Los Angeles radio tower crash kills 2

In article ,
Andrew Rowley wrote:

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.

or you end up with endless second-guessing and hindsight that isn't
20-20.

If the regulation isn't good enough, then don't bother with the
regulation.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
More than likely, the barriers were to prevent someone deliberately
crashing
into the facility. A lot of them went up after 9/11.

And when you consider that someone going into a data center could shut
down
Visa or a telephone company, you are dealing with a catastrophic situation
should someone crash into the building.

If it's that important they have back-up capability off site which would
take over with nary a hitch in the getalong.

"Andrew Rowley" wrote in message
...

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.


What's the purpose of the regulations regarding marking and lighting?

"Andrew Rowley" wrote in message
...
"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?


Yes.



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.


What are you going to do to ensure that one mistake, a moment of
inattention, cannot bring harm to a pilot? Are you going to eliminate all
towers?



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.


Do you even fly?

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THANK YOU ! ! !

Right now, he would not change his mind, as it might make him appear he
had
been wrong, at least one time in his life.


A cogent argument can always cause me to change my mind. Nobody has yet
presented one.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

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.

Changing the site of the transmitter changes the reception area of the
station.

In article , "Bill Denton"
writes:

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

Not far from where I live, we have a 50kw AM transmitter litterally in the
middle of a shopping area. They had to use some particular shielding tricks on
the buildings to keep everything inside from being affected.

John

"JohnMcGrew" wrote in message
...
In article et, "Steven
P.
McNicoll" writes:

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


What do you think?


I think the airport will become another shopping center. One should be
careful what one wishes for.



More people listen to radio than fly general aviation
aircraft. And more people think airports affect their property values
than
transmitter towers do.


'Zackly.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

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.

Changing the site of the transmitter changes the reception area of the
station.

No it doesn't. Changing the antenna site might change the transmission
pattern.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Andrew Rowley" wrote in message
...

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.


What's the purpose of the regulations regarding marking and lighting?


Regulations provide minimum requirements. Meeting minimum requirements does
not guarantee freedom from liability. Just ask any auto or aircraft
manufacturer.