Let me start by stating my biases:
I am unapologetically pro-liberty. I don't support liberty's most dangerous enemy: government. Thus, I don't support or trust government's military, but consider it the gun pointed in the face of Americans and the biggest factor in making people in other countries want to kill Americans.
With that out of the way, I suspect the collision between the army helicopter and the commercial airplane was the fault of the army helicopter.
The commercial plane was following its regular, scheduled route. The army helicopter was obviously somewhere it shouldn't have been at a time it shouldn't have been there, and was probably (I'm speculating here) flying darker than was responsible under the conditions. The responsibility to not cause a disaster was the helicopter crew's. They failed.
Early headlines were invariably along the lines of "Collision between army helicopter and commercial plane".
Yet, I watched as headlines soon morphed into implying the commercial plane was at fault. "Plane flies into army helicopter" and things of that sort. A subtle but critical change. Without any evidence that this was true, or important to the event.
If the feral government's military people were at fault, would the military be liable (or pressured into) paying damages to the families of its victims? Or into paying more? Could this be the reason the narrative changed as I watched?
If you don't think something like this is could be at play, you trust government too much.
Show your support.
