Well, as the picture clearly shows the crane in action but at the time of the accident it was in the "parked for the night" position, it looks like there was at worst a very small difference in height between building and crane height. I'm guessing maybe 20-30 feet?
as i previously posted:
At the time of the accident the building had reached its full height; the crane tower had reached a height of 572 ft agl. On top of the crane tower was a cab unit, a counterjib ‘A’ frame and counter weight platform attached to the crane tower by a bearing ring, which allowed the jib to rotate (slew) in the horizontal plane. The crane had a ‘luffing’ jib, which meant the full length of the jib pivoted in the vertical plane from a point a further 11.5 ft above the height of the tower section.
During out-of-service periods, such as overnight, the jib was parked in the ‘minimum jib’ position, at a 65° angle above the horizontal. At the time of the accident this gave a total height from the ground to the tip of the jib of 719 ft
not quite 20-30ft.
So what's your point, the crane was an hazard and shouldn't have been there (where else then if not where it was actually needed) whereas a slightly lower, but obviously much bulkier, skyscraper is fine and does not present any hazard to the same helicopter traffic?
no.. go back and read my posts. you obviously havnt read what's been posted previously (see above)