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/122004_nw_plane_crash.html

--

Paul Hirose >
To reply by email delete INVALID from address.

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 22:46:37 GMT, Paul Hirose
> wrote in
>::

>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/122004_nw_plane_crash.html

The KFI radio tower is a little over a mile NW of Fullerton Airport.
There is often haze in the vicinity, and viewed against the ground,
the tower can be less than conspicuous. If I recall correctly, it is
not freestanding, but guyed. I make a specific effort to locate the
tower whenever I'm operating in the vicinity, because I am aware of
its insidious nature. Because the tower is 760' AGL, aircraft at the
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.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote

Because the tower is 760' AGL, aircraft at the
> 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.
>
Perhaps now that it has bee knocked down, the FAA and FCC will get together
and find a more suitable location for a new tower. (wishful thinking)
--
Jim in NC

I operated out of FUL back in the late 50's, early 60's and was always
nervous about that tower especially with the frequent limited
visibility. I'm surprised it hasn't happend long before now.
Ol Shy & Bashful

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 19:32:29 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote in >::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote
>
> Because the tower is 760' AGL, aircraft at the
>> 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.
>>
>Perhaps now that it has bee knocked down, the FAA and FCC will get together
>and find a more suitable location for a new tower. (wishful thinking)

The TV news report I saw last night had a spokesman for KFI stating
that the tower would be reconstructed on the exact same site with the
same guy wire locations.

Perhaps painting it day-glow orange and installing xenon strobes all
over it might help make it a little more conspicuous.

On 20 Dec 2004 16:51:34 -0800, wrote in
. com>::

>... was always nervous about that tower ...

Me too. Its depiction on the chart somehow fails to convey its
menacing presence.

In his preflight planning, a pilot needs to be sure to include a
search for surface obstructions in those locations where he will be
operating near the ground.

> The TV news report I saw last night had a spokesman for KFI stating
> that the tower would be reconstructed on the exact same site with the
> same guy wire locations.

Yeah that makes total sense.

Crash in to a house that's built too close to the airport, close the
airport.

Crash in to a tower that's built too close to the airport, rebuild the
tower.

Your local, state and federal government hard at work for your safety.

I've flown in and out of Fullerton and wondered how it was we were so lucky
that no one had hit that tower.

PJ

============================================
Here's to the duck who swam a lake and never lost a feather,
May sometime another year, we all be back together.
JJW
============================================

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>The KFI radio tower is a little over a mile NW of Fullerton Airport.
>There is often haze in the vicinity, and viewed against the ground,
>the tower can be less than conspicuous. If I recall correctly, it is
>not freestanding, but guyed. I make a specific effort to locate the
>tower whenever I'm operating in the vicinity, because I am aware of
>its insidious nature. Because the tower is 760' AGL, aircraft at the
>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.

Towers can be very hard to spot in the haze. There is a 1500ft
tower on the top of a 2500ft ridge between Watsonville (WVI) and
South County (E16 (formerly Q99)). On a clear day, it isn't easy
to see. With fog/haze, it becomes invisible.

I took these shots on a somewhat hazy day:

http://www.panix.com/~jac/spot-the-tower/

There are strobes on it, but the tower itself is a flat grey, which
is very good at blending into the haze/fog.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.panix.com/~jac

Connecticut has an airport 4B8 with a pattern of 1,000. Not more than
2.5 miles from the theshold there is a series of TV towers at 2049-MSL,
1339-AGL. At night you'd have to be blind to hit them, on a summer
day, in unfamilar territory, you just might. Check those sectionals,
and don't forget about the "guy wires". Sorry to hear about any pilot
paying the ultimate price, I always try to learn something from their
lose.

wrote:
>
> I'm surprised it hasn't happend long before now.

It has. I recall an aircraft snagging the tower's guy wires a number of
years ago, but I can't recall exactly when. It was inevitable, when you
consider that pilots use the radio signal to find Fullerton airport.

"John Clear" > wrote in message
...
> Towers can be very hard to spot in the haze. There is a 1500ft
> tower on the top of a 2500ft ridge between Watsonville (WVI) and
> South County (E16 (formerly Q99)). On a clear day, it isn't easy
> to see. With fog/haze, it becomes invisible.
>
> I took these shots on a somewhat hazy day:
>
> http://www.panix.com/~jac/spot-the-tower/
>
> There are strobes on it, but the tower itself is a flat grey, which
> is very good at blending into the haze/fog.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/S27 Check the two towers on the approach to
31. Only 500 feet off the centerline and just over a mile from the
threshold. At least Kalispell is not subject to obscuration.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"PJ Hunt" > wrote in message
...
>> The TV news report I saw last night had a spokesman for KFI stating
>> that the tower would be reconstructed on the exact same site with the
>> same guy wire locations.
>
> Yeah that makes total sense.
>
> Crash in to a house that's built too close to the airport, close the
> airport.
>
> Crash in to a tower that's built too close to the airport, rebuild the
> tower.
>

Was the tower built too close to the airport, or was the airport built too
close to the tower?

Larry Dighera ) wrote:

> The TV news report I saw last night had a spokesman for KFI stating
> that the tower would be reconstructed on the exact same site with the
> same guy wire locations.

How were they able to get their signal back on the air so quickly?

I take it there must be some type of disaster recovery plan that
involves rerouting the signal to another local tower?

--
Peter

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 00:48:34 -0500, Peter R.
> wrote:

>Larry Dighera ) wrote:
>
>> The TV news report I saw last night had a spokesman for KFI stating
>> that the tower would be reconstructed on the exact same site with the
>> same guy wire locations.
>
>How were they able to get their signal back on the air so quickly?
>
>I take it there must be some type of disaster recovery plan that
>involves rerouting the signal to another local tower?
>

Yep. Most radio stations have at least one alternate transmission
station. Power it up, flip a switch, and maybe shift the crew to the
new site and your back running commercials making money.

z

>"Steven P. McNicoll" roncachamp@ wrote

> Was the tower built too close to the airport, or was the airport built too
> close to the tower?

Well I can't answer that question with 100% certainty but I do know the
Fullerton Airport was founded in the late 20's, and an educated guess would
be that KFI wasn't around at that time.

Anyone here know when the tower was erected?

PJ

============================================
Here's to the duck who swam a lake and never lost a feather,
May sometime another year, we all be back together.
JJW
============================================

Wow, I just checked the KFI website and it say's they started in 1922 in
some guys garage with a 50 watt transmitter. Man I knew that KFI had been
around for a long time but I didn't expect it to have been that long.
That's pretty amazing.

The website didn't say when the tower at Fullerton was erected though.

It's an interesting issue. If the tower was there first, why would they put
an airport so close to it?

Now I'm really curious which came first.

PJ

============================================
Here's to the duck who swam a lake and never lost a feather,
May sometime another year, we all be back together.
JJW
============================================

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "PJ Hunt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> The TV news report I saw last night had a spokesman for KFI stating
> >> that the tower would be reconstructed on the exact same site with the
> >> same guy wire locations.
> >
> > Yeah that makes total sense.
> >
> > Crash in to a house that's built too close to the airport, close the
> > airport.
> >
> > Crash in to a tower that's built too close to the airport, rebuild the
> > tower.
> >
>
> Was the tower built too close to the airport, or was the airport built too
> close to the tower?
>
>

> >Perhaps now that it has bee knocked down, the FAA and FCC will get
together
> >and find a more suitable location for a new tower. (wishful thinking)

>
> The TV news report I saw last night had a spokesman for KFI stating
> that the tower would be reconstructed on the exact same site with the
> same guy wire locations.
>
> Perhaps painting it day-glow orange and installing xenon strobes all
> over it might help make it a little more conspicuous.
>
>
Sounds like the help of AOPA would be in order. A petition drive, also,
with members doing a quick safety explanation to non pilots, also. Stand in
front of grocery stores, go door to door around the airport, ect.
--
Jim in NC

PJ Hunt wrote:
>
> Well I can't answer that question with 100% certainty but I do know the
> Fullerton Airport was founded in the late 20's, and an educated guess would
> be that KFI wasn't around at that time.
>
> Anyone here know when the tower was erected?

1948

"Peter R." wrote:
>
> How were they able to get their signal back on the air so quickly?
>
> I take it there must be some type of disaster recovery plan that
> involves rerouting the signal to another local tower?

There's a second 250 foot tower on the property that is used as backup.

On 20 Dec 2004 18:08:30 -0800, (John Clear) wrote in
>::

>Towers can be very hard to spot in the haze. There is a 1500ft
>tower on the top of a 2500ft ridge between Watsonville (WVI) and
>South County (E16 (formerly Q99)). On a clear day, it isn't easy
>to see. With fog/haze, it becomes invisible.
>
>I took these shots on a somewhat hazy day:
>
>http://www.panix.com/~jac/spot-the-tower/
>
>There are strobes on it, but the tower itself is a flat grey, which
>is very good at blending into the haze/fog.

That tower is difficult to discern.

Because the KFI tower is so close to the airport it appears larger,
but your photo illustrates the problem well.

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).

-Frank

"Paul Hirose" > wrote in message
...
> 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/122004_nw_plane_crash.html
>
> --
>
> Paul Hirose >
> To reply by email delete INVALID from address.
>

"PJ Hunt" > writes:

>>"Steven P. McNicoll" roncachamp@ wrote

>> Was the tower built too close to the airport, or was the airport built too
>> close to the tower?

>Well I can't answer that question with 100% certainty but I do know the
>Fullerton Airport was founded in the late 20's, and an educated guess would
>be that KFI wasn't around at that time.

>Anyone here know when the tower was erected?

I can't speak for when the tower was first erected or whether it is
in the same location as the station's original antenna, but KFI was
first licensed on 16 April 1922 (on 833 KHz).

Joe Morris

"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

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:31:23 GMT, James Robinson >
wrote in >::

>PJ Hunt wrote:
>>
>> Well I can't answer that question with 100% certainty but I do know the
>> Fullerton Airport was founded in the late 20's, and an educated guess would
>> be that KFI wasn't around at that time.
>>
>> Anyone here know when the tower was erected?
>
>1948

The story of the installation of the tower is here:
http://www.oldradio.com/archives/stations/LA/nw.htm#I%20REMEMBER%20EARLE%20C.%20ANTHONY

And no one spoke to the value of VFR pilots flying tighter patterns. I see
single engine planes flying patterns like they are 707s. Tight patterns work
for airplanes just like they do for sailplanes. If a pilot needs more time to
think then maybe he should think about golf or fishing! When I learned to fly,
back in 62 we flew the pattern in close. I still do, be it an airplane or
sailplane. A tower a mile off the airport would leave me at least a 1/2 mile
clear of it. No problem. When doing my tailwheel training the CFI took me to
a private strip that required you to fly "around" a tower on final. It's all
see and avoid. Mac

Try flying a tight pattern when you're #7 following a Learjet. At a very
busy field you often have no choice. Up here in Boston you'll often find
yourself on extended downwind for Rwy 29 at Bedford, which means you need to
stay down low in order to remain under Logan's Class B. No big towers at
pattern altitude, though.

"Mackfly" > wrote in message
...
> And no one spoke to the value of VFR pilots flying tighter patterns. I
see
> single engine planes flying patterns like they are 707s. Tight patterns
work
> for airplanes just like they do for sailplanes. If a pilot needs more
time to
> think then maybe he should think about golf or fishing! When I learned to
fly,
> back in 62 we flew the pattern in close. I still do, be it an airplane or
> sailplane. A tower a mile off the airport would leave me at least a 1/2
mile
> clear of it. No problem. When doing my tailwheel training the CFI took
me to
> a private strip that required you to fly "around" a tower on final. It's
all
> see and avoid. Mac

"Mackfly" > wrote in message
...
> And no one spoke to the value of VFR pilots flying tighter patterns. I
see
> single engine planes flying patterns like they are 707s.

Right, but the penalty for flying a pattern a bit too big should not be
death.
--
Jim in NC

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:18:55 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in >::

>On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:31:23 GMT, James Robinson >
>wrote in >::
>
>>PJ Hunt wrote:
>>>
>>> Well I can't answer that question with 100% certainty but I do know the
>>> Fullerton Airport was founded in the late 20's, and an educated guess would
>>> be that KFI wasn't around at that time.
>>>
>>> Anyone here know when the tower was erected?
>>
>>1948
>
>The story of the installation of the tower is here:
>http://www.oldradio.com/archives/stations/LA/nw.htm#I%20REMEMBER%20EARLE%20C.%20ANTHONY


Photograph of KFI transmitter towers here:
http://www.fybush.com/site-020320.html
Another tower photo here:
http://img.groundspeak.com/benchmark/lg/74545_200.jpg


City of Fullerton Airport Advisory Committee request to KFI that
strobe lights be placed on the tower March 22, 2001:
http://www.ci.fullerton.ca.us/airport/aac/aaminutes032201.html

MANAGER'S AIRPORT UPDATE
Rod called the engineer at KFI regarding adding strobe lights to
the KFI tower. The strobe lights were taken out of their budget. They
will paint the Tower and replace the guy wires. Rod suggested this
Committee approve a resolution and send it to KFI, emphasizing the
reduction in liability to KFI with the addition of strobe lights. This
will be an item on the next agenda.

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 05:34:40 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
t>::

>Was the tower built too close to the airport, or was the airport built too
>close to the tower?


The KFI transmitter tower was erected in Spring 1947 and the Fullerton
airport substantially earlier, officially 1927:

The story of the installation of the tower is here:
http://www.oldradio.com/archives/stations/LA/nw.htm#I%20REMEMBER%20EARLE%20C.%20ANTHONY

http://www.ci.fullerton.ca.us/city_manager/pressreleases/airport.html
The last strictly general aviation airfield still operating in Orange
County, Fullerton Municipal Airport can trace its origins back as
early as 1913 when barnstormers and crop dusters used the then vacant
site as a makeshift landing strip. The airport’s “official” birthday
is 1927: That’s the year the Fullerton City Council signed Ordinance
514, which formally established the airport.


http://www.ci.fullerton.ca.us/city_manager/pressreleases/airday.html
The airport was the brainchild of brothers William and Robert Dowling,
who enlisted the aid of H. A. Krause and the Fullerton Chamber of
Commerce in petitioning the council for permission to turn the then
vacant sewer farm into a landing field. The council leased the land to
the chamber for five years, at a fee of $1 per year, and the chamber,
in turn, subleased operations to William Dowling and friend Willard
Morris of Yorba Linda.


The complete Fullerton Airport history is here:
http://www.calpilots.org/www.calpilots.org/cpanew/prior/Apr00/0400FeatureApt.html

"PJ Hunt" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well I can't answer that question with 100% certainty but I do know the
> Fullerton Airport was founded in the late 20's, and an educated guess
> would be that KFI wasn't around at that time.
>

I think it's just the opposite. Commercial radio broadcasting began in the
early '20s and many of the oldest stations were assigned three-letter
identifiers and still use them. If Fullerton goes back to just the late
twenties it's entirely possible that the radio station was there first.

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> PJ Hunt wrote:
>>
>> Well I can't answer that question with 100% certainty but I do know the
>> Fullerton Airport was founded in the late 20's, and an educated guess
>> would
>> be that KFI wasn't around at that time.
>>
>> Anyone here know when the tower was erected?
>>
>
> 1948
>

I have a San Diego sectional dated August 12, 1943. It depicts radio
station KFI by call letters and frequency at the present-day location of the
tower. There had to be a tower of some kind there prior to 1948.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "James Robinson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > PJ Hunt wrote:
> >>
> >> Well I can't answer that question with 100% certainty but I do know the
> >> Fullerton Airport was founded in the late 20's, and an educated guess
> >> would
> >> be that KFI wasn't around at that time.
> >>
> >> Anyone here know when the tower was erected?
> >>
> >
> > 1948
> >
>
> I have a San Diego sectional dated August 12, 1943. It depicts radio
> station KFI by call letters and frequency at the present-day location of the
> tower. There had to be a tower of some kind there prior to 1948.

KFI relocated to the present site from LA in 1931 under the "clear
channel" concept. (Not to be confused with the company of the same name,
clear channel originally meant that they were the only station on a
particular frequency in the entire country, and could broadcast at very
high power.) They were the first 50kW station on the west coast.

They originally had a pair of smaller towers, about 400' high, which had
the antenna strung between. The higher full radiating 750' tower was
built in 1947/48. They also have a secondary 250' tower. I don't know
when it was built.

"PJ Hunt" > wrote in message
...
>
> Wow, I just checked the KFI website and it say's they started in 1922 in
> some guys garage with a 50 watt transmitter. Man I knew that KFI had been
> around for a long time but I didn't expect it to have been that long.
> That's pretty amazing.
>
> The website didn't say when the tower at Fullerton was erected though.
>
> It's an interesting issue. If the tower was there first, why would they
> put an airport so close to it?
>
> Now I'm really curious which came first.
>

I have a San Diego sectional dated August 12, 1943. It depicts radio
station KFI by call letters and frequency at the present-day location of the
tower. The airport is depicted as a marked auxiliary field only by number;
03607.

A 1937 airport directory lists Fullerton as a municipal airport three miles
west of the city. It had two oiled runways at that time; 900' by 150' N/S
and 1,750' by 200'-300' E/W. It also says the entire field was available.

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> Right, but the penalty for flying a pattern a bit too big should not be
> death.
>

No, but the penalty for being unaware of obstructions can be. This tower is
charted and is mentioned in the Airport/Facility Directory.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> The KFI transmitter tower was erected in Spring 1947 and the Fullerton
> airport substantially earlier, officially 1927:
>

Radio station KFI is depicted on the 1943 sectional in the location of the
present day tower. It appears the tower erected in 1947 replaced an earlier
tower.

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:43:31 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The KFI transmitter tower was erected in Spring 1947 and the Fullerton
>> airport substantially earlier, officially 1927:
>>
>
>Radio station KFI is depicted on the 1943 sectional in the location of the
>present day tower. It appears the tower erected in 1947 replaced an earlier
>tower.
>

Apparently, the tower erected in 1947 effectively doubled the height
of the former transmitter towers. In any event, the Fullerton Airport
was officially opened in 1927, and predates the 780' KFI tower by two
decades.

C Kingsbury wrote:
> Try flying a tight pattern when you're #7 following a Learjet. At a very
> busy field you often have no choice. Up here in Boston you'll often find
> yourself on extended downwind for Rwy 29 at Bedford, which means you need to
> stay down low in order to remain under Logan's Class B. No big towers at
> pattern altitude, though.
>

Colin,
Last week the manager of Hanscom Tower spoke at the Hanscom Aeroclub
safety meeting (and holiday party :-) He said that he cannot understand
why spamcan pilots insist on making huge patterns. He prefers that we
make tighter patterns, where the controllers can keep us in sight, and
we don't take forever to come around, especially the Katana pilots.
After saying this he concluded with "Katanas... I don't know why the
good lord found it necessary to create Katanas." Or something to that
effect :-)

Having said all that, the controllers will sequence and space you as
they see fit, and that sometimes means larger patterns and goofball
maneuvering (like 360's and s-turns. He prefers 360's). He admitted
that turbines are given priority as a policy, but that we can do things
to make the controller's lives easier and we can all play nice together
if we stay aware and professional. Smaller patterns can help in this
regard.

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. His words were something to the effect of "if it comes to
it, we'll it it. It will be an operational error on our part." All
this is on video at the aeroclub :-) I'm less apprehensive about
pattern work at Hanscom now that I know that.

However, the other take away from the meeting was that if you think they
forgot you, or are giving you an instruction to do something you object
to, you'll help everyone out by speaking up. They're human and make
mistakes too, and it's ultimately YOUR butt on the line, not the
controller's.

-Aviv

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Apparently, the tower erected in 1947 effectively doubled the height
> of the former transmitter towers. In any event, the Fullerton Airport
> was officially opened in 1927, and predates the 780' KFI tower by two
> decades.
>

But the radio station predates the official airport opening by five years.
I'd wager the airport has changed significantly from the day it opened, just
as KFI has.

Here's a site that details a tour of the transmitter:

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

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "Larry Dighera" wrote:
> >
> > In any event, the Fullerton Airport was officially opened in
> > 1927, and predates the 780' KFI tower by two decades.
>
> But the radio station predates the official airport opening by five years.
> I'd wager the airport has changed significantly from the day it opened, just
> as KFI has.

Actually, while KFI was in existence in the 1920s, it only moved to the
current site in 1931.

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:13:32 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
t>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Apparently, the tower erected in 1947 effectively doubled the height
>> of the former transmitter towers. In any event, the Fullerton Airport
>> was officially opened in 1927, and predates the 780' KFI tower by two
>> decades.
>>
>
>But the radio station predates the official airport opening by five years.
>I'd wager the airport has changed significantly from the day it opened, just
>as KFI has.
>
>Here's a site that details a tour of the transmitter:
>
>http://www.qsl.net/ad7db/kfi.html
>

That's an interesting link. Thanks.

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):

http://www.oldradio.com/archives/stations/LA/kfipix.htm

"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
et>::

>
>"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

In article >, Peter R.
> writes:

>How were they able to get their signal back on the air so quickly?

They have a 200' aux tower right next to it. Years ago, they considered taking
it down, but KFI's engineers convinced them otherwise, and upgraded its output
from 5k to 25k watts.

John

On 21 Dec 2004 20:18:16 GMT, (JohnMcGrew) wrote in
>::

>Pictures of the downed tower can be seen at:
>
>http://sakrison.com/radio/KFItowercollapse.html

The Los Angeles Times had this story this morning:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-tower21dec21,1,1403810.story

December 21, 2004

Tower in Deadly Crash Was a Menace to Incoming Fullerton Flights,
Pilots Say

By Sara Lin, Times Staff Writer


Flying a small plane into Fullerton Municipal Airport for the first
time two years ago, Felix Porras carefully searched the skies for the
760-foot radio tower he had heard about.

Having seen it on his aviation charts positioned a mere 1 1/2 miles
from the landing strip, he pulled the nose of his plane a little
higher just to be cautious. Still, he said he didn't see the tower
until he was practically on top of it.

"It was pretty scary. The only thing that kept me from hitting it was
the altitude information I had," said Porras, a flight instructor at
Rainbow Air Academy in Long Beach.

So after a Temple City couple's single-engine Cessna crashed into the
1940s-era KFI-AM tower Sunday morning, local pilots could only shake
their heads. The accident underscores what they claim they've been
saying for years: The orange-and-white tower is a menace to
approaching pilots.

"It can reach up and grab you," said Rod Propst, manager of Fullerton
Municipal Airport. "I can't think of any airport that I know of that
has a 760-foot antenna that close to it."

Jim and Mary Ghosoph, both 51, had been cleared to land their rented
single-engine Cessna C-182 when it struck the tower about 9:45 a.m.
They had taken off from El Monte Airport less than 20 minutes earlier,
said Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy Josie Woolum. The plane
crumpled the tower and then crashed in a warehouse parking lot.

[...]

"When I was flying out of Long Beach, one of the first things the
instructor said was: 'Remember that tower!' " said Jim Bunck, past
president of the Fullerton Airport Pilots Assn.

"It's in the charts, but it doesn't look as big of a deal as it is,"
said Porras, 21. "You see it when you're about to hit it."

Propst, who has been airport manager for almost nine years, said local
pilots have long wished the owners would add strobe lights to the
tower, in addition to the flashing red bulb on the structure.

After both of Fullerton's airport advisory committees passed
resolutions in 2001 asking the radio station managers to add strobes,
pilots quit asking.

Greg Ashlock, general manager of KFI-AM, said the tower has all of the
lighting required by the FAA and Federal Communications Commission.
KFI is owned by Clear Channel Communications, which bought the tower
four years ago from Cox Enterprises.

Ashlock said he was not aware of specific complaints levied by local
pilots.

The crash knocked the radio station off the air for about an hour. The
station has not decided whether the tower will be rebuilt.

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

In article et>, "Steven P.
McNicoll" > writes:

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

Certainly. But as anyone who has had to deal with an insurance claim must
know, the cost of the downtime, hassle, inconvenience, and what-not is rarely
ever fully compensated by an insurance check.

John

Since the pilot would be liable for the accident, KFI (or their insurers)
would sue the pilot to recover damages.

It shouldn't affect KFI's insurance premiums at all.

Think of it in terms of someone who drives a car into your house. Even if
your homeowner's insurance initially paid, they would attempt to recoup
damages from the driver of the car.




"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 20:04:08 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> et>::
>
> >
> >"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?
>
>

In article >, "Bill Denton"
> writes:

>Think of it in terms of someone who drives a car into your house. Even if
>your homeowner's insurance initially paid, they would attempt to recoup
>damages from the driver of the car.

True. But do you ever fully get compensated for being out of your house while
it is being repaired?

Plus, installing strobes definitely would have had a direct impact on their
insurance premiums as well.

John

JohnMcGrew wrote:
>
> (but certainly not as
> expensive as a new tower will be)

Betcha they sue the estate of the pilot to recover the cost.

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

"True. But do you ever fully get compensated for being out of your house
while it is being repaired?"

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.


"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.

Using the car analogy again, if a car crashed into the tower, the driver of
the car would be liable for any damage to the tower, even if the tower was
neither properly painted nor lighted.

As a broad, general, rule, and I don't intend to argue this point, if
someone collides with an immovable object, whose character location, and
operation do not violate any laws, regulations, whatever, the person who
collides with the object is liable to the owner of the object for any
damages; the owner of the object is not liable to whoever collided with the
object.

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.

Keep this in mind: even if the tower does provide some level of hazard to
aviation, it is large, it has been there for some period of time, it is
properly painted and lit, and it is marked on air navigation charts. It is
the pilot's responsibility to avoid hitting the tower, not the other way
around...




"JohnMcGrew" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Bill Denton"
> > writes:
>
> >Think of it in terms of someone who drives a car into your house. Even if
> >your homeowner's insurance initially paid, they would attempt to recoup
> >damages from the driver of the car.
>
> True. But do you ever fully get compensated for being out of your house
while
> it is being repaired?
>
> Plus, installing strobes definitely would have had a direct impact on
their
> insurance premiums as well.
>
> John

Do you think they shouldn't sue the pilot?

See my reply to John McGrew...




"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> JohnMcGrew wrote:
> >
> > (but certainly not as
> > expensive as a new tower will be)
>
> Betcha they sue the estate of the pilot to recover the cost.
>
> George Patterson
> The desire for safety stands against every great and noble
enterprise.

Bill Denton wrote:
>
> Do you think they shouldn't sue the pilot?

No.

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

"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
>

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.

kage ) wrote:

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

--
Peter

"Paul Hirose" > wrote in message
...
> 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/122004_nw_plane_crash.html
>
> --
>
> Paul Hirose >
> To reply by email delete INVALID from address.
>

Having never been to Fullerton, I fired up MS FS2004 to see the general
layout of the airport from "the air" and, despite the almost painful dearth
of detail in FS2004, I was stunned to see that the KFI tower is right where
the chart shows it should be (sans guy wires...) when I turned "downwind."

Guess it qualifies as a major landmark since that's the only kind that's in
FS2004.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote

> Something else? Do you mean something other than practicing good
> airmanship, or maintaining situational awareness?

> 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.


I can only wish to be as perfect as you, someday. Jeeeesh. You *are*
hopeless.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"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.

I think you miss the point of the "accident chain." The point is that
mini chains form all the time, and you need to work on ALL the
potential links to avoid accidents, rather than picking one and saying
this is the one that I'm going to rely on to avoid accidents.

"Bill Denton" > wrote:

>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.

Surely there can be a duty of care that extends beyond complying with
all legislation? Particularly if the tower is located in a place where
it presents a much greater hazard than the average tower.

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.

"Andrew Rowley" wrote:
> Surely there can be a duty of care that extends beyond complying
with
> all legislation? Particularly if the tower is located in a place
where
> it presents a much greater hazard than the average tower.
>
I agree there. Otherwise, they couldn't win against aircraft mfrs who
go through a brutal FAA certification process. TV/radio towers here
in that height range, and not near an airport, have gorgeous and
multiple strobes, so it can be very relevant as to what the industry
considers general practice. A/k/a "expert witnesses," not subject to
much useful rebuttal on cross.

Fred F.

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> I can only wish to be as perfect as you, someday. Jeeeesh. You *are*
> hopeless.
>

Hopeless would be an imperfection.

"Andrew Rowley" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>The tower is charted and properly lighted. One can break the chain by
>>practicing good airmanship.
>>
>
> I think you miss the point of the "accident chain."
>

I don't think so.


>
> The point is that
> mini chains form all the time, and you need to work on ALL the
> potential links to avoid accidents, rather than picking one and saying
> this is the one that I'm going to rely on to avoid accidents.
>

It appears the link that was broken was making themselves aware of the
tower.

"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.

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.

RE: 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
>
>

"Bill Denton" wrote:
> 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...
>
Those #'s are way exaggerated. For just single-engine alone, they
were running about 1,000 units per year, or under your #'s an _annual_
bankroll of $100 million for product liability, plus whaetver their
safer Citations and stuff can add to the theoretical pot. How much of
such a huge total pot to date have they paid out in recent years?

As I undertand it, their halting of production pending passage of
product liability reform was not just the actual costs of suits, but
the growing uncertainty of future costs on an aging fleet. The law,
GARA, put an 18-yr cutoff date on liability. They cost $200,000
because they are expensive to produce, and merely $5,000 of built-in
liability cost would allow for an annual $5 million liability payout
on the S/E fleet. That $5K number I think I even read somewhere as
reasonable for Cessna volume.

Fred F.

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...
> "Bill Denton" wrote:
> > 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...
> >
> Those #'s are way exaggerated. For just single-engine alone, they
> were running about 1,000 units per year, or under your #'s an _annual_
> bankroll of $100 million for product liability, plus whaetver their
> safer Citations and stuff can add to the theoretical pot. How much of
> such a huge total pot to date have they paid out in recent years?
>
> As I undertand it, their halting of production pending passage of
> product liability reform was not just the actual costs of suits, but
> the growing uncertainty of future costs on an aging fleet. The law,
> GARA, put an 18-yr cutoff date on liability. They cost $200,000
> because they are expensive to produce, and merely $5,000 of built-in
> liability cost would allow for an annual $5 million liability payout
> on the S/E fleet. That $5K number I think I even read somewhere as
> reasonable for Cessna volume.
>
> Fred F.
>

How many airplanes at $5,000.00 per?

$480 million - The largest aviation verdict awarded to plaintiffs in
history. (Cassoutt vs. Cessna) 2002
This verdict arose from an accident that was a repeat of a well-known
problem with Cessna aircraft. When the pilot applied power for takeoff, the
seat came out of its latch and rocketed the pilot suddenly rearward while he
was holding onto the control yoke. The sudden pull back resulted in an
upward pitch of the aircraft, an aerodynamic stall, and an inevitable crash.
In this accident, the pilot suffered third degree burns, his wife had third
and fourth degree burns, and a passenger sustained crippling injuries that
caused bowel and bladder dysfunction. The jury found $80 million in
compensatory damages and $400 million in punitive damages against the Cessna
Aircraft Company.


$29,300,000 (Harper vs. Cessna) 1984
The deaths of a pilot and his son were caused when the seat of a Cessna 172
unlatched on takeoff, causing the pilot to lose control of the aircraft and
crash. The suit was jointly tried with other able counsel. Punitive damages
of $25 million and compensatory damages of $4,300,000 were awarded to punish
the defendant, Cessna Aircraft Company, for a defective design that had
caused many deaths and serious injuries.

In article >, "Bill Denton"
> writes:

>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.

I don't know where you got this from. If you look at the arial pictures of the
KFI tower, you'll find that it is barely 100 feet away from industrial
buildings.

John

In article >, "Bill Denton"
> writes:

>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.

For a house, not likely. But in a commercial setting, I likely would. I'll
ask some of my commercial underwriter friends next time I see them.

>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?

But part of what people and companies buy insurance for is to cover losses
caused by people who are uninsured or otherwise judgement proof. (no assets)
Their insurance company definitely does have an interest.

I live by an airport (by choice). If a plane crashes into my house and the
owner is underinsured and has no money, you bet that my insurance is picking up
the tab.

John

In article >, "TaxSrv" >
writes:

>Those #'s are way exaggerated.

Not really. It's generally accepted in the general aviation business that at
least 50% of the selling price of most new aircraft goes to cover litigation.

John

"JohnMcGrew" > wrote in message
...
>> [...] 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. [...]
>> with each radial the same length as the tower.
>
> I don't know where you got this from. If you look at the arial pictures
> of the
> KFI tower, you'll find that it is barely 100 feet away from industrial
> buildings.

I don't know where he got it either. We live right next door to several
tall AM transmitting towers (at least three, maybe four...I'm too lazy to go
look out the window and refresh my memory), all of which are taller than the
distance between the antennas and our house (and dozens of other houses
around them too).

Maybe some AM towers have the radiating underground wires, but clearly not
all do.

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 22:46:37 GMT, Paul Hirose
> > wrote in
> >::
>
> >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/122004_nw_plane_crash.html
>
> The KFI radio tower is a little over a mile NW of Fullerton Airport.
> There is often haze in the vicinity, and viewed against the ground,
> the tower can be less than conspicuous. If I recall correctly, it is
> not freestanding, but guyed. I make a specific effort to locate the
> tower whenever I'm operating in the vicinity, because I am aware of
> its insidious nature. Because the tower is 760' AGL, aircraft at the
> 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.

Even if the tower "coexisted with the airport since 1947" (as someone
said) it is a classic "accident waiting to happen." A mere 40 feet
apart from a pattern attitude! I wonder if they will now raise the
pattern attitude or even change approach procedure?

I flew into the LA basin some 20 times and I found it always
very challenging to maneuver and to keep up with the radio
traffic. It is simply one pace faster than here in the
SFO + SJC + OAK vicinity, which is also busy!

Thomas

"Peter Duniho" > wrote

> Maybe some AM towers have the radiating underground wires, but clearly not
> all do.
>
Plus the fact, that on the ridge, the radiating wires would be running down
the side of mountain, and not at a 90 degree angle from the tower.
--
Jim in NC

If you have several AM towers closely grouped together, that is a
directional antenna array, which does use a different grounding system,
although I don't remember how it looks.

Since KFI is a clear-channel, non-directional station, it only has a single
tower, and does have the radial system I described. Perhaps I should have
been more clear about that.

Perhaps they now allow buildings on top of the buried radials, but I know it
was not common practice when I was in the broadcast business. The radials
eventually corrode and have to be replaced, which would be an extremely
expensive process if you had to knock down a bunch of buildings before you
did it.

If you are living that close to a tower, I would take a close look at my
deed to make sure there isn't an easement for the radials, allowing them to
do whatever to your house in order to replace them.

And I would also have somebody check out your house with an RF signal
strength meter; people worry about a 5 watt (or whatever) cell phone frying
their brain, just imagine what 50,000 watts is doing to you and your
family...




"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "JohnMcGrew" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> [...] 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. [...]
> >> with each radial the same length as the tower.
> >
> > I don't know where you got this from. If you look at the arial pictures
> > of the
> > KFI tower, you'll find that it is barely 100 feet away from industrial
> > buildings.
>
> I don't know where he got it either. We live right next door to several
> tall AM transmitting towers (at least three, maybe four...I'm too lazy to
go
> look out the window and refresh my memory), all of which are taller than
the
> distance between the antennas and our house (and dozens of other houses
> around them too).
>
> Maybe some AM towers have the radiating underground wires, but clearly not
> all do.
>
>

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
>

The tower fell down. What is put back, can be engineered to carry the extra
lights.

Moving the tower would be best, but as long as it is down, the least that
should be done is to have it well lit.
--
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.


You are all alone in your stance. You may be technically right, but
morally, you don't have a leg to stand on.
--
Jim in NC

Here's a couple of good links...

http://www.amgroundsystems.com/ags.htm

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OUK/is_3_9/ai_101517773



"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "JohnMcGrew" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> [...] 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. [...]
> >> with each radial the same length as the tower.
> >
> > I don't know where you got this from. If you look at the arial pictures
> > of the
> > KFI tower, you'll find that it is barely 100 feet away from industrial
> > buildings.
>
> I don't know where he got it either. We live right next door to several
> tall AM transmitting towers (at least three, maybe four...I'm too lazy to
go
> look out the window and refresh my memory), all of which are taller than
the
> distance between the antennas and our house (and dozens of other houses
> around them too).
>
> Maybe some AM towers have the radiating underground wires, but clearly not
> all do.
>
>

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> You are all alone in your stance.
>

Did you take a survey?


>
> You may be technically right, but morally, you don't have a leg to stand
> on.
>

This is not a moral issue.

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...
> "Allen" wrote:
> > $480 million - The largest aviation verdict awarded to plaintiffs
> in
> > history. (Cassoutt vs. Cessna) 2002
>
> Real old news, because it was settled over 2 years ago for likely a
> small fraction, as appeals courts seriously reduce these things. Nor
> would Cessna pay out the settlement; they pay only for insurance.
>
> Fred F.
>

Who is Cessna Aircraft's insurance company? Do they not "self-insure'?

"Allen" wrote:
> $480 million - The largest aviation verdict awarded to plaintiffs
in
> history. (Cassoutt vs. Cessna) 2002

Real old news, because it was settled over 2 years ago for likely a
small fraction, as appeals courts seriously reduce these things. Nor
would Cessna pay out the settlement; they pay only for insurance.

Fred F.

"ThomasH" > wrote in message
...
>
> Even if the tower "coexisted with the airport since 1947" (as someone
> said) it is a classic "accident waiting to happen."
>

What if it's decided they cannot coexist? Do you think the airport will
have more local support than the radio station?


>
> A mere 40 feet apart from a pattern attitude!
>

Pattern altitude is 1100 for singles and 1600 for multis. That's 280/780
feet above the tower.


>
> I wonder if they will now raise the pattern attitude or even change
> approach procedure?
>

What approach procedure?

"ThomasH" > wrote in message

> I flew into the LA basin some 20 times and I found it always
> very challenging to maneuver and to keep up with the radio
> traffic. It is simply one pace faster than here in the
> SFO + SJC + OAK vicinity, which is also busy!


And how about Teterboro? One seriously big thing sticking up there and it's
lost in all the NYC glitter. Tower must mention it about a hundred times a
day.

moo

"Aviv Hod" > wrote in message
...
>
> C Kingsbury wrote:
> > Try flying a tight pattern when you're #7 following a Learjet. At a very
> > busy field you often have no choice. Up here in Boston you'll often find
> > yourself on extended downwind for Rwy 29 at Bedford, which means you
need to
> > stay down low in order to remain under Logan's Class B. No big towers at
> > pattern altitude, though.
> >
>
> Colin,
> Last week the manager of Hanscom Tower spoke at the Hanscom Aeroclub
> safety meeting (and holiday party :-) He said that he cannot understand
> why spamcan pilots insist on making huge patterns.

Yeah, a lot of guys fly B-17 patterns, but this situation also happens when
you're on downwind cleared to follow a bizjet that's coming down the ILS.
People also do it because the visibility out there often stinks and with 5-6
in the pattern including often one or more students nobody wants to cut it
too close. Very easy to get your sequence wrong out there.

>
> 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 I'll make you a great deal to buy the Bunker Hill bridge. One time I got
sent way out on extended downwind for 29 and I ended up departing the
pattern north and called back in. I could tell from their response that they
had completely forgotten about me.

-cwk.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote > >
>
> This is not a moral issue.
>
>
Radio station declines the plea to put up extra lighting, because it is not
required, while pilots say it is needed. Two people then the said antenna,
and are killed.

The radio station not wanting to spend the money, costs two people their
lives, very possibly. And you say this is not a moral issue?
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> Radio station declines the plea to put up extra lighting, because it is
> not
> required, while pilots say it is needed.
>

Does this extra lighting have some kind of repulsor effect that would have
prevented aircraft from striking the tower?

The tower was charted. It's presence was made known in the A/FD. It had
proper markings and lights. This accident happened because the pilot flew
in the vicinity of the tower below the altitude of the tower. If you don't
fly in the vicinity of the tower at or below the charted altitude you cannot
hit the tower.


>
> Two people then the said antenna, and are killed.
>
> The radio station not wanting to spend the money, costs two people their
> lives, very possibly. And you say this is not a moral issue?
>

I say the moral of the story is don't fly into towers.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>> Even if the tower "coexisted with the airport since 1947" (as someone
>> said) it is a classic "accident waiting to happen."
>
> What if it's decided they cannot coexist? Do you think the airport will
> have more local support than the radio station?

Speaking as a neighbor of a truly annoying AM radio station, I think the
answer to that question could go either way. If the neighbors have as much
trouble with signal bleed as we do here, they likely would be overjoyed to
see the radio transmitter located elsewhere.

I'm not any more convinced of the "accident waiting to happen" claim than
you are -- after all, there have been fewer accidents due to the tower than
one might expect at a runway. And we don't go around calling runways "an
accident waiting to happen". Given the virtually nonexistent number of
accidents related to the tower, it's clearly NOT an "accident waiting to
happen".

But implying that a radio station would be more popular with neighbors than
an airport indicates a misunderstanding of the impact a radio station has on
neighbors.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> Speaking as a neighbor of a truly annoying AM radio station, I think the
> answer to that question could go either way. If the neighbors have as
> much trouble with signal bleed as we do here, they likely would be
> overjoyed to see the radio transmitter located elsewhere.
>
> I'm not any more convinced of the "accident waiting to happen" claim than
> you are -- after all, there have been fewer accidents due to the tower
> than one might expect at a runway. And we don't go around calling runways
> "an accident waiting to happen". Given the virtually nonexistent number
> of accidents related to the tower, it's clearly NOT an "accident waiting
> to happen".
>
> But implying that a radio station would be more popular with neighbors
> than an airport indicates a misunderstanding of the impact a radio station
> has on neighbors.
>

I didn't say neighbors, I said the local area. Those affected would be
those that listen to the radio station. I'd wager that's quite a few more
than those annoyed by signal bleed.

The problem is, what happens to insurance costs when it's pretty much
guaranteed you're going to be settling a blockbuster case once every ten
years or so? Right now I think the Archdiocese of Boston is unable to get
liability insurance because of all the scandals. Their insureres paid out
somewhere around $60m and said "we're outta here."

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...
> "Allen" wrote:
> > $480 million - The largest aviation verdict awarded to plaintiffs
> in
> > history. (Cassoutt vs. Cessna) 2002
>
> Real old news, because it was settled over 2 years ago for likely a
> small fraction, as appeals courts seriously reduce these things. Nor
> would Cessna pay out the settlement; they pay only for insurance.
>
> Fred F.
>

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>"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.

While I am not generally in favor of the way the US judicial system
seems to encourage people to sue, I don't see this particular
principle as a problem. If you can remove responsibility by meeting
regulations, then you need regulations to cover pretty much all
possible circumstances, and you end up with much more legislation than
you really want.

If you require some personal responsibility and common sense on top of
regulations, you can end up with similar (potentially better) results,
with greater freedom overall.

"Allen" wrote:
>
> Who is Cessna Aircraft's insurance company? Do they not
"self-insure'?

If they do, then Textron's SEC filings are fraudulent! I've looked at
recent filings, and they really don't cite problems here, current or
future. Actually, their ins co doesn't directly pay either. Like
even little Avemco, they would rely on "reinsurance" heavily, meaning
the risk is tossed into the worldwide aviation risk pool, like Lloyd's
of London who's never sold a single policy since the 1800's. Go to
Avemco's SEC filings and one gets a hint of how it works. You don't
see any big figure for claims payouts in financials, because it's
buried in their reinsurance arrangement.

Reg,
Fred F.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>The tower was charted. It's presence was made known in the A/FD. It had
>proper markings and lights. This accident happened because the pilot flew
>in the vicinity of the tower below the altitude of the tower. If you don't
>fly in the vicinity of the tower at or below the charted altitude you cannot
>hit the tower.
>
>I say the moral of the story is don't fly into towers.

Do you even fly? I don't see how a pilot could say that could never
happen to me. All it takes is one mistake, a moment of inattention.
All pilots make mistakes from time to time.

And the tower is near an airport, so you have to fly in the vicinity
of the tower below its altitude if you are going to takeoff or land.

Bill Denton wrote:

>
> And I would also have somebody check out your house with an RF signal
> strength meter; people worry about a 5 watt (or whatever) cell phone frying
> their brain,

Your typical handheld cellphone is about 1/2 watt an inch from your brain.


just imagine what 50,000 watts is doing to you and your
> family...

Do the math and figure out what signal strength there is where you
stand, plus low frequencies like the AM band are not what people are
worrying about.

"Bill Denton" > wrote:

>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?

Interesting analogy. It might just be that the risk of it happening to
a house is low enough that there is not enough of a change in the risk
level to warrant a premium reduction.

I have worked at a couple of large computer sites that had exactly
that - ditches and barriers to stop cars and trucks from crashing into
the building if they left the freeway. Obviously someone thought the
risk in that case was worth considering.

"TaxSrv" > wrote:

>"Allen" wrote:
> > $480 million - The largest aviation verdict awarded to plaintiffs
>in
>> history. (Cassoutt vs. Cessna) 2002
>
>Real old news, because it was settled over 2 years ago for likely a
>small fraction, as appeals courts seriously reduce these things. Nor
>would Cessna pay out the settlement; they pay only for insurance.

Insurance companies aren't a bucket of free money for paying liability
claims though. You can bet if they make a payout like that they are
going to set future premiums to try to recover some of the loss, and
to reflect the possibility of future similar (or even higher) payouts.
The insurance company has to aim to collect at least as much in
premiums as they pay out.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
> I didn't say neighbors, I said the local area. Those affected would be
> those that listen to the radio station.

No, those affected do not include those that listen to the radio station,
not unless you assume that the tower is simply not to be rebuilt at all. I
find that assumption incredibly peculiar; if for some reason the tower was
prohibited at its location near the airport, it would simply be moved to
another location, one likely to hardly affect the coverage of the station at
all (compared to its current location).

Only the people affected at or near that particular site are worth
considering. No one else cares.

"C Kingsbury" wrote:
> The problem is, what happens to insurance costs when it's pretty
much
> guaranteed you're going to be settling a blockbuster case once every
ten
> years or so? Right now I think the Archdiocese of Boston is unable
to
> get liability insurance because of all the scandals.
>

Maybe the problem with the Church is its inability to assure it will
go away, the word of a Servant of God notwithstanding :-) , whereas
with Cessna it could be things are looking up. NTSB stats are showing
that their singles reintroduced since the 90's are basically not
crashing, whereas each day more oldies in the fleet get X'd out under
the 18-year statute of repose for product liability. Some legal types
even say the phenomenon of blockbuster lawsuits is lately on the wane.
Who knows....

Reg,
Fred F.

Contributory negligence

Morgans wrote:
>>This is not a moral issue.
>
> Radio station declines the plea to put up extra lighting, because it is not
> required, while pilots say it is needed. Two people then the said antenna,
> and are killed.
> The radio station not wanting to spend the money, costs two people their
> lives, very possibly. And you say this is not a moral issue?

And to think I use to fly 300 feet over the Voice of America
transmitters. WOW!!! That was lots of zots!
(Don't forget that signal strength falls off as the inverse square of
the distance.)

Newps wrote:
> Bill Denton wrote:
>> And I would also have somebody check out your house with an RF signal
>> strength meter; people worry about a 5 watt (or whatever) cell phone
>> frying
>> their brain,

> Your typical handheld cellphone is about 1/2 watt an inch from your brain.
> just imagine what 50,000 watts is doing to you and you family...
> Do the math and figure out what signal strength there is where you
> stand, plus low frequencies like the AM band are not what people are
> worrying about.

More than likely, the barriers were to prevent someone deliberately crashing
into the facility. A lot of them went up after 9/11.

And when you consider that someone going into a data center could shut down
Visa or a telephone company, you are dealing with a catastrophic situation
should someone crash into the building.

So, even though the driver would still be liable, the people running the
data center have to balance the costs to themselves versus what they might
be able to obtain from the driver. In this instance, the cost of the barrier
would probably be justified.



"Andrew Rowley" > wrote in message
...
> "Bill Denton" > wrote:
>
> >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?
>
> Interesting analogy. It might just be that the risk of it happening to
> a house is low enough that there is not enough of a change in the risk
> level to warrant a premium reduction.
>
> I have worked at a couple of large computer sites that had exactly
> that - ditches and barriers to stop cars and trucks from crashing into
> the building if they left the freeway. Obviously someone thought the
> risk in that case was worth considering.

"Bill Denton" > wrote:

>More than likely, the barriers were to prevent someone deliberately crashing
>into the facility. A lot of them went up after 9/11.

This was well before 9/11 - about 15 years ago. And there was nothing
to stop someone going around the long way if they wanted to do
deliberate damage. It was trucks running off the freeway they were
worried about.

>And when you consider that someone going into a data center could shut down
>Visa or a telephone company, you are dealing with a catastrophic situation
>should someone crash into the building.

Definitely - but companies also insure against these type of
disasters. A lot of these sort of precautions, and even normal DR
arrangements, are driven by the insurance companies. I know there are
businesses out there that only set up disaster recovery plans because
their business insurance requires it. If it was up to them they just
wouldn't get around to it - however much of a good idea it may be.

"Andrew Rowley" > wrote

I don't see how a pilot could say that could never
> happen to me. All it takes is one mistake, a moment of inattention.
> All pilots make mistakes from time to time.
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THANK YOU ! ! !

Right now, he would not change his mind, as it might make him appear he had
been wrong, at least one time in his life.

Or rather it is like the Monty Python skit, where the guy is paying for an
argument.

"This isn't an argument."

"Yes it is."

"Not it isn't."
--
Jim in NC

"John Clear" > wrote in message
...

> Towers can be very hard to spot in the haze. There is a 1500ft
> tower on the top of a 2500ft ridge between Watsonville (WVI) and
> South County (E16 (formerly Q99)). On a clear day, it isn't easy
> to see. With fog/haze, it becomes invisible.
>
> I took these shots on a somewhat hazy day:
>
> http://www.panix.com/~jac/spot-the-tower/
>
> There are strobes on it, but the tower itself is a flat grey, which
> is very good at blending into the haze/fog.

I have seen that tower a few times. It is one of the scariest towers in the
country.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > You are all alone in your stance.

Seems more like you are.

> >
>
> Did you take a survey?

Probably a poll of himself.

>
>
> >
> > You may be technically right, but morally, you don't have a leg to stand
> > on.
> >
>
> This is not a moral issue.

Actually it is, and you're still right.
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Radio station declines the plea to put up extra lighting, because it is
> > not
> > required, while pilots say it is needed.
> >
>
> Does this extra lighting have some kind of repulsor effect that would have
> prevented aircraft from striking the tower?
>
> The tower was charted. It's presence was made known in the A/FD. It had
> proper markings and lights. This accident happened because the pilot flew
> in the vicinity of the tower below the altitude of the tower. If you
don't
> fly in the vicinity of the tower at or below the charted altitude you
cannot
> hit the tower.
>
>
> >
> > Two people then the said antenna, and are killed.
> >
> > The radio station not wanting to spend the money, costs two people their
> > lives, very possibly. And you say this is not a moral issue?
> >
>
> I say the moral of the story is don't fly into towers.
>
I get intimations of the old joke about "the tree jumped out in the road and
hit my car".


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Andrew Rowley" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
> >The tower was charted. It's presence was made known in the A/FD. It had
> >proper markings and lights. This accident happened because the pilot
flew
> >in the vicinity of the tower below the altitude of the tower. If you
don't
> >fly in the vicinity of the tower at or below the charted altitude you
cannot
> >hit the tower.
> >
> >I say the moral of the story is don't fly into towers.
>
> Do you even fly? I don't see how a pilot could say that could never
> happen to me. All it takes is one mistake, a moment of inattention.
> All pilots make mistakes from time to time.
>
> And the tower is near an airport, so you have to fly in the vicinity
> of the tower below its altitude if you are going to takeoff or land.

And people have been flying near that tower for something like 70 years.

Don't blame others for your own incompetence.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

In article >,
Andrew Rowley > wrote:

> >> Minimally meeting regulations is not always enough to prove reasonable
> >> precaution.
> >
> >No, not with the sad state of the US judicial system.
>
> While I am not generally in favor of the way the US judicial system
> seems to encourage people to sue, I don't see this particular
> principle as a problem. If you can remove responsibility by meeting
> regulations, then you need regulations to cover pretty much all
> possible circumstances, and you end up with much more legislation than
> you really want.
>
> If you require some personal responsibility and common sense on top of
> regulations, you can end up with similar (potentially better) results,
> with greater freedom overall.

or you end up with endless second-guessing and hindsight that isn't
20-20.

If the regulation isn't good enough, then don't bother with the
regulation.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> More than likely, the barriers were to prevent someone deliberately
crashing
> into the facility. A lot of them went up after 9/11.
>
> And when you consider that someone going into a data center could shut
down
> Visa or a telephone company, you are dealing with a catastrophic situation
> should someone crash into the building.

If it's that important they have back-up capability off site which would
take over with nary a hitch in the getalong.

"Andrew Rowley" > wrote in message
...
>
> While I am not generally in favor of the way the US judicial system
> seems to encourage people to sue, I don't see this particular
> principle as a problem. If you can remove responsibility by meeting
> regulations, then you need regulations to cover pretty much all
> possible circumstances, and you end up with much more legislation than
> you really want.
>
> If you require some personal responsibility and common sense on top of
> regulations, you can end up with similar (potentially better) results,
> with greater freedom overall.
>

What's the purpose of the regulations regarding marking and lighting?

"Andrew Rowley" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>>The tower was charted. It's presence was made known in the A/FD. It had
>>proper markings and lights. This accident happened because the pilot flew
>>in the vicinity of the tower below the altitude of the tower. If you
>>don't
>>fly in the vicinity of the tower at or below the charted altitude you
>>cannot
>>hit the tower.
>>
>>I say the moral of the story is don't fly into towers.
>>
>
> Do you even fly?
>

Yes.


>
> I don't see how a pilot could say that could never
> happen to me. All it takes is one mistake, a moment of inattention.
> All pilots make mistakes from time to time.
>

What are you going to do to ensure that one mistake, a moment of
inattention, cannot bring harm to a pilot? Are you going to eliminate all
towers?


>
> And the tower is near an airport, so you have to fly in the vicinity
> of the tower below its altitude if you are going to takeoff or land.
>

Do you even fly?

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> THANK YOU ! ! !
>
> Right now, he would not change his mind, as it might make him appear he
> had
> been wrong, at least one time in his life.
>

A cogent argument can always cause me to change my mind. Nobody has yet
presented one.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, those affected do not include those that listen to the radio station,
> not unless you assume that the tower is simply not to be rebuilt at all.
> I find that assumption incredibly peculiar; if for some reason the tower
> was prohibited at its location near the airport, it would simply be moved
> to another location, one likely to hardly affect the coverage of the
> station at all (compared to its current location).
>
> Only the people affected at or near that particular site are worth
> considering. No one else cares.

Changing the site of the transmitter changes the reception area of the
station.

In article >, "Bill Denton"
> writes:

>And I would also have somebody check out your house with an RF signal
>strength meter; people worry about a 5 watt (or whatever) cell phone frying
>their brain, just imagine what 50,000 watts is doing to you and your
>family...

Not far from where I live, we have a 50kw AM transmitter litterally in the
middle of a shopping area. They had to use some particular shielding tricks on
the buildings to keep everything inside from being affected.

John

"JohnMcGrew" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>, "Steven
> P.
> McNicoll" > writes:
>>
>>What if it's decided they cannot coexist? Do you think the airport will
>>have more local support than the radio station?
>>
>
> What do you think?
>

I think the airport will become another shopping center. One should be
careful what one wishes for.


>
> More people listen to radio than fly general aviation
> aircraft. And more people think airports affect their property values
> than
> transmitter towers do.
>

'Zackly.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > No, those affected do not include those that listen to the radio
station,
> > not unless you assume that the tower is simply not to be rebuilt at all.
> > I find that assumption incredibly peculiar; if for some reason the tower
> > was prohibited at its location near the airport, it would simply be
moved
> > to another location, one likely to hardly affect the coverage of the
> > station at all (compared to its current location).
> >
> > Only the people affected at or near that particular site are worth
> > considering. No one else cares.
>
> Changing the site of the transmitter changes the reception area of the
> station.

No it doesn't. Changing the antenna site might change the transmission
pattern.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Andrew Rowley" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > While I am not generally in favor of the way the US judicial system
> > seems to encourage people to sue, I don't see this particular
> > principle as a problem. If you can remove responsibility by meeting
> > regulations, then you need regulations to cover pretty much all
> > possible circumstances, and you end up with much more legislation than
> > you really want.
> >
> > If you require some personal responsibility and common sense on top of
> > regulations, you can end up with similar (potentially better) results,
> > with greater freedom overall.
> >
>
> What's the purpose of the regulations regarding marking and lighting?


Regulations provide minimum requirements. Meeting minimum requirements does
not guarantee freedom from liability. Just ask any auto or aircraft
manufacturer.

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
>>
>> Changing the site of the transmitter changes the reception area of the
>> station.
>>
>
> No it doesn't.
>

Of course it does, don't be silly.

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
>>
>> What's the purpose of the regulations regarding marking and lighting?
>>
>
> Regulations provide minimum requirements. Meeting minimum requirements
> does
> not guarantee freedom from liability.
>

Does going beyond minimum requirements guarantee freedom from liability?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> m...
> >>
> >> What's the purpose of the regulations regarding marking and lighting?
> >>
> >
> > Regulations provide minimum requirements. Meeting minimum requirements
> > does
> > not guarantee freedom from liability.
> >
>
> Does going beyond minimum requirements guarantee freedom from liability?


No but it could very well limit liability.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> m...
> >>
> >> Changing the site of the transmitter changes the reception area of the
> >> station.
> >>
> >
> > No it doesn't.
> >
>
> Of course it does, don't be silly.

You are absolutely wrong but I suspect you are happy.

As a broad general rule, moving an AM broadcast transmitter, within accepted
engineering parameters, will NOT change the reception area.

In most instances, if a station needs to build a new transmitter shack, they
just build it somewhere close to the antenna, then move the transmitter
itself overnight (been there, done that, not fun).

Since there is a cable, usually coax, connecting the transmitter to the
antenna, if the length of the cable were made substantially longer, say
going from 25 ft to 2500 ft, the amount of power being delivered to the
antenna would be reduced by cable losses, and you would see some degradation
of signal. But while there are engineering workarounds for this, you might
have a problem getting the FCC to go along with them.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> m...
> >>
> >> Changing the site of the transmitter changes the reception area of the
> >> station.
> >>
> >
> > No it doesn't.
> >
>
> Of course it does, don't be silly.
>
>

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Changing the site of the transmitter changes the reception area of the
> station.

Not necessarily (as Dave points out), but even if it does, it won't change
it enough for the vast majority of listeners to even notice, never mind
care. And we're not talking about the minute difference in reception area,
we're talking about who might care about relocating the tower.

And the answer to that is "hardly anyone, except those currently neighbors
to the tower and those who will be neighbors at the proposed location". In
other words, it's the neighbors, not the total listenership.

Pete

JohnMcGrew wrote:

> Not far from where I live, we have a 50kw AM transmitter litterally in the
> middle of a shopping area. They had to use some particular shielding tricks on
> the buildings to keep everything inside from being affected.

Usually its so that when you turn off the floresent lights, they
actually do go off...

JohnMcGrew wrote:

> It's even in Microsoft Flight Simulator!

How do they have it lit?

In article >,
"Dave Stadt" > wrote:

> > What's the purpose of the regulations regarding marking and lighting?
>
> Regulations provide minimum requirements. Meeting minimum requirements does
> not guarantee freedom from liability. Just ask any auto or aircraft
> manufacturer.

But what is the purpose of the minimum requirements? What's the objective?

If more than just meeting minimum requirements is expected of someone,
then those "minimum" requiremens aren't much good.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > >>
> > >> What's the purpose of the regulations regarding marking and lighting?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Regulations provide minimum requirements. Meeting minimum
requirements
> > > does
> > > not guarantee freedom from liability.
> > >
> >
> > Does going beyond minimum requirements guarantee freedom from liability?
>
>
> No but it could very well limit liability.
>
Only if EXPRESSLY legislated, otherwise even double the standard still
leaves your ass hanging.

The biggest source of liability is not your level of neglect or adherence to
good engineering principles; it's the depth of your pockets.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Reminds me of the story my father told me years ago.
He was in charge of a Army Air Corp radio station in Thailand towards
the end of WWII.
The Thai villagers used to scrounge the used fluorescent light tubes
from the base dump. The Air Corp personnel couldn't figure out why until
they saw the huts light up at night. It was even more of a mystery
because the village didn't have any electricity.
The radio operators however were wise to the villagers ways.
The lights only worked when the radios were transmitting.

Darrel Toepfer wrote:
>> Not far from where I live, we have a 50kw AM transmitter litterally in the
>> middle of a shopping area. They had to use some particular shielding
>> tricks on the buildings to keep everything inside from being affected.

> JohnMcGrew wrote:
> Usually its so that when you turn off the floresent lights, they
> actually do go off...

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
>>
>> Does going beyond minimum requirements guarantee freedom from liability?
>>
>
> No but it could very well limit liability.
>

Or it could do nothing at all.

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
>>
>> Of course it does, don't be silly.
>>
>
> You are absolutely wrong but I suspect you are happy.
>

Explain how I am wrong.

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
>
> As a broad general rule, moving an AM broadcast transmitter, within
> accepted
> engineering parameters, will NOT change the reception area.
>

No? Then why can't I receive all AM broadcast stations?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> m...
> >>
> >> Changing the site of the transmitter changes the reception area of the
> >> station.
> >>
> >
> > No it doesn't.
> >
>
> Of course it does, don't be silly.
>
>
You mean changing the site of the antenna?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > As a broad general rule, moving an AM broadcast transmitter, within
> > accepted
> > engineering parameters, will NOT change the reception area.
> >
>
> No? Then why can't I receive all AM broadcast stations?

Maybe you forgot to plug yourself in.

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.

And you can receive all AM broadcast stations, if you know how to do it.




"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > As a broad general rule, moving an AM broadcast transmitter, within
> > accepted
> > engineering parameters, will NOT change the reception area.
> >
>
> No? Then why can't I receive all AM broadcast stations?
>
>

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:49:25 -0600, "Bill Denton"
> wrote:

>Do you think they shouldn't sue the pilot?
>
>See my reply to John McGrew...

My guess it the pilot's estate/heirs will go after the tower owners.
Particularly in CA the juries are well known for making awards against
the corporations to the individual.

When it comes to civil suits it doesn't matter how long it's been
there or who was first although when it comes to the big tower it
appears from this thread the airport was first.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>
>
>"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> JohnMcGrew wrote:
>> >
>> > (but certainly not as
>> > expensive as a new tower will be)
>>
>> Betcha they sue the estate of the pilot to recover the cost.
>>
>> George Patterson
>> The desire for safety stands against every great and noble
>enterprise.
>

> If more than just meeting minimum requirements is expected of someone,
> then those "minimum" requiremens aren't much good.

Isn't that how it is with flying? We have minimum requrements for
flying, but it is up to the pilot to realize that sometimes thosse
minimum requirements are not sufficient for safe flight.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jon Woellhaf" > wrote in message
news:zUGyd.279161$HA.138267@attbi_s01...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>>
>> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
>> m...
>> >>
>> >> Changing the site of the transmitter changes the reception area of the
>> >> station.
>> >>
>> >
>> > No it doesn't.
>> >
>>
>> Of course it does, don't be silly.
>>
>>
>
> You mean changing the site of the antenna?
>

Yes.

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>
> My guess it the pilot's estate/heirs will go after the tower owners.
> Particularly in CA the juries are well known for making awards against
> the corporations to the individual.
>
> When it comes to civil suits it doesn't matter how long it's been
> there or who was first although when it comes to the big tower it
> appears from this thread the airport was first.
>

The facts don't matter at all. Civil suits such as this have become
strictly an emotional appeal.

"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.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Andrew Rowley" > wrote in message
...

>
>> I don't see how a pilot could say that could never
>> happen to me. All it takes is one mistake, a moment of inattention.
>> All pilots make mistakes from time to time.
>>
>
>What are you going to do to ensure that one mistake, a moment of
>inattention, cannot bring harm to a pilot? Are you going to eliminate all
>towers?

You can't eliminate the possibility, but you can recognise
circumstances that create unusual risks, and try to reduce them. By
installing more than the minimum lighting required by regulations for
example.

>> And the tower is near an airport, so you have to fly in the vicinity
>> of the tower below its altitude if you are going to takeoff or land.
>>
>
>Do you even fly?

Yes.

How do you propose to take off or land without flying below the
altitude of the tower?

Andrew Rowley wrote:

> You can't eliminate the possibility, but you can recognise
> circumstances that create unusual risks, and try to reduce them. By
> installing more than the minimum lighting required by regulations for
> example.

If the required lighting isn't enough, then the regulations are at fault
and not those who follow them. At least this is the way we see it in the
country where I live. But then, we don't have juries which honour
frivolous lawsuits, either.

Stefan

Stefan > wrote:

>If the required lighting isn't enough, then the regulations are at fault
>and not those who follow them. At least this is the way we see it in the
>country where I live. But then, we don't have juries which honour
>frivolous lawsuits, either.

The problem is that there is a limit to how specific regulations can
be. Would you have the same regulations for towers 750' AGL 20NM from
an airport, 750' AGL and 5NM, and 750' and 1.5NM? How do you compare
towers 1000' and 5NM and 750' at 1.5NM? What about 400' and 1NM? Does
it depend on runway alignment?

The more specific you make many regulations, the more problems you
create. In many cases you are better off regulating a minimum, and
requiring people to take reasonable additional precautions if
necessary.

"Andrew Rowley" > wrote in message
...
>
> You can't eliminate the possibility, but you can recognise
> circumstances that create unusual risks, and try to reduce them. By
> installing more than the minimum lighting required by regulations for
> example.
>

If the required lighting is insufficient the requirement should be changed.


>>> And the tower is near an airport, so you have to fly in the vicinity
>>> of the tower below its altitude if you are going to takeoff or land.
>>>
>>
>>Do you even fly?
>
> Yes.
>
> How do you propose to take off or land without flying below the
> altitude of the tower?
>

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.

"Andrew Rowley" > wrote in message
...
>
> The problem is that there is a limit to how specific regulations can
> be. Would you have the same regulations for towers 750' AGL 20NM from
> an airport, 750' AGL and 5NM, and 750' and 1.5NM? How do you compare
> towers 1000' and 5NM and 750' at 1.5NM? What about 400' and 1NM? Does
> it depend on runway alignment?
>
> The more specific you make many regulations, the more problems you
> create. In many cases you are better off regulating a minimum, and
> requiring people to take reasonable additional precautions if
> necessary.
>

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?

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 21:28:35 +1100, Andrew Rowley
> wrote in
>::

>The problem is that there is a limit to how specific regulations can
>be. Would you have the same regulations for towers 750' AGL 20NM from
>an airport, 750' AGL and 5NM, and 750' and 1.5NM? How do you compare
>towers 1000' and 5NM and 750' at 1.5NM? What about 400' and 1NM? Does
>it depend on runway alignment?

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?

There's some information here:
http://airspaceusa.com/FAA_Order_7400.2_traffic_pattern_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?

Back to Semantics 101 and no soup for you, Steven.

The transmitter is the source of the signal, it is the antenna that radiates
the signal.

But Happy Holidays anyway ;-)




"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.
>
>

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:54:09 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>::

>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.

In the fatal mishap we are discussing, it is pretty apparent that the
doomed flight made a left base entry, or at least it was on the left
base leg of the pattern when it collided with the radio tower. Given
the hazardous proximity of the radio tower in that quadrant, why would
a left hand pattern be assigned to runway 6?* Is noise abatement more
important than air safety, or wasn't the radio tower considered when
runway 6 was assigned a left hand pattern? Is the left hand pattern
for runway 6 a result of a TERPS study or airport management
accommodating residential noise complaints?

Given the time the accident occurred, 5:45 PM, and sunset occurred 61
minutes* before, it would be interesting to know what time the radio
tower lights were lit. If the obstruction lights were controlled by a
timer, it's possible it was not equipped with daylight savings time
compensation. If the lights were controlled by a photocell, anything
is possible. If the lights were turned on by KFI personnel, ditto.

* http://www.airnav.com/airport/KFUL
** http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.html


I suppose we'll have to wait for the final NTSB report for answers.
At this time I'm unable to locate any mention at all of the mishap on
the NTSB web site.

The preliminary FAA data are here:
http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/F_1220_N.txt

************************************************** ******************************
** Report created 12/23/2004 Record 1
**
************************************************** ******************************

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 9187G Make/Model: C182 Description: 182, Skylane
Date: 12/19/2004 Time: 1745

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Fatal Mid Air: N
Missing: N
Damage: Destroyed

LOCATION
City: FULLERTON State: CA Country: US

DESCRIPTION
ACFT ON BASE LEG FOR RUNWAY 6, STRUCK THE RADIO TOWER AND CRASHED,
THE TWO
PERSONS ON BOARD WERE FATALLY INJURED, FULLERTON, CA

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 2
# Crew: 1 Fat: 1 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:
# Pass: 1 Fat: 1 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:

WEATHER: CLEAR



OTHER DATA
Activity: Pleasure Phase: Approach Operation: General
Aviation

Departed: EL MONTE Dep Date: 12/19/2004 Dep.
Time:
Destination: FULLERTON, CA Flt Plan: UNK Wx
Briefing: U
Last Radio Cont: CLRD TO LAND
Last Clearance: CLRD TO LAND

FAA FSDO: LONG BEACH, CA (WP05) Entry date:
12/20/2004

"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 here:
> http://airspaceusa.com/FAA_Order_7400.2_traffic_pattern_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 here:
http://airspaceusa.com/VFR_TPA_By_Existing_Software.htm

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:40:23 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
t>::

>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/122004_nw_plane_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/newsitems/2005/050804ca.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/newsitems/2005/050107fullerton_letter.pdf




======================= FAA Study Request For Comments ============
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050804ca-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