Bronx. One of the less endearing habits on this forum is a prurient refusal to accept that ant pilot can make a mistake, a refusal that seems to become even more adamant when the pilot s dead. This is not rational or sensible, it is frankly a rather silly mawkish affectation.
Tandemrotor. No one, least of all me, is "hanging him out to dry", that statement indicates your over emotional state of mind. In both this case and the other one you mentioned an sit craft was flown into a fixed obstruction in poor vis and low cloud. I'd be fascinated to hear any theories you may have that might explain this better than what it almost certainly is, CFIT. Of course there may be the tiniest chance that it was something else, but do p,ease make a feasible suggestion to back yourself up. Nobody flies into things they can see, or very very seldom, people frequently fly into things they don't/can't see. As this occurred in v poor vis which do you propose is the most likely case? Anyone can make such a mistake, most if us probably nearly have. Every now and then someone is unfortunate enough to actually do it. That's not criticism, it's not stuffing ones head in the sand and pretending that something that looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck is in fact a piece of Ming china...all I'm saying s that it probably is a duck.
It does no one any good thrashing around the most unlikely scenarios and hazarding all sorts of regulatory interventions when there is almost certainly a very simple and logical explanation.
What have highly directional high power focused beam approach light systems to do with the low power 360' glims put on obstructions? Youre not comparing like with anything like. As I said, red herring. They are not designed to be seen in cloud because no one is supposed to flying in cloud in that environment.