Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Fallen\s+tower\s+may\s+rise\s+again\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Fallen\s+tower\s+may\s+rise\s+again\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Fallen tower may rise again (score: 1): Author: Dino Darling <dino@k6rix.com>; Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 01:03:24 -0800; News on the KFI tower. Please disregard the misinformation in the story, I've already set the reporter straight... http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/local/article_1361504.php Dino - K6RIX din; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00594.html (6,911 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] Fallen tower may rise again (score: 1): Author: "K8RI on TowerTalk" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>; Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 05:03:48 -0500; Reply is only to Tower Talk. Referring to something as misinformation and having sent them straight is more than a little vague to those of us who don't know what's what. Roger Halstead (K8RI and ARR; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00596.html (7,875 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] Fallen tower may rise again (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>; Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:18:46 -0500; Gee, Pilots can have their heads up their backsides too ... Did anyone every consider that the KFI tower probably predates the Fullerton airport and certainly predates any runway expansions or noise; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00609.html (9,202 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] Fallen tower may rise again (score: 1): Author: "k6xyz" <k6xyz@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:39:56 -0600; I've flown in and out of Fullerton a lot back in the 70's and 80's and never felt that it was a hazard....any pilot shouldn't be below 1000 AGL in that area anyways..... Regards Dave Harmon K6XYZ[at]; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00610.html (10,163 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] Fallen tower may rise again (score: 1): Author: bob finger <finger@goeaston.net>; Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:40:07 -0500; Unfortunately being there first is no longer a valid reason to be there. Folks today have discovered that they are always right and can get their way if they scream loud enough. The news media is rea; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00611.html (8,303 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] Fallen tower may rise again (score: 1): Author: "K8RI on TowerTalk" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>; Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 13:38:14 -0500; No it doesn't. Read the bulletings on the right side of the ariticle. The airport was established in 1928. The first two towers were in 1931 which were 400 feet tall. They were replace by one 760 fo; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00613.html (10,080 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] Fallen tower may rise again (score: 1): Author: "K8RI on TowerTalk" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>; Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 13:57:54 -0500; If the diagram is correct it's under part of the pattern and pretty much in line with an established route and it's in the airport area which means the 1000 foot rule does not apply. That would norm; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00615.html (12,362 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] Fallen tower may rise again (score: 1): Author: K7LXC@aol.com; Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 19:54:12 EST; Okay. This was off-topic to begin with and we really don't need to know about airport or flying topics. There are more appropriate reflectors for them. Tnx. Cheers, Steve K7LXC TT ADMIN _____________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00629.html (7,574 bytes)
9. Re: [TowerTalk] Fallen tower may rise again (score: 1): Author: "Donald Chester" <k4kyv@hotmail.com>; Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 21:03:37 +0000; If the tower predates airport runway expansion, wouldn't the aiport have to convince local government authorities to condemn the tower by eminent domain, and pay the tower owners the full cost of rel; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00664.html (8,894 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]