Fair point OF. Mr Lappos apparently waited for the topic to deviate into the specifics of the AAR trials before throwing that nugget in without quoting it's source directly. One could almost assume he did that deliberately to mislead.If one were more suspicious than me. Which one clearly isn't. Damn my suspicious mind! Funny that. So what's actually happened is that Mr Lappos has swanned in and started gainsaying another piece of information or statistic in a sneery "yeah, right!" kind of way because it'd never do to complement the team on an achievement, then make a sneery remark about the number of blades needed because he's read a report somewhere that contains such words as "would" rather than "will", but chooses to ignore the fundamentally different patina the use of such words casts on the report in a continuing effort to fight a corner he's no longer even holding the towel in, never mind fighting from?
Oh right. In that case my point stands. . . .
Stand by for further specious "crashworthiness" facts and figures, just don't stand by for further news of the snowballing success story that is the CH-148 to date. Oh look, I made a sneery remark. Easy eh?