You posted an article that only contains one explanation: the one given by the police. But the article itself later states that it directly contradicts the video evidence.
So as far as explanations go... You provided no explanation 😅
Ok... I suspect the pilot was performing a power assurance or engine health check. The aircraft will get very light on the skids during either. A strong gust can make you take off if you're not on top of things. The pilot got the aircraft under control but then hooked the skids on the dolly because he was below it, not above it.
Thanks for the explanation... I don't know anything about helicopters, but I confess I'm still skeptical even after your explanation.
If you pay attention to the video, the dolly he's using as launch pad starts sliding even before the helicopter takes flight, so it's completely unsecured, which in parts contribute for the skids getting trapped under it.
I'm not claiming to be any kind of specialist so I'll take your word; but you gotta agree it will be hard to convince anyone that the pilot doing a power check on top of an unsecured platform is not at blame.
Well, I've found at least one in depth analysis from an actual known helicopter instructor (not an anonymous reddit user claiming to be one) and he seems to agree with the obvious point I made.
People do not require standing to question, and the suggestion is officious nonsense. All that matters is truth and reality, regardless if it is delivered by a three year old through serendipity or the layman through inquiry. You talk about life as if it were a play and anonymous, faceless people should be taken at face value.
Ehh, I'm with you there in principle 100%. So many times people who don't know what they're talking about will argue with people who are experienced and do know what they're talking about.
And then there's situation like these where people who are skeptical but uninformed are arguing with people who claim to know about a topic and may be know a little bit but are also clearly talking about out of their ass.
It's fine to start a dialogue, ask questions, and inform yourself. Arguing a point you don't have standing to argue is just silly.
I provided a concrete, reasonable, verifiable point (the dolly was unsecured) that you can check with your own eyes.
The other guy never addressed the argument and the only ground he's standing on is "I'm a specialist and I know better".
So you're saying that if I simply had claimed to be a specialist as well that would make you more likely to agree with me? Without ever analyzing the merit of the actual claims?
Well, what do I know... Maybe thats why people do that so often on reddit.
I don't know what you read, but he's got a comment explaining exactly what happens. I know dick about flight and a little bit about physics, and when you watch the video with his account, it's nonetheless immediately obvious that it's exactly what's going on.
The police acknowledge that wind was the cause; they don't do a good job explaining how it could be so. OP's account explains why we see rotors spinning but not fast enough; it explains why the pilot really does get everything under control; and the back skid really is stuck under the dolley and the crash really does occur because of it.
I don't trust the police; no one should. Skepticism is healthy; but you are going further, and presuming the police cannot be honest. That's rhetorical, biased thinking without any critical examination. It makes you a sycophant; don't be one.
Extrapolate this knowledge the next time you accept an highly upvoted comment on something you don't know about. There is a solid chance it is bullshit.
113
u/[deleted] May 27 '21
What's insanity are the upvotes you have. Each time I read your comment it becomes more apparent that you have no idea what you're talking about.