stuckgear -- You've posted the rules. What point are you making either regarding this tragedy or the more general discussion? Are you saying that the obstruction was not marked in the proscribed manner? Are you saying that marking and lighting was or might have been a contributory factor? I don't really know which point on the rules you are asking me to comment on (yes, I see you've highlighted in red but I am still missing the point). Let me know and I'll get back to you
Lemain, i am not asking you to comment on anything, you have postulated that lighting of obstructions to air traffic is null and void.
im pointing out to you and others, that aviation authorities, the world over, disagree and stipulate lighting of structures and obstructions as they do cause hazard to air traffic.
they are simply not doing it for $hits and giggles, they do it becuase lighting structures and obstructions to air traffic prevents accidents, provides an additional level of safety margin and is the result of painful lessons learned in the past.
if you want to take on existential theologies into aircraft impact of objects then pop on down to JB.
But was the structure '
really' there?
yes it was, the heli hit it, it was unlit at the time.