Los Angeles radio tower crash kills 2

The problem with these damn 700 feet towers is that they are not tall
enough to require strobes (1000 ft) but are still tall enough to be very
dangerous to light planes. I have one in my area that is 980 ft. Although,
the owners of that tower put strobes on it anyway. I have to believe that
often the exact height of a tower is chosen due to marking requirements
(i.e. JUST less than 1000 feet).

-Frank

"Paul Hirose" wrote in message
...
Yesterday morning a Cessna 182 hit the 760 foot (AGL) tower of 50
kilowatt AM radio station KFI in La Mirada, Calif. The married couple
aboard the 182 were killed, and the tower came down. KFI was off the
air about an hour.

According to media reports, the plane took off from El Monte and was
landing at Fullerton Airport to pick up two people. An FAA official
said they were on base leg at the time of the crash.

If I have this figured right, the 182 was coming from the north (El
Monte is 13 nm away at 350 degrees true) and on right base for Runway
6. The radio tower is 1.5 nm from the threshold on my topo, bearing
290 true. I measure it 33 degrees off the extended centerline, offset
to the north.

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

--

Paul Hirose
To reply by email delete INVALID from address.

"Frankster" wrote:
The problem with these damn 700 feet towers is that they are not
tall
enough to require strobes (1000 ft) but are still tall enough to be
very
dangerous to light planes. I have one in my area that is 980 ft.
Although, the owners of that tower put strobes on it anyway.

You might want to check Part 77 Regs and the Advisory Circulars.
Lighting may be required for obstructions as low as 150 feet in
height.

FF

I was wrong about the 1000 feet. Turns out that each independent case is
evaluated by the FAA and recommendations are provided to the FCC.

Here's a better link for the details...

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/policy/dtv/lighting.html

Looks like 2000 feet is the height of demarcation, not 1000. Also, the
correct terminology is "white flashing lights" not strobes. Additionally,
what I now see is:

"the most common option approved by the FAA is the substitution of white
flashing lights for a combination of red lights and painting."

Note: "substitution" Interesting

-Frank

"TaxSrv" wrote in message
...
"Frankster" wrote:
The problem with these damn 700 feet towers is that they are not
tall
enough to require strobes (1000 ft) but are still tall enough to be
very
dangerous to light planes. I have one in my area that is 980 ft.
Although, the owners of that tower put strobes on it anyway.

You might want to check Part 77 Regs and the Advisory Circulars.
Lighting may be required for obstructions as low as 150 feet in
height.

FF

"Frankster" wrote in message
...

The problem with these damn 700 feet towers is that they are not tall
enough to require strobes (1000 ft) but are still tall enough to be very
dangerous to light planes. I have one in my area that is 980 ft.
Although, the owners of that tower put strobes on it anyway. I have to
believe that often the exact height of a tower is chosen due to marking
requirements (i.e. JUST less than 1000 feet).


Where is that 1000' requirement found? I believe the rules for the
construction, marking, and lighting of antenna structures is found in USC
Title 47 Part 17. The word "strobe" does not appear anywhere in Part 17.
It does refer to "high intensity and medium intensity obstruction lighting",
which would obviously include strobe lights, but the general requirement for
lighting begins at 200', not 1000'.


§ 17.21 Painting and lighting, when required.

Antenna structures shall be painted and lighted when:

(a) They exceed 60.96 meters (200 feet) in height above the ground or they
require special aeronautical study.

(b) The Commission may modify the above requirement for painting and/or
lighting of antenna structures, when it is shown by the applicant that the
absence of such marking would not impair the safety of air navigation, or
that a lesser marking requirement would insure the safety thereof.

[32 FR 11269, Aug. 3, 1967, as amended at 42 FR 54824, Oct. 11, 1977]

And no one spoke to the value of VFR pilots flying tighter patterns. I see
single engine planes flying patterns like they are 707s. Tight patterns work
for airplanes just like they do for sailplanes. If a pilot needs more time to
think then maybe he should think about golf or fishing! When I learned to fly,
back in 62 we flew the pattern in close. I still do, be it an airplane or
sailplane. A tower a mile off the airport would leave me at least a 1/2 mile
clear of it. No problem. When doing my tailwheel training the CFI took me to
a private strip that required you to fly "around" a tower on final. It's all
see and avoid. Mac

Try flying a tight pattern when you're #7 following a Learjet. At a very
busy field you often have no choice. Up here in Boston you'll often find
yourself on extended downwind for Rwy 29 at Bedford, which means you need to
stay down low in order to remain under Logan's Class B. No big towers at
pattern altitude, though.

"Mackfly" wrote in message
...
And no one spoke to the value of VFR pilots flying tighter patterns. I
see
single engine planes flying patterns like they are 707s. Tight patterns
work
for airplanes just like they do for sailplanes. If a pilot needs more
time to
think then maybe he should think about golf or fishing! When I learned to
fly,
back in 62 we flew the pattern in close. I still do, be it an airplane or
sailplane. A tower a mile off the airport would leave me at least a 1/2
mile
clear of it. No problem. When doing my tailwheel training the CFI took
me to
a private strip that required you to fly "around" a tower on final. It's
all
see and avoid. Mac

C Kingsbury wrote:
Try flying a tight pattern when you're #7 following a Learjet. At a very
busy field you often have no choice. Up here in Boston you'll often find
yourself on extended downwind for Rwy 29 at Bedford, which means you need to
stay down low in order to remain under Logan's Class B. No big towers at
pattern altitude, though.


Colin,
Last week the manager of Hanscom Tower spoke at the Hanscom Aeroclub
safety meeting (and holiday party :-) He said that he cannot understand
why spamcan pilots insist on making huge patterns. He prefers that we
make tighter patterns, where the controllers can keep us in sight, and
we don't take forever to come around, especially the Katana pilots.
After saying this he concluded with "Katanas... I don't know why the
good lord found it necessary to create Katanas." Or something to that
effect :-)

Having said all that, the controllers will sequence and space you as
they see fit, and that sometimes means larger patterns and goofball
maneuvering (like 360's and s-turns. He prefers 360's). He admitted
that turbines are given priority as a policy, but that we can do things
to make the controller's lives easier and we can all play nice together
if we stay aware and professional. Smaller patterns can help in this
regard.

The most important take away from that meeting was his reply to the
question of where the responsibility lies to stay away from Boston Class
B for planes being worked by Hanscom tower. The bottom line is that if
a controller is working you, then they are responsible for keeping you
away from Class B, or negotiating with Boston approach. If you bust
into Bravo airspace while in the Hanscom pattern, it's on Hanscom
Tower's head. His words were something to the effect of "if it comes to
it, we'll it it. It will be an operational error on our part." All
this is on video at the aeroclub :-) I'm less apprehensive about
pattern work at Hanscom now that I know that.

However, the other take away from the meeting was that if you think they
forgot you, or are giving you an instruction to do something you object
to, you'll help everyone out by speaking up. They're human and make
mistakes too, and it's ultimately YOUR butt on the line, not the
controller's.

-Aviv

"Aviv Hod" wrote in message
...

The most important take away from that meeting was his reply to the
question of where the responsibility lies to stay away from Boston Class
B for planes being worked by Hanscom tower. The bottom line is that if
a controller is working you, then they are responsible for keeping you
away from Class B, or negotiating with Boston approach. If you bust
into Bravo airspace while in the Hanscom pattern, it's on Hanscom
Tower's head.

And Santa is on his way in a few days.

"Aviv Hod" wrote in message
...

C Kingsbury wrote:
Try flying a tight pattern when you're #7 following a Learjet. At a very
busy field you often have no choice. Up here in Boston you'll often find
yourself on extended downwind for Rwy 29 at Bedford, which means you
need to
stay down low in order to remain under Logan's Class B. No big towers at
pattern altitude, though.


Colin,
Last week the manager of Hanscom Tower spoke at the Hanscom Aeroclub
safety meeting (and holiday party :-) He said that he cannot understand
why spamcan pilots insist on making huge patterns.

Yeah, a lot of guys fly B-17 patterns, but this situation also happens when
you're on downwind cleared to follow a bizjet that's coming down the ILS.
People also do it because the visibility out there often stinks and with 5-6
in the pattern including often one or more students nobody wants to cut it
too close. Very easy to get your sequence wrong out there.


away from Class B, or negotiating with Boston approach. If you bust
into Bravo airspace while in the Hanscom pattern, it's on Hanscom
Tower's head.

And I'll make you a great deal to buy the Bunker Hill bridge. One time I got
sent way out on extended downwind for 29 and I ended up departing the
pattern north and called back in. I could tell from their response that they
had completely forgotten about me.

-cwk.

"Mackfly" wrote in message
...
And no one spoke to the value of VFR pilots flying tighter patterns. I
see
single engine planes flying patterns like they are 707s.

Right, but the penalty for flying a pattern a bit too big should not be
death.
--
Jim in NC