Los Angeles radio tower crash kills 2

"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

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, THAT
would probably affect their insurance. If the company found out about the
installation, they would probably cancel the policy; if the tower collapsed
without something colliding with it, they probably wouldn't pay, and if the
tower collapsed following a collision, and the insurance company found out
about the additional lights, they probably wouldn't pay.

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.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

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!


The tower is charted and properly lighted. One can break the chain by
practicing good airmanship.

"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

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 15:30:37 -0600, "Bill Denton"
wrote in ::

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.

"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

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote


The tower is charted and properly lighted. One can break the chain by
practicing good airmanship.


Whatever, Mr. Inflexable. Many local pilots begged for more/better
lighting. Could it be that it needed it? Could be that some do not
practice good airmanship? It also could be that someone gets involved with
looking for traffic, or dealing with a mechanical problem on-board, or.. a
million other things, and they lost situational awareness. Point is, one
thing to break the chain (like more lighting, or the tower not being in such
close proximity) could have broken the accident chain.

Fact is, one such couple needed something else to break the chain. They are
dead now.

It would seem to me that anyone (including you) could see that.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

Whatever, Mr. Inflexable. Many local pilots begged for more/better
lighting. Could it be that it needed it? Could be that some do not
practice good airmanship? It also could be that someone gets involved
with
looking for traffic, or dealing with a mechanical problem on-board, or.. a
million other things, and they lost situational awareness. Point is, one
thing to break the chain (like more lighting, or the tower not being in
such
close proximity) could have broken the accident chain.

Fact is, one such couple needed something else to break the chain. They
are
dead now.


Something else? Do you mean something other than practicing good
airmanship, or maintaining situational awareness? Why is that necessarily
the case?



It would seem to me that anyone (including you) could see that.


Better lighting may have broken the chain, proper airmanship would have.
After all, the tower didn't reach up and swat them out of the sky. It
didn't move at all, they ran into it.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 15:30:37 -0600, "Bill Denton"
wrote in ::

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.


They'll just sue Cessna, TCM, Honeywell, Garmin, Goodyear, Parker Hannifin,
the poor ******* CFI that signed off the pilot, his family, the last
mechanic to sign off the airplane, Etc.
KG

I was wrong about the 1000 feet. Turns out that each independent case is
evaluated by the FAA and recommendations are provided to the FCC.

Here's a better link for the details...

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/policy/dtv/lighting.html

Looks like 2000 feet is the height of demarcation, not 1000. Also, the
correct terminology is "white flashing lights" not strobes. Additionally,
what I now see is:

"the most common option approved by the FAA is the substitution of white
flashing lights for a combination of red lights and painting."

Note: "substitution" Interesting

-Frank

"TaxSrv" wrote in message
...
"Frankster" wrote:
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.

You might want to check Part 77 Regs and the Advisory Circulars.
Lighting may be required for obstructions as low as 150 feet in
height.

FF