COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 21 



Senator Stennis. But it already had been proven that the original 

 criteria was not sufficient. That is the question that bothers me. You 

 continued the operation of the tower in the face of the fact that the 

 criteria was inadequate. What is your answer to that ? 



Mr. Chaetk. I would say that there was a new element introduced. 

 That mainly, because of the existence over a period of time of this 

 original deficiency, a certain deterioration in the structural integrity 

 had been experienced, and it was our understanding that the con- 

 struction of the above-water bracing would correct this and bring it 

 back to the original design strength. In other words, I would think 

 that it would be fair to say that our interpretation was, that because 

 of the existence of this original defect, that certain damage had been 

 introduced into the structure which then brought its capability below 

 the original specifications, and then, we were reassured that with the 

 repairs and with the above-water bracing, that it was now restored 

 to its original value. 



Senator Stennis. Well, that is my point. I want to avoid using 

 hindsight because it does not sound good to me to hear someone else 

 use it. You are not using it. My specific point is that the experience 

 with this particular tower seems to have clearly shown that the criteria 

 was not adequate to begin with. That is leaving Hurricane Donna 

 out of consideration. The wear and tear on the tower had accentuated 

 the deficiency in its stability. Still it seems that those in authority 

 contented themselves with just trying to get the tower up to the orig- 

 inal conception of what stresses would be encountered, and that they 

 made no effort to go beyond that. This continued until finally Hurri- 

 cane Donna came, and it presented added stress and force that the 

 already inadequate tower could not withstand, as I see it. 



Mr. Charyk. I think it would be fair to say that the Air Force 

 assumed that there was a degradation in the capability as a result 

 of the original defect, and therefore, during this period, the tower 

 was probably not in a condition to meet the original design specifica- 

 tions. With the completion of the recommended repairs in early 

 1960, we had no reason to doubt that the tower was now back to the 

 original specifications which probably were never initially completely 

 realized because of the original defect and the subsequent damage 

 that was realized from this original defect. 



NO CONSIDERATION GIVEN FOR EXCEEDING ORIGINAL STRENGTH 

 REQUIREMENTS 



Senator Stennis. Well, even if the tower had been constructed in 

 the beginning to measure up to the design criteria, it certainly appears 

 that this had proved inadequate by the time of Hurricane Donna. Do 

 you not agree with that ? You were trying to strengthen it. My com- 

 plaint is that, even in the light of your experience, you did not go 

 beyond the original concept of what was necessary. 



Mr. Charyk. Actually we were reassured on August 10, 1960, that 

 with the repairs that had been effected, this tower was now back to 

 design specifications, and Donna arrived approximately 1 month 

 later. 



Senator Stennis. Did you ever ask the Navy to go beyond its 

 original criteria in requirements of strength ? 



