuity of operations (and also some really big-ticket repairs).

WHAT YOU CAN’T SEE CAN STILL HURT YOU!

Smoke issuing from a transmitter cubicle or an out-of-plumb tower are very obvious indications that remediation is needed; however, according to several transmission professionals interviewed for this article, it’s the not-so-visible things that can bite the hardest.

According to Joe Burdette, vice president, co-founder and co-owner of United States Tower Services in Frederick, Md., buried guyline anchors are high on the list.

“Guy anchors can fail because you have copper ground rods bonded to galvanized anchor rods and the rods can corrode in damp soil or swampy conditions. The galvanized steel becomes a sacrificial element in the ‘battery’ that’s made up of the copper ground rod and the steel anchors,” said Burdette. “It’s always wise during an inspection to excavate all the way down to the concrete holding the guy anchor to look for any sign of corrosion. This is really essential in wet areas. I recall that at one installation I leaned up against an anchor rod and it just fell over. It had corroded completely away!”

Hopefully you’ll never have to deal with a tower issue like this. Regular inspections and PM can help ward off what may become very expensive consequences later on. (Photo credit: ERI)

Tom Silliman, president and CEO of ERI (Electronics Research Inc.), echoed Burdette’s concerns about the subtle but devastating failure of guy anchors over time, and described the use of an inspection technique that doesn’t necessarily require excavation to determine anchor integrity.

“We have the capability of using time-domain reflectometry in the low frequency range to actually measure guy anchors to see if they have damage down underground,” said Silliman. “With this technology, you can ping the anchors to see if there’s damage just like you can look for a bad ‘bullet’ in a transmission line.”

Above-ground corrosion can also be extremely damaging in some tower installations, yet go unseen until it’s too late. Silliman noted that towers constructed with tubular members are especially prone to internal damage.

“If it’s a tubular leg structure, it can fail from the inside out,” he said. “One of the things you need to do [in inspecting] tubular leg towers is to verify that the ‘weep holes’ are still open. I’ve been to many towers where you walk up to the base and stick a little knife into the hole and all this rusty water comes out. That means that the tower is dead; it’s going to have to go.”

Silliman says that tube-leg towers really need to be inspected every two years, while a solid-leg tower can usually go for five years between inspections.

Burdette agreed that five years should be about the maximum time between inspections, but noted that newly erected towers should get special attention.

“An inspection the first year after it’s been put in is essential. Things are settling in and there may be bolts someone forgot to tighten or nuts that were dropped. There’s an infant mortality factor that you want to steer clear of.”

Tower fence or topiary? Only the station owner knows for sure. Tower workers shouldn’t have to come equipped with machetes or chain saws to change a burned-out beacon lamp.

Guy line tension is another item that should be part of a comprehensive tower inspection. Incorrect tensioning—unless it’s really extreme—is difficult to detect in a superficial examination, yet can cause tower failure.

“Guy wire ‘galloping’ can cause components to fail on the tower and breakage of guy line brackets,” said Silliman. “If a wire is not tensioned properly—say it’s at six percent instead of the 11 percent it was designed for, it can start flying around and bouncing with high winds. This is amplified by icy conditions; the ice can form a sort of airplane wing effect [and exacerbates movement in the wind]. When you see this it’s really incredible; just god-awful scary.”

Both Silliman and Burdette advise stations to choose their tower maintenance and erection crews carefully.

“You want to verify that everybody on the crew has had climbing training and rescue training,” said Silliman. “You also want to verify that they have proper equipment. You need ask for and to check references. The way OSHA operates now is that if you have a crew that’s working without proper equipment or safety training you can get cited along with the crew.”

WLW’s iconic Blaw-Knox “diamond” radio tower was erected more than 80 years ago, is still in use, and just as sturdy as when the last fastener went in, illustrating that with a little “TLC,” there’s no preordained end-of-life date for a well-maintained broadcast tower.

HOW LONG SHOULD YOUR TOWER LAST?

“If it’s a self-supporting tower that’s galvanized and well maintained, technically it could last forever,” said Silliman. “If it’s a solid leg tower and guyed and well designed, then it’s just a matter of maintaining the guy lines. They do have to be replaced from time to time.”

Silliman noted that tower design standards have evolved over the years and did suggest checking station or manufacturer documentation in connection with older “sticks.”

“Your biggest concern is with towers designed under the ‘C’ standard or before,” said Silliman. “The standards have continually improved.”

He explained that the “C” standard didn’t recognize the fact that towers installed on the edge of a mountain crest in cold locations are special cases, citing some towers that were built to standard but failed anyway. In such instances winds can accelerate up the side of the mountain and over-stress the structure, especially when it’s carrying a heavy load of ice. The latest design standard takes such cases into consideration.

However, special environments notwithstanding, a well built and maintained tower is a one-time investment and doesn’t really have to be replaced at some predetermined interval.

“Look at the Eiffel Tower,” said Burdette. “It’s been up for well over 100 years. If you’ve got a tower that’s been up for 50 years of so, it’s seen everything,” said Burdette. “It’s very unlikely that it’s too [antiquated] to stand.”

The water damage to this tower beacon is obvious; a little preventative maintenance could have meant the difference between a long useful life and a costly replacement job. (Photo courtesy of U.S. Tower Services)

TOWER LIGHTING INTO THE 21ST CENTURY

High-intensity LEDs have made large inroads in terms of replacing conventional electric lights during the past decade or so due to their many positive features. This applies to broadcast tower lighting systems too. If you haven’t given much thought to replacing existing tower lights with this new technology, maybe now is the time to do so.

“Even the AMs who don’t have a lot of money are going to LEDs because when they hear that we have to charge them many hundreds of dollars to re-lamp a tower, this is a significant portion of a new lighting system,” said Burdette. “We can put in relatively cheap LEDs and then we don’t have to go back for five or 10 years. The labor to go up and re-lamp an incandescent tower is getting higher and higher.”

He also mentioned the savings in electricity gained by retrofitting incandescent beacons and side lights with LEDs is another factor nudging tower owners to budget money for this.

“You can have an [annual] electric bill running into thousands of dollars for a tall tower,” said Burdette. “[After a while] you start to bite into the cost of the new equipment. Electricity is not free and you don’t have to call us every six months to a year-and-a-half to change bulbs.”

YOU DON’T WANT THIS KIND OF ‘GREEN’

In discussing tower maintenance, Burdette mentioned that facility owners should also stay on top of “grounds” maintenance—not the electrode variety, but rather what’s growing up around the tower and its guy lines. Not only does an overgrowth of vegetation hinder access to the tower base and guy anchors, it can hide some critters that tower crews may not want to encounter (aggressive four-footed animals and snakes—poisonous and otherwise) and could indirectly be responsible failure of a tower.

A falling tree near a guy run is also a potential hazard.

“Most customers realize when they see a rotten tree leaning over their guy wires it’s a big risk,” said Burdette. “It’s hard to break an inch-in-diameter guy wire on a tall tower; however, a little AM’s [tower guy lines] could be much more vulnerable. Owners need to keep their guy lanes open and free of scary looking big trees.”

An overgrowth of shrubs, tall weeds, trees, or piles of cleared brush can also pose a special hazard at some tower sites.

“It’s not wise to have a lot of vegetation around anchors—especially those with ‘potted sockets,’” cautioned Burdette. “The potting of those sockets with those big guy wires is typically zinc or some other low [melting] temperature metal that they pour in there to keep the wires in the tapered sockets. If you have a brush fire they can melt and the tower can fall over.”

So, nothing has really changed in the more than 250 years when Benjamin Franklin offered that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Maintaining reliability is still all about staying on top of things.

The second installment of this article will go inside the transmitter building to flag potential issues and offer preventive maintenance tips to ensure full continuity of operation for broadcasters. 

James O’Neal is a retired broadcast engineer with more than 35 years of experience in the field. For the past 10 years he has served as technology editor at TV Technology magazine.

Javier Castillo

ALEXANDRIA, VA—Lightning is one of nature’s most impressive displays of destructive power. Loud and visually overwhelming at times, lightning is chaotically beautiful.

No one knows this more than engineers who work for broadcasters with tall towers in locations where lightning is common. I personally witnessed lightning striking the Empire State Building three times during a storm, and it was pretty awesome to see.

Any operation that relies on a tower knows that it needs lightning protection, but how often do these safeguards need to be checked, maintained and replaced?

Javier Castillo is a lightning expert with LBA, a Greenville, N.C.-based consulting firm focusing on RF and wireless communications and applications. He has spent nearly 25 years consulting on lightning protection solutions worldwide and over the decades, has created proven hardware designs and lightning protection solutions. He has also served as an expert panelist and presenter on lightning protection before entities and groups in nearly every country in Latin America.

We talked to Javier about the best way to prepare for lightning.

A lightning bolt strikes the CN Tower in Toronto in 2008. (Photo credit: Flickr)

BE Extra: Broadcasters generally have tall towers that attract lightning, and lightning protection is taken seriously in this industry. But how often does a modern lightning protection system need to be checked and maintained? Are there any particular things to look for to determine that maintenance is needed right away?

Castillo: We suggest a visual inspection after major storms or observed lightning strikes. Lightning strike counters attached to the structure can be helpful. An annual visual inspection for arc burns or compromises to lighting or other systems, and a check of ground system integrity is also recommended. Microwave, STLs and similar systems on towers are more prone to deterioration and long-term damage from strikes than are high power systems.

BE Extra: The lightning rod has long been used to attract lightning and get the static charge to flow where you want it to flow instead of where it wants to flow. However, there are also systems that make an object (such as a tower) less likely to attract lightning. How does a system like that work? Is it appropriate for broadcasters?

Castillo: Static dissipation systems have emerged as useful to reducing the possibilities of strikes to protected towers. Anecdotal experience has shown them to be effective in averting as many as 90 percent of potential strikes. They are most effective when combined with conventional lightning rods that channel any strikes that do occur. Static dissipation systems should be customized to a particular tower and its appurtenances. (A paper on selection of static dissipaters is at here.)

BE Extra: Lightning also hits power lines and can flow into a building on electrical service wires. What can be done here to protect sensitive equipment inside a building from a power line strike?

Castillo: Proper grounding of all equipment, structures, and power components is essential. This is a complex subject and very site specific. There are many references on equipment grounding, in addition to the National Electrical Code and National Fire Protection lightning guidance. We recommend that station engineers study these references to ensure that their systems are safe and effective.

One of many LBA Lightning Protectors. 

Click on the Image to Enlarge

BE Extra: If you’re a broadcaster with a tall and properly protected tower, where’s the safest place to be during a bad lightning storm?

Castillo: The safest place is in a building or vehicle under the tower and guy wires. These form a protective Faraday cage. However, don’t touch metal objects or stand or lay on the ground as so called “step voltages” in the ground can rise to killer levels during a strike!

BE Extra: If you know a bad storm is coming, are there any extra precautions that can be taken to prevent injuries, loss of life and damage to property?

Castillo: In a well-protected transmitter site, you shouldn’t have to take any special precautions. As a general matter, unused transmission lines should stay grounded, and unused equipment could be disconnected and unplugged.

BE Extra: Is there anything else we should know about lightning and lightning protection?

Castillo: Often overlooked is the safety of news teams, remote broadcasts and other outdoor station activities. Some outdoor equipment like satellite dishes and temporarily located production vans can be protected with lightning masts, but most other activities should be secured when thunder is heard, and shelter sought. Most newsgathering vehicles are safe if STL masts are lowered.