reasons
Freewheel,
Thank you for correcting me; I was unaware of the fact that there were two seperate MR strikes in two seperate helicopters. As I said, it was a great dinner!
Sarcs, Ledsled;
Just hold on a minute fellas. I have no interest in entering into your war with CASA.
It should come as no surprise that Richard Green's epistles should be in support of his own position. It would have been ludicrous if his missives were presented in some other way.
That; however, makes neither Richard nor CASA (nor anyone else for that matter) either erroneous or correct.
Similarly, I am not trying to relate the entire proceedings of the AAT. I just found the information of interest. As I have also said, we will have to wait for the report of this tragic accident to commence to understand the trail of events.
As for 'a priori'; theoretical deduction is commonly used in the construction of test flying programmes, for instance. You get the test points and then you go out, fly them and seek evidence (the 'scientific method') that the theoretical is demonstrable in the practical.
It does not mean that 'a priori' predictions are always of less value. Somethings you either cannot or do not want to test in the air, or are items that cannot be faithfully replicated in a simulator.
'Evidence', 'demonstration' are the things that you achieve; never 'proof' unless it is 'proof' of the catastrophic; something that inevitably leads to disaster and must be avoided by all means.