Los Angeles radio tower crash kills 2

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote

The radio station did take reasonable precautions. They painted and
lighted
their tower in accordance with the regulations.


You are all alone in your stance. You may be technically right, but
morally, you don't have a leg to stand on.
--
Jim in NC

Here's a couple of good links...

http://www.amgroundsystems.com/ags.htm

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...9/ai_101517773



"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"JohnMcGrew" wrote in message
...
[...] The ground system consists of a series of wires, buried
underground, each the length of the tower, and located at 10 degree
(IIRC)
radials emanating from the tower base. [...]
with each radial the same length as the tower.

I don't know where you got this from. If you look at the arial pictures
of the
KFI tower, you'll find that it is barely 100 feet away from industrial
buildings.

I don't know where he got it either. We live right next door to several
tall AM transmitting towers (at least three, maybe four...I'm too lazy to
go
look out the window and refresh my memory), all of which are taller than
the
distance between the antennas and our house (and dozens of other houses
around them too).

Maybe some AM towers have the radiating underground wires, but clearly not
all do.

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

You are all alone in your stance.


Did you take a survey?



You may be technically right, but morally, you don't have a leg to stand
on.


This is not a moral issue.

"TaxSrv" wrote in message
...
"Allen" wrote:
$480 million - The largest aviation verdict awarded to plaintiffs
in
history. (Cassoutt vs. Cessna) 2002

Real old news, because it was settled over 2 years ago for likely a
small fraction, as appeals courts seriously reduce these things. Nor
would Cessna pay out the settlement; they pay only for insurance.

Fred F.


Who is Cessna Aircraft's insurance company? Do they not "self-insure'?

"Allen" wrote:
$480 million - The largest aviation verdict awarded to plaintiffs
in
history. (Cassoutt vs. Cessna) 2002

Real old news, because it was settled over 2 years ago for likely a
small fraction, as appeals courts seriously reduce these things. Nor
would Cessna pay out the settlement; they pay only for insurance.

Fred F.

"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?

"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

"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.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote

This is not a moral issue.


Radio station declines the plea to put up extra lighting, because it is not
required, while pilots say it is needed. Two people then the said antenna,
and are killed.

The radio station not wanting to spend the money, costs two people their
lives, very possibly. And you say this is not a moral issue?
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

Radio station declines the plea to put up extra lighting, because it is
not
required, while pilots say it is needed.


Does this extra lighting have some kind of repulsor effect that would have
prevented aircraft from striking the tower?

The tower was charted. It's presence was made known in the A/FD. It had
proper markings and lights. This accident happened because the pilot flew
in the vicinity of the tower below the altitude of the tower. If you don't
fly in the vicinity of the tower at or below the charted altitude you cannot
hit the tower.



Two people then the said antenna, and are killed.

The radio station not wanting to spend the money, costs two people their
lives, very possibly. And you say this is not a moral issue?


I say the moral of the story is don't fly into towers.