Los Angeles radio tower crash kills 2

"Frankster" wrote in message
...

The problem with these damn 700 feet towers is that they are not tall
enough to require strobes (1000 ft) but are still tall enough to be very
dangerous to light planes. I have one in my area that is 980 ft.
Although, the owners of that tower put strobes on it anyway. I have to
believe that often the exact height of a tower is chosen due to marking
requirements (i.e. JUST less than 1000 feet).


Where is that 1000' requirement found? I believe the rules for the
construction, marking, and lighting of antenna structures is found in USC
Title 47 Part 17. The word "strobe" does not appear anywhere in Part 17.
It does refer to "high intensity and medium intensity obstruction lighting",
which would obviously include strobe lights, but the general requirement for
lighting begins at 200', not 1000'.


§ 17.21 Painting and lighting, when required.

Antenna structures shall be painted and lighted when:

(a) They exceed 60.96 meters (200 feet) in height above the ground or they
require special aeronautical study.

(b) The Commission may modify the above requirement for painting and/or
lighting of antenna structures, when it is shown by the applicant that the
absence of such marking would not impair the safety of air navigation, or
that a lesser marking requirement would insure the safety thereof.

[32 FR 11269, Aug. 3, 1967, as amended at 42 FR 54824, Oct. 11, 1977]

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Here's another that indicates that the KFI transmitter was located at
1000 S. Hope St, Los Angeles until the 50,000 watt transmitter was
installed in Buena Park in 1931 (four years after Fullerton Airport
was formally established):


One wonders what the regulations regarding antenna structures were back in
1931, or if there were any.

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.

"Aviv Hod" wrote in message
...

The most important take away from that meeting was his reply to the
question of where the responsibility lies to stay away from Boston Class
B for planes being worked by Hanscom tower. The bottom line is that if
a controller is working you, then they are responsible for keeping you
away from Class B, or negotiating with Boston approach. If you bust
into Bravo airspace while in the Hanscom pattern, it's on Hanscom
Tower's head.

And Santa is on his way in a few days.

"Casey Wilson" wrote in message
news:mw_xd.6483$L7.518@trnddc05...

How many times has the tower been struck by an airplane?

Apparently this is the first time. A site describing a tour of the
transmitter indicates one of the guy cables was once struck by an airplane
but the tower never had.

http://www.qsl.net/ad7db/kfi.html

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:08:02 GMT, "Casey Wilson"
wrote in mw_xd.6483$L7.518@trnddc05::

How many times has the tower been struck by an airplane?

While researching, I read of only one other aircraft impacting a guy
wire.

In article , Paul Hirose
writes:

Has anyone flown into Fullerton? How big a problem is the tower?

If you know it's there, it's no problem at all. It is hard to see, especially
on clear days when you are at or above it. It pretty much dissapears into the
urban background. But the circular structure at the base is pretty obvious.
It's slightly offset from the FUL centerline. It's been there since the late
'40s, and it's on the charts, so it should be a surprise to anyone to checks.

The FUL pilots association has been bugging KFI for years to install
multi-level strobes on it, like many other large towers in flat areas. KFI
always insisted that with the existing red light on top, the tower was legal,
and installing new strobes would be too expensive. (but certainly not as
expensive as a new tower will be)

John

"JohnMcGrew" wrote in message
...

The FUL pilots association has been bugging KFI for years to install
multi-level strobes on it, like many other large towers in flat areas.
KFI
always insisted that with the existing red light on top, the tower was
legal,
and installing new strobes would be too expensive. (but certainly not as
expensive as a new tower will be)


Strobes would have been a direct expense, wouldn't the tower likely be
insured?

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 20:04:08 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net::


"JohnMcGrew" wrote in message
...

The FUL pilots association has been bugging KFI for years to install
multi-level strobes on it, like many other large towers in flat areas.
KFI
always insisted that with the existing red light on top, the tower was
legal,
and installing new strobes would be too expensive. (but certainly not as
expensive as a new tower will be)


Strobes would have been a direct expense, wouldn't the tower likely be
insured?


True, but do you think the insurance claim may have an effect on the
future premium?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

True, but do you think the insurance claim may have an effect on the
future premium?


I don't know, I'm not an actuary. But two strikes in 57 years would seem to
indicate a low level of risk