Los Angeles radio tower crash kills 2

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.

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.

"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.

"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/122...ane_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

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

Yesterday morning a Cessna 182 hit the 760 foot (AGL) tower of 50
kilowatt AM radio station KFI in La Mirada, Calif. The married couple
aboard the 182 were killed, and the tower came down. KFI was off the
air about an hour.

According to media reports, the plane took off from El Monte and was
landing at Fullerton Airport to pick up two people. An FAA official
said they were on base leg at the time of the crash.

If I have this figured right, the 182 was coming from the north (El
Monte is 13 nm away at 350 degrees true) and on right base for Runway
6. The radio tower is 1.5 nm from the threshold on my topo, bearing
290 true. I measure it 33 degrees off the extended centerline, offset
to the north.

Has anyone flown into Fullerton? How big a problem is the tower?
Channel 7's story on the 11 a.m. news today had an interview with a
pilot who said the tower is very hard to see from the air. On the
other hand, the other guy they put on the air pointed out the tower is
on the charts and has coexested with the airport since 1947.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/122...ane_crash.html


It looks like we're going to get a chance to comment on the rebuilding
of this antenna:

-------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Volume 7, Issue 31 August 5, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------

FAA SEEKS COMMENTS ON REBUILDING RADIO TOWER
The FAA is requesting comments on plans to rebuild a radio tower
in the traffic pattern at Fullerton Municipal Airport in
Fullerton, California. Two people were killed and the tower was
destroyed when a Cessna 182 hit the tower December 19, 2004.
"Building a 760-foot-tall antenna tower in the traffic pattern of
an airport is an obvious hazard," said Melissa Rudinger, AOPA vice
president of regulatory affairs. AOPA encourages members to
comment on the proposal before September 1. Comments must address
the effect this action would have on aviation in the surrounding
area and provide detailed support of the negative impacts.
Comments must contain "Aeronautical Study No. 2005-AWP-734-OE" and
can be sent to: Federal Aviation Administration Western Pacific
Regional Office, P.O. Box 92007-AWP-520, Los Angeles, CA
90009-2007. See AOPA Online
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite.../050804ca.html ).

Personally, I'd like to see the replacement antenna tower equipped
with high-intensity strobe lights operating day and night. The
Fullerton Pilots Association requested the radio station install
strobe lighting, but their request was not granted, and two people
died.

The AOPA is on record as opposing the reconstruction of the tower:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...ton_letter.pdf




======================= FAA Study Request For Comments ============
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...4ca-notice.pdf

Aeronautical Study No. 2005-AWP-734-OE

Federal Aviation Administration
Western Pacific Regional Office
Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007
Specialist
Karen L. Mcdonald
TULSA, OK 74129
PO Box 92007-AWP-520
Issued Date: 07/26/2005
The structure as described above exceeds obstruction standards. To
determine its
effect upon the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by
aircraft and on
the operation of air navigation facilities, the FAA is conducting an
aeronautical
study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and, if
applicable, Title
14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77.
In the study, consideration will be given to all facts relevant to the
effect of
the structure on existing and planned airspace use, air navigation
facilities,
airports, aircraft operations, procedures and minimum flight
altitudes, and the
air traffic control system.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the aeronautical
study by
submitting comments to the above FAA address. To be eligible for
consideration,
comments must be relevant to the effect the structure would have on
aviation,
must provide sufficient detail to permit a clear understanding, must
contain the
aeronautical study number printed in the upper right hand corner of
this notice,
and must be received on or before September 1, 2005.
This notice may be reproduced and circulated by any interested person.
Airport
managers are encouraged to post this notice.
SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
( ) Comments stated in attached letter.
( ) No comments submitted.
__________________________________ ____________________
_________________
Signature & Title Representing Date
Prior Study No.
LA MIRADA, CA
118-0-49.66
1995-AWP-214-OE


760.0 feet above ground level (AGL)
33-52-46.8 NAD 83
Antenna Tower
826 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)
Signature Control No: 410648-393576
Attachment(s)
Additional Information
Frequency Data
(CIR)
Page 2
THE PROPOSAL WILL REBUILD THE KFI BROADCAST TOWER TO A HEIGHT OF 760
FEET AGL/826
FEET AMSL. THE SITE LOCATION AND ABOVE GROUND LEVEL (AGL) HEIGHT OF
THE REBUILT
TOWER IS THE SAME AS THE TOWER WHICH PREVIOUSLY OCCUPIED THIS
PROPERTY.

THE FAA IS SOLICITING AERONAUTICAL COMMENTS ONLY, IN ORDER TO FORM A
BASIS FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF AN AIRSPACE DETERMINATION, WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT A
REBUILT TOWER
OF THE SAME HEIGHT AT THIS LOCATION, WITH APPROPRIATE OBSTRUCTION
MARKING AND
LIGHTING INSTALLED, WOULD HAVE NO GREATER EFFECT UPON AIRSPACE
UTILIZATION THAN
THE PREVIOUS STRUCTURE.

THE SPONSOR IS PROPOSING A 24-HOUR MEDIUM INTENSITY WHITE OBSTRUCTION
LIGHTING
SYSTEM BE INSTALLED ON THE TOWER. BECAUSE THE TOWER IS MORE THAN 500
FEET ABOVE
GROUND LEVEL (AGL), AVIATION ORANGE AND WHITE PAINT MARKING WILL ALSO
BE REQUIRED.

THE TOWER IS LOCATED 1.76 NAUTICAL MILES (NM) FROM THE FULLERTON
MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
(FUL) REFERENCE POINT; 9,340 FEET FROM THE RUNWAY 06 PHYSICAL APPROACH
END.

THE TOWER HEIGHT IS IDENTIFIED AS AN OBSTRUCTION BY EXCEEDING THE
STANDARDS OF
FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATION (FAR) PART 77, SUBPART C, AS FOLLOWS:

77.23(a)(1), BY 260 FEET, A HEIGHT MORE THAN 500 FEET ABOVE GROUND
LEVEL (AGL), AT
THE SITE.

FAA EVALUATION HAS FOUND THE TOWER HEIGHT DOES NOT AFFECT INSTRUMENT
FLIGHT RULES
(IFR) PROCEDURES.
Additional Information for ASN 2005-AWP-734-OE
Page 3
Frequency Data for ASN 2005-AWP-734-OE
LOW
FREQUENCY
HIGH
FREQUENCY
FREQUENCY
UNIT ERP
ERP
UNIT