Los Angeles radio tower crash kills 2

Peter R. ) wrote:

I would bet that a jury would be more sympathetic to a lawsuit brought
on by the dead couple's family.

Whoops, left off the important part: A lawsuit against the radio
station.

--
Peter

In article , "Bill Denton"
writes:

I've only owned one house, but my homeowner's policy covered replacement
housing. I've forgotten the exact amount, but it was paid on an "$X per day"
basis. But you have to remember that it is the pilot who is ultimately
liable. Depending upon your policy, you may be able to sue the pilot for any
damages not paid by your homeowner's insurance, including replacement
housing.

Yes, your stuff will get replaced, and you will have somewhere to live in the
meantime. But you will never be compensated for the inconvenience and time
lost from your life.

"Plus, installing strobes definitely would have had a direct impact on their
(KFI's) insurance premiums as well."

Actually, no. The radio station is only required to paint and light the
tower in accordance with FAA regulations. As long as they do that, they are
under no liability if an airplane crashes into the tower, guy wires, etc.

Insurance premiums are based upon risk. Insurance companies frequently reward
policy holders for behavior or investments that reduce risk. For example, I
pay less for health insurance because I do not smoke and am not overweight. I
get a discount on my homeowners insurance because of my fire and security
alarms. I have little doubt that a radio station would get a discount for
installing strobe lights, or taking other actions beyond what the regulations
require. The only question is exactly how long would it take to recoup that
cost in saved premiums over time.

And yes, the pilot is finanically responsible for the tower. However, that
doesn't mean that the radio station will ever get to collect. Did the pilot
have enough insurance or assets to cover the cost of cleaning up the damage and
replacing the tower? If it is found that the pilot violated some aspect of his
policy (like being intoxicated, for instance) the pilots insurance may not pay
out at all. That's why the radio station has insurance in the first place. If
everyone was adequatly covered, they wouldn't need insurance in the first
place.

As for the tower being a hazard: Yup, that wasn't an ideal location at all.
But then again, our airspace is full of stuff in less than ideal locations.
Towers at that location have survived half-a-century next to the airport
without a hit. It was legally marked. It's on the charts. It's even in
Microsoft Flight Simulator! The radio station is hardly responsible.
John

IIRC, I don't think they have to submit a new application in order to
replace an existing tower.

And a radio station can't just put up a tower anywhere they can find some
empty real estate. Again, an engineering study is required in order to
locate/relocate a tower.

A couple of points: for FM and TV broadcasting, you have an antenna, called
a radiator, which actually "broadcasts" the signal. This antenna is then
ATTACHED to something, normally a tower, either ground-based or on top of a
tall building or other structure. But, in this instance, the tower is only
used to hold the antenna up to a desired height; the tower itself is not
part of the antenna. Consequently, the length (or height) of the tower is
immaterial from the standpoint of radiating the signal, other than the fact
that taller is generally better.

But KFI is an AM station, which is another whole ball of wax. In AM
broadcasting, the tower itself is the antenna, it is the part that actually
"broadcasts" the signal. For this reason, the tower must be of a specific
height, based on the frequency on which the station broadcasts. This is
based on the length of one "wave", normally a sine wave, of the carrier
frequency. I've forgotten the exact formula, but it has to do with the
frequency and the speed of light, which will give you the length of that
wave.

Most of towers I have seen are what are known as "quarter wave" towers,
although I have heard of a couple of half wave towers. This means, that the
actual height of the tower is equal to one quarter of the length of a sine
wave of the station's frequency. KFI's frequency is 640, which means each
wave is longer than the wave of a station broadcasting at 1590; hence the
tower must be taller.

Also, AM stations require a ground system, which is not required for FM or
TV stations. 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. Imagine the radials extending out
from a VOR every 1 degree, although these are not actual, physical, wire
radials. But for AM radio, these are actual wire radial, extending out every
10 degrees from the tower, with each radial the same length as the tower.
And you can't build anything on top of these radials, other than a small
transmitter building, as it will disrupt the signal. Which is why there is
always a large open area around AM towers that is not necessary, from a
broadcasting standpoint, for an FM or TV tower.

One other note, I have heard of some towers that provide a "lower" section
of the proper length which serves as the AM radiator, then have an
electrically isolated upper section which is used to support FM, TV, or
other antennas.

And broadcast antennas, AM/FM/TV, must be located such that they don't
provide any interference to other broadcast stations.

So, relocating a tower, in a densely populated area such as LA, with a large
number of broadcast stations, would be a very tricky job, that would require
a lot of engineering studies. That would just be to satisfy the FCC. Then,
you have to deal with the FAA. In an area such as LA, with many airports, if
you moved the tower out of the Fullerton flight path, you would probably
have to place it in the flight path of another airport. Which doesn't solve
much. And even if it could be done, you would have to have additional
engineering studies to satisfy the FAA.

So, in all probability, the tower will be rebuilt in exactly the same place,
and at exactly the same height. Although I imagine they will add some
strobes when they rebuild it.

So, it's best to consider the tower much as you would a mountain, it's
there, it's on the charts, and it ain't going nowhere. And while the owners
and managers of KFI have been sleeping warm in their beds the last few
nights, a pilot and passenger have been sleeping cold in the morgue.

It's the pilot's responsibility to avoid the tower, period.

BTW, I am sure there are some ham guys and others who will find some
problems with my explanations; it's been 35 years since I've studied that
stuff, I'm sure there are some mistakes in there. So, if it's a serious
error, please bring it up, but let's not nit-pick over some relatively minor
and unimportant error, as so frequently happens in here...








"john smith" wrote in message
...
It will be interesting to see if they have to go through the application
process to put up a new tower at the same location.
It will be even more interesting to see if they apply for a taller tower.

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
Seems to me that this is an ideal opportunity for the station to add
those
lights, since they have to put up a new tower anyway.

Ever hear of "the straw that broke the camel's back"? Some towers could
readily handle a great deal more loading, but some can't. It just depends
upon how loaded the tower is today.


"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Bill Denton" wrote


And keep in mind, you can't just send someone up the tower with a set of
lights and have them install them. The tower system (tower, tower base,
guy
wires, guy wire anchors) are designed to bear a specific maximum amount
of
weight, and withstand a specific amount of wind loading. If the radio
station did install some lights without a proper engineering study,

Oh, come now! The extra wind loading and weight might cut into the safety
factors a very small amount, but the change is of little significance.
Anyone out here, with the qualifications, care to figure it?
--
Jim in NC

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
The radio station did take reasonable precautions. They painted and
lighted
their tower in accordance with the regulations.

Unfortunately, that concept disappeared from negligence law sometime
in the 1960's or thereabouts, and think I read it even started in good
old Kahl-i-for-nee-ah. One aviation law author writes,"Like many
other areas of the law, this is one where there is no absolute defense
that precludes success on the part of the plaintiff." He goes on to
concede that it's no more than an "obstacle," along with all the other
pasta the defense can throw at the wall for the jury to consider.
Here you have horrific deaths of ordinary people, like jurors
themselves, allegedly caused by a media conglomerate, which as a
corporation is going to have less jury sympathy than many other
corporations. Isn't it also the one formerly associated with Howard
Stern?

Fred F.

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

"Andrew Rowley" wrote in message
...

If the hazard has been brought to the attention of the radio station,
and they decided against taking reasonable precautions due to the
cost, it doesn't look good. I doubt that the cost of installing strobe
lights would be particularly high, either, especially compared to the
cost of replacing the tower, an aircraft, or the cost of people's
lives.


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

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

your statement: "Insurance premiums are based upon risk. Insurance
companies frequently reward policy holders ...".

I'm afraid you are missing the point about liability and risk.

Let's go back to the house analogy. Assume you own a house, and you have
homeowner's insurance. If you add smoke detectors to your house, your
insurance company will generally give you a premium reduction, as you have
taken reasonable steps to reduce the possibility that they will have to pay
for a fire claim on your house.

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?

Note: We are discussing only two cases and general liability principles,
practices may vary, prices not good in Alaska and Hawaii, etc. I really
don't want to get into a "but what if this happened" discussion, please...





"JohnMcGrew" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Denton"
writes:

I've only owned one house, but my homeowner's policy covered replacement
housing. I've forgotten the exact amount, but it was paid on an "$X per
day"
basis. But you have to remember that it is the pilot who is ultimately
liable. Depending upon your policy, you may be able to sue the pilot for
any
damages not paid by your homeowner's insurance, including replacement
housing.

Yes, your stuff will get replaced, and you will have somewhere to live in
the
meantime. But you will never be compensated for the inconvenience and
time
lost from your life.

"Plus, installing strobes definitely would have had a direct impact on
their
(KFI's) insurance premiums as well."

Actually, no. The radio station is only required to paint and light the
tower in accordance with FAA regulations. As long as they do that, they
are
under no liability if an airplane crashes into the tower, guy wires, etc.

Insurance premiums are based upon risk. Insurance companies frequently
reward
policy holders for behavior or investments that reduce risk. For example,
I
pay less for health insurance because I do not smoke and am not
overweight. I
get a discount on my homeowners insurance because of my fire and security
alarms. I have little doubt that a radio station would get a discount for
installing strobe lights, or taking other actions beyond what the
regulations
require. The only question is exactly how long would it take to recoup
that
cost in saved premiums over time.

And yes, the pilot is finanically responsible for the tower. However,
that
doesn't mean that the radio station will ever get to collect. Did the
pilot
have enough insurance or assets to cover the cost of cleaning up the
damage and
replacing the tower? If it is found that the pilot violated some aspect
of his
policy (like being intoxicated, for instance) the pilots insurance may not
pay
out at all. That's why the radio station has insurance in the first
place. If
everyone was adequatly covered, they wouldn't need insurance in the first
place.

As for the tower being a hazard: Yup, that wasn't an ideal location at
all.
But then again, our airspace is full of stuff in less than ideal
locations.
Towers at that location have survived half-a-century next to the airport
without a hit. It was legally marked. It's on the charts. It's even in
Microsoft Flight Simulator! The radio station is hardly responsible.
John

Which is why a new Skyhawk costs more than $200,000, while the actual cost
of the airplane would allow it to be priced at $100,000 were it not for
idiotic juries, tangled theories of liability, and plaintiff's attorneys...



"TaxSrv" wrote in message
...
"Larry Dighera" wrote:
Since the pilot would be liable for the accident, KFI (or their
insurers)
would sue the pilot to recover damages.

In this case, it would be the pilot's estate.

If anyone here knows how to seat a jury which will take money from the
estates, meaning grieving spouses, sons and daughters of the
decedents, and award it to a media conglomerate and their insurance
company...a very lucrative career as jury consultant awaits.

FF

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
m...

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


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

From the other post on here, people have been "normally seeing it" for 70+
years.


"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
Larry Dighera wrote:

standard traffic pattern level of 800' are vulnerable. One just
doesn't expect such a tall tower in such close proximity to an active
airport.

Isn't the tower depicted in the chart? Whatever happened to airmanship?

Stefan

A tower, not where one normally would see a tower, is one more item added
to
the possible "accident chain of events". Want to break the chain? Don't
have the tower there, or light the h^ll out of it!
--
Jim in NC