Los Angeles radio tower crash kills 2

"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.

The problem is, what happens to insurance costs when it's pretty much
guaranteed you're going to be settling a blockbuster case once every ten
years or so? Right now I think the Archdiocese of Boston is unable to get
liability insurance because of all the scandals. Their insureres paid out
somewhere around $60m and said "we're outta here."

"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.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
om...

Minimally meeting regulations is not always enough to prove reasonable
precaution.


No, not with the sad state of the US judicial system.

While I am not generally in favor of the way the US judicial system
seems to encourage people to sue, I don't see this particular
principle as a problem. If you can remove responsibility by meeting
regulations, then you need regulations to cover pretty much all
possible circumstances, and you end up with much more legislation than
you really want.

If you require some personal responsibility and common sense on top of
regulations, you can end up with similar (potentially better) results,
with greater freedom overall.

"Allen" wrote:

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

If they do, then Textron's SEC filings are fraudulent! I've looked at
recent filings, and they really don't cite problems here, current or
future. Actually, their ins co doesn't directly pay either. Like
even little Avemco, they would rely on "reinsurance" heavily, meaning
the risk is tossed into the worldwide aviation risk pool, like Lloyd's
of London who's never sold a single policy since the 1800's. Go to
Avemco's SEC filings and one gets a hint of how it works. You don't
see any big figure for claims payouts in financials, because it's
buried in their reinsurance arrangement.

Reg,
Fred F.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

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.

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

Do you even fly? I don't see how a pilot could say that could never
happen to me. All it takes is one mistake, a moment of inattention.
All pilots make mistakes from time to time.

And the tower is near an airport, so you have to fly in the vicinity
of the tower below its altitude if you are going to takeoff or land.

Bill Denton wrote:


And I would also have somebody check out your house with an RF signal
strength meter; people worry about a 5 watt (or whatever) cell phone frying
their brain,

Your typical handheld cellphone is about 1/2 watt an inch from your brain.


just imagine what 50,000 watts is doing to you and your
family...

Do the math and figure out what signal strength there is where you
stand, plus low frequencies like the AM band are not what people are
worrying about.

"Bill Denton" wrote:

But if you go out and put a giant fence out in front of your house to
protect against cars crashing into your house, you probably will not get a
premium reduction. Since the driver of the car would be liable for the
damages to your house, and the insurance company would not be liable, and
would not have to pay anything, it would be of no advantage to them if you
put up the fence, so why should they give you a premium reduction?

Interesting analogy. It might just be that the risk of it happening to
a house is low enough that there is not enough of a change in the risk
level to warrant a premium reduction.

I have worked at a couple of large computer sites that had exactly
that - ditches and barriers to stop cars and trucks from crashing into
the building if they left the freeway. Obviously someone thought the
risk in that case was worth considering.

"TaxSrv" wrote:

"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.

Insurance companies aren't a bucket of free money for paying liability
claims though. You can bet if they make a payout like that they are
going to set future premiums to try to recover some of the loss, and
to reflect the possibility of future similar (or even higher) payouts.
The insurance company has to aim to collect at least as much in
premiums as they pay out.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...
I didn't say neighbors, I said the local area. Those affected would be
those that listen to the radio station.

No, those affected do not include those that listen to the radio station,
not unless you assume that the tower is simply not to be rebuilt at all. I
find that assumption incredibly peculiar; if for some reason the tower was
prohibited at its location near the airport, it would simply be moved to
another location, one likely to hardly affect the coverage of the station at
all (compared to its current location).

Only the people affected at or near that particular site are worth
considering. No one else cares.