If I were a betting man – which I’m not!!

I would say it was easier to dismantle, on site, and road out. Once the AAIB had released it back to the operators. 

Don’t underestimate the amount of work required to get it back in the air. All must have been completed before the AAIB/CAA would allow it to take to the skies again. If you look at the video, carefully, you can see a shock wave run throu’ the airframe as the tail wheel hits the ground. The pilot and pax would have felt it. Hence the requirement, in my view, for a heavy landing check.

“Back at base” would provide weather proof facilities, power for lighting etc and easy access to dedicated support equipment as well as tooling to carry out the required checks. There is no doubt the support team techies had to work long hours – as I said before.

OOPs I forgot – the engine frame is designed to support the weight of the engine not the entire weight of the airframe and two persons. Having supported the airframe for a few moments it then saw the weight twist through 90 degrees as the airframe dropped backwards onto its three “legs”. Removing the engine and fitting a spare (if they had one) would have allowed access to the frame for inspection and negate the need for a shock loading check on an in-use engine. If they didn’t have a spare a shock load check would have been required. 

As an avionics engineer that is about the limit of my knowledge.