If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... 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? Was the aircraft on an instrument approach? There is no IAP for runway 6. There is a LOC RWY 24 approach but no BC approach, the missed approach procedure requires a turn away from the tower, as does the departure procedure. 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? He was probably doing his job. |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
"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. Yes and no. |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message k.net... 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? By using common sense and listening to the pilots which in this case recommended additional lighting. It's really very simple. The regulated minimum is probably sufficient in Montana for an antenna 50 miles from an airport. Common sense says more is needed 1 and 1/2 miles from an airport. |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:02:24 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in .net:: isn't the responsibility for clear approach paths the responsibility of the FAA's TERPS unit? Was the aircraft on an instrument approach? If TERPS is solely concerned with instrument procedures to the exclusion of the VFR airport environment as you imply, what FAA branch is responsible for that environment? Perhaps there's a clue he http://airspaceusa.com/VFR_TPA_By_Existing_Software.htm |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:40:23 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in et:: One wonders what the regulations regarding antenna structures were back in 1931, or if there were any. Why? What I'd like to know is the price of putting xenon strobes on the top of the tower. I'll bet the pilots based at Fullerton would be willing to fund the installation. With the city of Fullerton requesting KFI install strobes on the tower, and KFI denying that request, KFI's decision will certainly be publicly called into question now. |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
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? The usual test is what would a "reasonable person" do. |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
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. I guess I have a broader view of in the vicinity of the tower than you do - I would class the whole airport as being in the vicinity of the tower. It's less than 60 seconds flying time, according to what has been written here. |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe there was some differnt among your experience and the accident
condition. At the time of accident, 1. Runway 6 is in use (which is seldomly used,only during Santa Ana wind days) 2. It was around 9:40 AM Bright sunshine from the south-east. 3. Pilot flew from El Monte (from the north, went south-east bound to FUL). 3a. He had to go under the LAX glide slope. So he had to keep low. 3b. Due to the wall of mountains (Rose Hills) lies north of the FUL (sit from east to west), he had to fly the bigger none standard left base pattern instead of standard 45 degree entry. As you can see, it was a straight path between the sun, tower and the plane. He never got a chance to spot the tower since he flew so low and sun was so low (not a single cloud that day. I took off minutes after he departed). Had he alter the altitude, the direction, or the tower had some strobe light, it won't be such tragic ending. -cpu Casey Wilson wrote: My condolences to the grieving family members and friends . I attribute this accident to pilot error. I've flown the pattern at Fullerton a few times. I 've never had any trouble locating the tower on the way in and I'm not local to the airport. Paraphrasing the AIM, or maybe the FARs, don't go where you don't know..... How many times has the tower been struck by an airplane? This accident is sensational because it is being made so. |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 22:46:37 GMT, Paul Hirose
wrote in :: Yesterday morning a Cessna 182 hit the 760 foot (AGL) tower of 50 kilowatt AM radio station KFI in La Mirada, Calif. The married couple aboard the 182 were killed, and the tower came down. KFI was off the air about an hour. According to media reports, the plane took off from El Monte and was landing at Fullerton Airport to pick up two people. An FAA official said they were on base leg at the time of the crash. If I have this figured right, the 182 was coming from the north (El Monte is 13 nm away at 350 degrees true) and on right base for Runway 6. The radio tower is 1.5 nm from the threshold on my topo, bearing 290 true. I measure it 33 degrees off the extended centerline, offset to the north. Has anyone flown into Fullerton? How big a problem is the tower? Channel 7's story on the 11 a.m. news today had an interview with a pilot who said the tower is very hard to see from the air. On the other hand, the other guy they put on the air pointed out the tower is on the charts and has coexested with the airport since 1947. http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/122...ane_crash.html It looks like we're going to get a chance to comment on the rebuilding of this antenna: ------------------------------------------------------------- AOPA ePilot Volume 7, Issue 31 August 5, 2005 ------------------------------------------------------------- FAA SEEKS COMMENTS ON REBUILDING RADIO TOWER The FAA is requesting comments on plans to rebuild a radio tower in the traffic pattern at Fullerton Municipal Airport in Fullerton, California. Two people were killed and the tower was destroyed when a Cessna 182 hit the tower December 19, 2004. "Building a 760-foot-tall antenna tower in the traffic pattern of an airport is an obvious hazard," said Melissa Rudinger, AOPA vice president of regulatory affairs. AOPA encourages members to comment on the proposal before September 1. Comments must address the effect this action would have on aviation in the surrounding area and provide detailed support of the negative impacts. Comments must contain "Aeronautical Study No. 2005-AWP-734-OE" and can be sent to: Federal Aviation Administration Western Pacific Regional Office, P.O. Box 92007-AWP-520, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007. See AOPA Online ( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite.../050804ca.html ). Personally, I'd like to see the replacement antenna tower equipped with high-intensity strobe lights operating day and night. The Fullerton Pilots Association requested the radio station install strobe lighting, but their request was not granted, and two people died. The AOPA is on record as opposing the reconstruction of the tower: http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...ton_letter.pdf ======================= FAA Study Request For Comments ============ http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...4ca-notice.pdf Aeronautical Study No. 2005-AWP-734-OE Federal Aviation Administration Western Pacific Regional Office Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 Specialist Karen L. Mcdonald TULSA, OK 74129 PO Box 92007-AWP-520 Issued Date: 07/26/2005 The structure as described above exceeds obstruction standards. To determine its effect upon the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and on the operation of air navigation facilities, the FAA is conducting an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and, if applicable, Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77. In the study, consideration will be given to all facts relevant to the effect of the structure on existing and planned airspace use, air navigation facilities, airports, aircraft operations, procedures and minimum flight altitudes, and the air traffic control system. Interested persons are invited to participate in the aeronautical study by submitting comments to the above FAA address. To be eligible for consideration, comments must be relevant to the effect the structure would have on aviation, must provide sufficient detail to permit a clear understanding, must contain the aeronautical study number printed in the upper right hand corner of this notice, and must be received on or before September 1, 2005. This notice may be reproduced and circulated by any interested person. Airport managers are encouraged to post this notice. SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ( ) Comments stated in attached letter. ( ) No comments submitted. __________________________________ ____________________ _________________ Signature & Title Representing Date Prior Study No. LA MIRADA, CA 118-0-49.66 1995-AWP-214-OE 760.0 feet above ground level (AGL) 33-52-46.8 NAD 83 Antenna Tower 826 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) Signature Control No: 410648-393576 Attachment(s) Additional Information Frequency Data (CIR) Page 2 THE PROPOSAL WILL REBUILD THE KFI BROADCAST TOWER TO A HEIGHT OF 760 FEET AGL/826 FEET AMSL. THE SITE LOCATION AND ABOVE GROUND LEVEL (AGL) HEIGHT OF THE REBUILT TOWER IS THE SAME AS THE TOWER WHICH PREVIOUSLY OCCUPIED THIS PROPERTY. THE FAA IS SOLICITING AERONAUTICAL COMMENTS ONLY, IN ORDER TO FORM A BASIS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF AN AIRSPACE DETERMINATION, WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT A REBUILT TOWER OF THE SAME HEIGHT AT THIS LOCATION, WITH APPROPRIATE OBSTRUCTION MARKING AND LIGHTING INSTALLED, WOULD HAVE NO GREATER EFFECT UPON AIRSPACE UTILIZATION THAN THE PREVIOUS STRUCTURE. THE SPONSOR IS PROPOSING A 24-HOUR MEDIUM INTENSITY WHITE OBSTRUCTION LIGHTING SYSTEM BE INSTALLED ON THE TOWER. BECAUSE THE TOWER IS MORE THAN 500 FEET ABOVE GROUND LEVEL (AGL), AVIATION ORANGE AND WHITE PAINT MARKING WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED. THE TOWER IS LOCATED 1.76 NAUTICAL MILES (NM) FROM THE FULLERTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT (FUL) REFERENCE POINT; 9,340 FEET FROM THE RUNWAY 06 PHYSICAL APPROACH END. THE TOWER HEIGHT IS IDENTIFIED AS AN OBSTRUCTION BY EXCEEDING THE STANDARDS OF FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATION (FAR) PART 77, SUBPART C, AS FOLLOWS: 77.23(a)(1), BY 260 FEET, A HEIGHT MORE THAN 500 FEET ABOVE GROUND LEVEL (AGL), AT THE SITE. FAA EVALUATION HAS FOUND THE TOWER HEIGHT DOES NOT AFFECT INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) PROCEDURES. Additional Information for ASN 2005-AWP-734-OE Page 3 Frequency Data for ASN 2005-AWP-734-OE LOW FREQUENCY HIGH FREQUENCY FREQUENCY UNIT ERP ERP UNIT |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
P-51C crash kills pilot | Paul Hirose | Military Aviation | 0 | June 30th 04 05:37 AM |
Fatal plane crash kills pilot in Ukiah CA | Randy Wentzel | Piloting | 1 | April 5th 04 05:23 PM |
Mexican military plane crash kills six | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 22nd 03 10:34 PM |
Crash kills Aviano airman | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 20th 03 04:13 AM |
Ham Radio In The Airplane | Cy Galley | Owning | 23 | July 8th 03 03:30 AM |