Making the same mistake twice in East Hampton NY?

Status
Not open for further replies.

archduke

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
43
Location
annapolis, maryland & montauk, new york
According to this newspaper story, East Hampton is set to erect a 300' tower on Starr Top Hill (which happens to be about 1/2 of a mile from the Montauk airport)

https://indyeastend.com/news-opinion/south-fork/eh-town-board-okays-fire-com-towers/

I remember that about 5 or so years ago, the Coast Guard wanted to erect an approx 200' tower for the new Rescue 21 VHF network at the Town recycling center which is about 1 mile from the Montauk airport. The FAA shot that down and the Coast Guard's tower was trimmed down to about 150' so as not to "interfere with air traffic".

I have to wonder how a township thinks it will be able to get permission from the FAA for a 300' tower with an airport 1/2 mile away when the Dept of Homeland Security (USCG) could not build a 200' tower 1 mile away! Maybe due diligence has been overlooked here?

Anyway, another newspaper - The East Hampton Star - just published this letter to the editor which mentions the purchase of 700 mhz radios which are still on the shelf in their boxes:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

East Hampton

October 22, 2018

Dear David:

Running the Town of East Hampton is not just a bigger version of rebuilding the Amagansett Life-Saving Station. It’s a bit more complicated than that.

Months ago, the town board purchased a new, supposed to be state-of-the-art, 700 mega-Hertz emergency communications system to replace an aging and failing system. The equipment still sits in the boxes it came in because, after buying it, the town board discovered that it could not be installed on our existing communications towers in their current condition. Some are too short, some are in poor physical condition, some are already at capacity.

A couple of months ago, I called to public attention that this meant the town board had never engineered the system as a whole before buying it. That is a pretty obvious step to anyone with experience with systems more complicated than a two-story building.

A few days after I made that point, the town board hired an engineer for the communications system. Better late than never. Last week we learned that in order for the system to function correctly, there needs to be a new communications tower, 300 feet tall, in Montauk, about twice the height of the existing tower there.

Eric Schantz, a senior planner, and Eddie Schnell, communications technician, were invited to the board work session that I attended last week to explain that the geography of the town demands a 300-foot tower and that locating the tower with others near the old Montauk dump would minimize the impacts. That’s a pretty amazing discovery this late in the game, as the geography has not changed for a few thousand years. Nobody talked about the cost of a 300-foot steel lattice tower.

Maybe they have it right this time. Or maybe not. A five-minute oral presentation is not the basis on which such decisions are normally made. So I asked Councilman Bragman about the engineering report that explains why and how the system as a whole should be built as now proposed. He said that as far as he knows there is no such report. There are plans for the individual towers, but no engineering/design report for the system as a whole.

As well, after preventing use of the tower built by the Springs Fire Department three years ago, the town board still has made no provision or proposal for covering Springs and eliminating dead spots there. Thus, the new system is being designed with a big hole in it.

Is the new Montauk tower the right tower in the right spot so that the whole system will function properly, including Springs when they finally get around to it? How would anyone know if the system still has not been engineered? And if it has been, where is the engineering report?

In the words of the immortal Casey Stengel in 1962, while managing an inept Mets team to a 40-120 season, “Can’t anybody here play this game?”

Sincerely,

DAVID GR****ER

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So speaking of due diligence, is it really possible the Town bought the 700mhz radios before doing the engineering and permitting?
 

Thunderknight

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
2,217
Location
Bletchley Park
Distance from airport is not the only factor. It also has to do with the direction in relation to the runways (e.g. is the tower on the approach path or is well away from it).

Usually building within a certain distance of an airport requires a detailed FAA study. But it's far from impossible...just depends on the specific circumstances.
 

Rudy3145

Member
Feed Provider
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Messages
540
Location
New York
The GATR site is needed for two reasons. There is minimal to no coverage on the east end of Montauk near the lighthouse and if the Recycle Site goes down, there’s no coverage in Montauk at all.

As far as I know the GATR site is for the new 700mhz system for the county firecom. I’m not sure if East Hampton Communications is also looking to add equipment there for their own system. I would imagine so.
 
D

DaveNF2G

Guest
Why not put a directional site at the lighthouse, covering back toward the island? No signal is needed on the ocean.
 

CqDx

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 15, 2003
Messages
1,222
Location
US
Sort of related topic, if the article is correct and nothing has been installed yet, I’m wondering how did the database entry, complete with System ID, got created! :)
 

GTR8000

NY/NJ Database Guy
Database Admin
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
15,491
Location
BEE00
Sort of related topic, if the article is correct and nothing has been installed yet, I’m wondering how did the database entry, complete with System ID, got created! :)

It got created because someone submitted it, and since they submitted a SysID, it was taken as legitimate. Although policy prohibits us from publicly disclosing details of the submission, one could make the assumption that if a SysID was provided, the submitter may have intimate knowledge of the system.

That being said, since no activity has been reported on those frequencies, I've removed the system from active view until someone reports a control channel on the air.
 
D

DaveNF2G

Guest
What part didn't you understand?

An omnidirectional antenna at the furthest point of land would waste energy. Fire trucks and police cars do not travel on water. The minimal signal available outside the primary lobe of a directional array would be sufficient for close-in communications.
 

62Truck

Ordinary Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 13, 2005
Messages
1,978
Location
Uranus
What part didn't you understand?

An omnidirectional antenna at the furthest point of land would waste energy. Fire trucks and police cars do not travel on water. The minimal signal available outside the primary lobe of a directional array would be sufficient for close-in communications.

Well fire and police boats do travel on water...
 

CqDx

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 15, 2003
Messages
1,222
Location
US
It got created because someone submitted it, and since they submitted a SysID, it was taken as legitimate. Although policy prohibits us from publicly disclosing details of the submission, one could make the assumption that if a SysID was provided, the submitter may have intimate knowledge of the system.



That being said, since no activity has been reported on those frequencies, I've removed the system from active view until someone reports a control channel on the air.



Good to know, thank you
 

EHTPDEmComm

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
2
Location
East Hampton, NY
I'm Eddie Schnell, Communications Technician, East Hampton Town Police Department

I'm here to fix some misinformation

archduke:
The 300' tower is going at the recycling center site, right next to the Coast Guard Rescue 21 tower, not the GATR site. Rescue 21 was dropped to 180' from 300' due to local opposition, not the FAA.

The radio system and the radios were purchased, and most have arrived. The radio system itself was fully engineered before purchase. The backhaul and the towers themselves go through their full engineering (path analysis and structural analysis in this case) after Motorola gets a purchase order. The path analysis revealed two towers too short, and the structural analysis showed some of the towers overloaded, even though reports from just a few years earlier had them with plenty of available capacity. In additional site walks other issues were found with existing structures and electrical that needed to be rectified. This adds significant delay and need to increase budgets to replace towers and buildings, which was not in the scope of the original project.

Rudy3145:
The County is running the project for the GATR site as it's their property. The Town is ready to move forward with installation at this site to improve coverage of the eastern portions of Montauk as well as overlap the coverage from the site at the Montauk recycle center.

DaveNF2G:
We do have Marine Patrol vessels, dive team, fire boats, lifeguards, ocean rescue, etc that do need coverage on the water. Not to mention the lighthouse is a national historic landmark, don't think they would take to well to a microwave dish in the post card picture.
 
D

DaveNF2G

Guest
DaveNF2G:
We do have Marine Patrol vessels, dive team, fire boats, lifeguards, ocean rescue, etc that do need coverage on the water. Not to mention the lighthouse is a national historic landmark, don't think they would take to well to a microwave dish in the post card picture.

I understand that, but the marine vehicles will be on a flat, conductive surface and would not require the full power of a regular site.

As for the landmark status, I'm aware of that, too. My view on that can be summarized thus:

"Historical Landmarks, preserving the past at the expense of the present and future."
 

archduke

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
43
Location
annapolis, maryland & montauk, new york
Thank you Eddie Schnell for clearing up the situation. I obviously got my misinformation from the East Hampton Star (via a letter to their editor) and The Independent so it's my bad for running with 2nd hand sources of information. Good to know that the gloom and doom portrayed in the newspapers is actually NOT the case. Appreciate your clarification!

In regards to whether the FAA or 'local opposition" torpedoed the proposed height of the Rescue 21 tower, I do remember attending a briefing at the Montauk school where the Rescue 21 engineer stated that the FAA would not approve the original requested antenna height. So I guess the FAA's objection along with the ever present NIMBY attitude about tower height conspired together in this instance.
 

Rudy3145

Member
Feed Provider
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Messages
540
Location
New York
A site on the lighthouse is not going to happen for reasons we all know. The GATR site is actually better than the point, because it can cover east to the lighthouse and cover the valley where the village is. It can increase the coverage footprint and also back up communications in the village if the recycle center site goes down. A site on the lighthouse that far east wouldn’t accomplish this.
 

62Truck

Ordinary Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 13, 2005
Messages
1,978
Location
Uranus
I understand that, but the marine vehicles will be on a flat, conductive surface and would not require the full power of a regular site.

As for the landmark status, I'm aware of that, too. My view on that can be summarized thus:

"Historical Landmarks, preserving the past at the expense of the present and future."

Just stop... Please.... You do not know what they will require.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top