Ok how plausable is this - the AC made a landing of some sort on the roof at this point the roof towards the rear of the skids was relativley solid but the forward section failed this would cause the AC to enter the pub nose first and dive into the space below with the roof structure causing the damage that is visable on the aircraft this would also explain the lack of rotational damage to the main rotor blades.
Quite plausible. It has already been put forth as speculation by about five other people. Seems we are going around and around. This old fool is getting dizzy
I Disagree!
If the aircraft were to have landed-on the roof, shut-down the engines, and then fallen through the roof,the drop would have been no more than 10 ft.
The amount of damage to the aircraft (the whole nose of the aircraft iscrushed in on itself) and the fact that the crew all had fatal injuries, makesit clear that there was a lot more energy involved in the crash than a 10 ftfall after the collapse of the roof.
Furthermore, if the roof failed, leading to the main body of the aircraftfalling into a hole, then the tail loading would not be excessive, so why hasthe large mass of the tail rotor detached?
Finally, if there had been a controlled landing on the roof (which ahelicopter pilot would not do in any case), then the pilot would have hadenough time to make a radio call, and the ATC transcripts would likely alreadybe spoken of in the press (I suspect).