Los Angeles radio tower crash kills 2

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...,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 . net, "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
. net::


"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.