Los Angeles radio tower crash kills 2

"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