I thought the primary benefit of the sky-crane method was avoiding kicking up high-velocity rocks and dust that could damage the lander, by direct impact or by

I thought the primary benefit of the sky-crane method was avoiding kicking up high-velocity rocks and dust that could damage the lander, by direct impact or by falling, during the last moments of the landing? It might allow for more sensitive instruments and tools, with less protection on them. For example the helicopter was slung underneath the latest NASA lander, and though it had a protective shell, you still don't want a rock to whack that Arguably, though sky-crane is cool and clever, it isn't so much more complex than a system in which the rover must drive off a landing platform after it is safely down. That also has a lot of moving parts and opportunities for failure But if a sky-crane lander lands successfully, at least you can be sure it isn't already covered in grit and dust