The accident event was initiated by an uncommanded yaw that the pilot could not stop, yes?
AFTER the accident aircraft had descended into the confined area, aborted and was in the vertical climb to exit, yes?
The theory is that this was an LTE event.
First, I have to say the theory of LTE is generally accepted, but in 48 years of flying, I never had one even though I landed up, down and both crosswinds thousands of times; in confined areas, natural and man-made, elevated (as in roof-top pads), with all knids of turbulence and none at all- I would guess that LTE is probably pretty rare and type specific- OH58 and 206B in particular... although thousands of my landings were in all wind conditions in 206s, Bs and Ls. They do have weakish tail rotors, is the R44 in that class?
The Aerospatiales I flew, the AS350 and 355 could turn tail into just about anything up to about 40 knots. Not that it is a good idea, the tail does get busy, especially in the it's near the upwind edge an blocky ledge, rooftop. I didn't want the pax exposed to the tail rotor.
The accident aircraft was in a vertical climb, exiting the confined area- it had sufficient power. As the accident aircraft ckimbed above, exited the terrain that was obstructing the wind, it became a 15-20 knot breeze from the left front. Yes, it fits the LTE pie chart.... But that is enough air that the aircraft should have experienced effective translational lift, and could have reduced power and continued a climb or accelerated into the wind, minimizing the demand on the tail rotor. But that's not what happened, apparently full pedal didn't stop the yaw, so the pedals were reversed (????) and the yaw developed into a spin.
The nose goes up and the nose goes down as the world goes round and round, you become disoriented. I know pilots who advance the idea of following the nose and accelerating out of it in a spiral- highly skilled professionals. I doubt the accident pilot had been trained in that and certainly did not consider it- or reducing power demand. I have had the technique demonstrated (never used it) and I don't think I could have done it after at least two revolutions in the spin, up and down, position over the ground is what I remember being aware of when the student botched the hovering auto- reducing power and the rotation rate, get the aircraft under control (well really, a chop and hovering auto, the student was locked in all other axis).
I was appalled at how little is actually required for a commercial much less a private when I was teaching. Maintaining the aircraft upright and intact, some theory and limited emergency training- success! Now go challenge the world without any limitations.
You teach them plan, fly the aircraft as slowly as possible into hazard and move slowly, abort at any point at which success is not assured. A slow climb into changing winds, even pausing and evaluating in the process, perhaps letting the tail streamline a little as you move into and as close as possible to the upwind barrier and when effective translation is achieved fly out and make a new plan.
You can demonstrate this once or twice, and maybe even talk the process in landings, takeoff. It's really not in any syllabus I was given. (I do talk the whole process constantly even when nobody's aboard- some habits are forever.) And then they get the ticket and learn that they can do all the hot dog yank and bank, see it modelled in real life and media...