BOAC,
you are misreading me. I wonder, wilfully?
I objected to you using a "primary cause/contributing factor" distinction to contradict a point I made, and I also objected to you using a common but confused notion of "accident" to the same end. That is neither THEORY nor PRACTICE but SOPHISTRY. And how you get from there to read me as apparently suggesting that an EMAS would have stopped the TAM aircraft is neither THEORY nor PRACTICE but FANTASY.
So there
PBL