"Andrew Rowley" wrote:
Surely there can be a duty of care that extends beyond complying
with
all legislation? Particularly if the tower is located in a place
where
it presents a much greater hazard than the average tower.

I agree there. Otherwise, they couldn't win against aircraft mfrs who
go through a brutal FAA certification process. TV/radio towers here
in that height range, and not near an airport, have gorgeous and
multiple strobes, so it can be very relevant as to what the industry
considers general practice. A/k/a "expert witnesses," not subject to
much useful rebuttal on cross.

Fred F.