Los Angeles radio tower crash kills 2

From the other post on here, people have been "normally seeing it" for 70+
years.


"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
Larry Dighera wrote:

standard traffic pattern level of 800' are vulnerable. One just
doesn't expect such a tall tower in such close proximity to an active
airport.

Isn't the tower depicted in the chart? Whatever happened to airmanship?

Stefan

A tower, not where one normally would see a tower, is one more item added
to
the possible "accident chain of events". Want to break the chain? Don't
have the tower there, or light the h^ll out of it!
--
Jim in NC

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 22:46:37 GMT, Paul Hirose
wrote in
::

Has anyone flown into Fullerton? How big a problem is the tower?
Channel 7's story on the 11 a.m. news today had an interview with a
pilot who said the tower is very hard to see from the air. On the
other hand, the other guy they put on the air pointed out the tower is
on the charts and has coexested with the airport since 1947.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/122...ane_crash.html

The KFI radio tower is a little over a mile NW of Fullerton Airport.
There is often haze in the vicinity, and viewed against the ground,
the tower can be less than conspicuous. If I recall correctly, it is
not freestanding, but guyed. I make a specific effort to locate the
tower whenever I'm operating in the vicinity, because I am aware of
its insidious nature. Because the tower is 760' AGL, aircraft at the
standard traffic pattern level of 800' are vulnerable. One just
doesn't expect such a tall tower in such close proximity to an active
airport.

Even if the tower "coexisted with the airport since 1947" (as someone
said) it is a classic "accident waiting to happen." A mere 40 feet
apart from a pattern attitude! I wonder if they will now raise the
pattern attitude or even change approach procedure?

I flew into the LA basin some 20 times and I found it always
very challenging to maneuver and to keep up with the radio
traffic. It is simply one pace faster than here in the
SFO + SJC + OAK vicinity, which is also busy!

Thomas

"ThomasH" wrote in message
...

Even if the tower "coexisted with the airport since 1947" (as someone
said) it is a classic "accident waiting to happen."


What if it's decided they cannot coexist? Do you think the airport will
have more local support than the radio station?



A mere 40 feet apart from a pattern attitude!


Pattern altitude is 1100 for singles and 1600 for multis. That's 280/780
feet above the tower.



I wonder if they will now raise the pattern attitude or even change
approach procedure?


What approach procedure?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...
Even if the tower "coexisted with the airport since 1947" (as someone
said) it is a classic "accident waiting to happen."

What if it's decided they cannot coexist? Do you think the airport will
have more local support than the radio station?

Speaking as a neighbor of a truly annoying AM radio station, I think the
answer to that question could go either way. If the neighbors have as much
trouble with signal bleed as we do here, they likely would be overjoyed to
see the radio transmitter located elsewhere.

I'm not any more convinced of the "accident waiting to happen" claim than
you are -- after all, there have been fewer accidents due to the tower than
one might expect at a runway. And we don't go around calling runways "an
accident waiting to happen". Given the virtually nonexistent number of
accidents related to the tower, it's clearly NOT an "accident waiting to
happen".

But implying that a radio station would be more popular with neighbors than
an airport indicates a misunderstanding of the impact a radio station has on
neighbors.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Speaking as a neighbor of a truly annoying AM radio station, I think the
answer to that question could go either way. If the neighbors have as
much trouble with signal bleed as we do here, they likely would be
overjoyed to see the radio transmitter located elsewhere.

I'm not any more convinced of the "accident waiting to happen" claim than
you are -- after all, there have been fewer accidents due to the tower
than one might expect at a runway. And we don't go around calling runways
"an accident waiting to happen". Given the virtually nonexistent number
of accidents related to the tower, it's clearly NOT an "accident waiting
to happen".

But implying that a radio station would be more popular with neighbors
than an airport indicates a misunderstanding of the impact a radio station
has on neighbors.


I didn't say neighbors, I said the local area. Those affected would be
those that listen to the radio station. I'd wager that's quite a few more
than those annoyed by signal bleed.

"ThomasH" wrote in message

I flew into the LA basin some 20 times and I found it always
very challenging to maneuver and to keep up with the radio
traffic. It is simply one pace faster than here in the
SFO + SJC + OAK vicinity, which is also busy!


And how about Teterboro? One seriously big thing sticking up there and it's
lost in all the NYC glitter. Tower must mention it about a hundred times a
day.

moo

I operated out of FUL back in the late 50's, early 60's and was always
nervous about that tower especially with the frequent limited
visibility. I'm surprised it hasn't happend long before now.
Ol Shy & Bashful

On 20 Dec 2004 16:51:34 -0800, wrote in
.com::

... was always nervous about that tower ...

Me too. Its depiction on the chart somehow fails to convey its
menacing presence.

In his preflight planning, a pilot needs to be sure to include a
search for surface obstructions in those locations where he will be
operating near the ground.

Connecticut has an airport 4B8 with a pattern of 1,000. Not more than
2.5 miles from the theshold there is a series of TV towers at 2049-MSL,
1339-AGL. At night you'd have to be blind to hit them, on a summer
day, in unfamilar territory, you just might. Check those sectionals,
and don't forget about the "guy wires". Sorry to hear about any pilot
paying the ultimate price, I always try to learn something from their
lose.

wrote:

I'm surprised it hasn't happend long before now.

It has. I recall an aircraft snagging the tower's guy wires a number of
years ago, but I can't recall exactly when. It was inevitable, when you
consider that pilots use the radio signal to find Fullerton airport.