Los Angeles radio tower crash kills 2

"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/122...ane_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