If people don't want a natural explanation in terms of rotational motion, then fine… but if you need to introduce at least one phase term, have a picture of blades flapping in three dimensions and engage in a seemingly theologically fight against using the concept of angular momentum, then I think you're missing out on the chance to have an easier picture of what's going on above your head.
All the dynamic wagging blade stuff's a fine description if you get all the shifts and movements correct, but can you really sit down and convince someone who's never thought about it that it's correct and helpful as a description compared with the "gyroscope" description of motion, once you get over the counterintuitive aspects of the directionality of angular momentum. While all that detailed motion around the hub stuff is clearly important to designers, does it really help an operator to understand what's happening?
In particular, AC seems to have the idea that a small torque would move a big rotating object dramatically, or stop it turning: this is at gross variance with reality, and I suggest isn't providing a good mental model of the important issues in who the machine is working.
One thing that comes to mind is running out of control authority in fast turns. How does that get explained in the dynamical blade picture? It seems more natural to describe that again using collective properties of the disk.