Los Angeles radio tower crash kills 2

"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.

"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.

"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.

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

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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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