Some registered account users are experiencing password recognition issues. The issue appears to have been triggered by a PHP update last night. If this is occurring, please try logging in and using the "forgot password?" utility. Bear in mind auto-generated password reset emails may appear in your spam folder. If this does not work, please click the "Contact Us" option near the lower right hand corner of the index page to contact me via email.

Thank you for your patience!
- M.W.

LAV STA/application status

Discussion pertaining to Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Muskegon, Battle Creek, Big Rapids, and Michiana
statmanmi
Posts: 165
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2018 12:07 am

Re: LAV STA/application status

Unread post by statmanmi »

cckadlec wrote: Mon Sep 30, 2019 11:19 pm Word from the station is that the signal came into use from the Allendale site at 7pm on July 16th. Until the Nash move occurs on 97.5, LAV is running their licensed 7.2kw. They hope to be at full power - 43kw - by January, but don't seem to have high hopes for that at this time.
A WLAW (Nash country format) CP Modification was filed today, which seems relevant to this thread.

Instead of being on what's likely a cell tower a few miles north of Montague, they seem to be going for the leg or side of the Montague water tower, across the street from the middle and high schools:

https://enterpriseefiling.fcc.gov/datae ... c&goBack=N

https://goo.gl/maps/8st55dBNPXfayzof9


I mention possibly on a leg, since the Modification notes overall height for the tank structure as 50 meters, but that the radiation center above ground will be 27.5 meters. (If you're like me, you'd calculate out that these are approximately 160 feet total height, and 90 feet for the antenna.)


Perhaps this is part of why the thought of January was given for WLAV being able to power up fully, based upon hopes to have WLAW all squared away at the now-disclosed different new site.

Enjoy! ~~ Statmanmi
CK-722
Posts: 1284
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:53 pm

Re: LAV STA/application status

Unread post by CK-722 »

From observing the erratic results from the newer Section 73.213 rules, I think they should modify the Section so that if they were ever authorized in the short spacing zones with full or reduced zone facilities, that they can modify facilities according to older Section 73.213 rules.
Is THAT where they got the idea for the 486-SX?

Same (x, y, z), different (t)

Your bullet missed my trial balloon.

RTN Price. Not guaranteed. As of 12:30, 157.71 Down 0.22.

Artificial Intelligence is a Child that needs a Parent to guide it through.
Post Reply