Los Angeles radio tower crash kills 2

"Roger" wrote in message
...

My guess it the pilot's estate/heirs will go after the tower owners.
Particularly in CA the juries are well known for making awards against
the corporations to the individual.

When it comes to civil suits it doesn't matter how long it's been
there or who was first although when it comes to the big tower it
appears from this thread the airport was first.


The facts don't matter at all. Civil suits such as this have become
strictly an emotional appeal.

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...

Your question is a non-sequitur?. With the exception of the cable loss I
mentioned in my original post, the location of the transmitter is
essentially immaterial.

It is the location of the antenna and the transmitter power that
determines the coverage area.


Is the tower not the antenna and the antenna not the source of the
transmitted signal? We're talking about moving the tower should it and the
airport be deemed unable to coexist.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


"Andrew Rowley" wrote in message
.. .


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?

You can't eliminate the possibility, but you can recognise
circumstances that create unusual risks, and try to reduce them. By
installing more than the minimum lighting required by regulations for
example.

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?

Yes.

How do you propose to take off or land without flying below the
altitude of the tower?

Andrew Rowley wrote:

You can't eliminate the possibility, but you can recognise
circumstances that create unusual risks, and try to reduce them. By
installing more than the minimum lighting required by regulations for
example.

If the required lighting isn't enough, then the regulations are at fault
and not those who follow them. At least this is the way we see it in the
country where I live. But then, we don't have juries which honour
frivolous lawsuits, either.

Stefan

Stefan wrote:

If the required lighting isn't enough, then the regulations are at fault
and not those who follow them. At least this is the way we see it in the
country where I live. But then, we don't have juries which honour
frivolous lawsuits, either.

The problem is that there is a limit to how specific regulations can
be. Would you have the same regulations for towers 750' AGL 20NM from
an airport, 750' AGL and 5NM, and 750' and 1.5NM? How do you compare
towers 1000' and 5NM and 750' at 1.5NM? What about 400' and 1NM? Does
it depend on runway alignment?

The more specific you make many regulations, the more problems you
create. In many cases you are better off regulating a minimum, and
requiring people to take reasonable additional precautions if
necessary.

"Andrew Rowley" wrote in message
...

You can't eliminate the possibility, but you can recognise
circumstances that create unusual risks, and try to reduce them. By
installing more than the minimum lighting required by regulations for
example.


If the required lighting is insufficient the requirement should be changed.


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?

Yes.

How do you propose to take off or land without flying below the
altitude of the tower?


Did you miss the "in the vicinity of the tower" or just ignore it? I would
not operate below the tower's level if west of the runway 6 threshold and
north of the extended runway centerline without a visual on the tower. I
can do that and takeoff and land at FUL without any difficulty whatsoever.

"Andrew Rowley" wrote in message
...

The problem is that there is a limit to how specific regulations can
be. Would you have the same regulations for towers 750' AGL 20NM from
an airport, 750' AGL and 5NM, and 750' and 1.5NM? How do you compare
towers 1000' and 5NM and 750' at 1.5NM? What about 400' and 1NM? Does
it depend on runway alignment?

The more specific you make many regulations, the more problems you
create. In many cases you are better off regulating a minimum, and
requiring people to take reasonable additional precautions if
necessary.


What crap. If additional precautions are required the regulated minimum is
meaningless. How does a tower owner know if these additional precautions
are required if they're not part of the regulations on lighting and marking?

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 21:28:35 +1100, Andrew Rowley
wrote in
::

The problem is that there is a limit to how specific regulations can
be. Would you have the same regulations for towers 750' AGL 20NM from
an airport, 750' AGL and 5NM, and 750' and 1.5NM? How do you compare
towers 1000' and 5NM and 750' at 1.5NM? What about 400' and 1NM? Does
it depend on runway alignment?

While general regulations may have difficulty being specific enough
for all situations as you pointed out, isn't the responsibility for
clear approach paths the responsibility of the FAA's TERPS unit?

There's some information he
http://airspaceusa.com/FAA_Order_740...n_airspace.htm
http://airspaceusa.com/TerpsPro.htm
http://www.airspace.org/prod01.htm
http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/
http://www.faa.gov/ats/ATA/ata200/index.html


This fatal mishap seems to beg the question, what was the Local
Controller doing while the arriving flight was on a collision course
with the radio tower?

Back to Semantics 101 and no soup for you, Steven.

The transmitter is the source of the signal, it is the antenna that radiates
the signal.

But Happy Holidays anyway ;-)




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

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...

Your question is a non-sequitur?. With the exception of the cable loss I
mentioned in my original post, the location of the transmitter is
essentially immaterial.

It is the location of the antenna and the transmitter power that
determines the coverage area.


Is the tower not the antenna and the antenna not the source of the
transmitted signal? We're talking about moving the tower should it and
the
airport be deemed unable to coexist.

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:54:09 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
t::

I would
not operate below the tower's level if west of the runway 6 threshold and
north of the extended runway centerline without a visual on the tower. I
can do that and takeoff and land at FUL without any difficulty whatsoever.

In the fatal mishap we are discussing, it is pretty apparent that the
doomed flight made a left base entry, or at least it was on the left
base leg of the pattern when it collided with the radio tower. Given
the hazardous proximity of the radio tower in that quadrant, why would
a left hand pattern be assigned to runway 6?* Is noise abatement more
important than air safety, or wasn't the radio tower considered when
runway 6 was assigned a left hand pattern? Is the left hand pattern
for runway 6 a result of a TERPS study or airport management
accommodating residential noise complaints?

Given the time the accident occurred, 5:45 PM, and sunset occurred 61
minutes* before, it would be interesting to know what time the radio
tower lights were lit. If the obstruction lights were controlled by a
timer, it's possible it was not equipped with daylight savings time
compensation. If the lights were controlled by a photocell, anything
is possible. If the lights were turned on by KFI personnel, ditto.

* http://www.airnav.com/airport/KFUL
** http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.html


I suppose we'll have to wait for the final NTSB report for answers.
At this time I'm unable to locate any mention at all of the mishap on
the NTSB web site.

The preliminary FAA data are he
http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/F_1220_N.txt

************************************************** ******************************
** Report created 12/23/2004 Record 1
**
************************************************** ******************************

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 9187G Make/Model: C182 Description: 182, Skylane
Date: 12/19/2004 Time: 1745

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Fatal Mid Air: N
Missing: N
Damage: Destroyed

LOCATION
City: FULLERTON State: CA Country: US

DESCRIPTION
ACFT ON BASE LEG FOR RUNWAY 6, STRUCK THE RADIO TOWER AND CRASHED,
THE TWO
PERSONS ON BOARD WERE FATALLY INJURED, FULLERTON, CA

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 2
# Crew: 1 Fat: 1 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:
# Pass: 1 Fat: 1 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:

WEATHER: CLEAR



OTHER DATA
Activity: Pleasure Phase: Approach Operation: General
Aviation

Departed: EL MONTE Dep Date: 12/19/2004 Dep.
Time:
Destination: FULLERTON, CA Flt Plan: UNK Wx
Briefing: U
Last Radio Cont: CLRD TO LAND
Last Clearance: CLRD TO LAND

FAA FSDO: LONG BEACH, CA (WP05) Entry date:
12/20/2004