GA bias in "general" insurance?

Peter,

You recall incorrectly. From the NTSB report,

I recall half-correctly. The FAA had revoked his medical and asked him to send
in his certificate because of alcohol abuse. Whether any of the two letters
the FAA sent to that effect reached him is unclear (but I have an idea about
how it might have been handled). But, as it says in the NTSB report: "The
letter informs the pilot that based on the above information, he did not meet
the medical standards prescribed in Part 67 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations, and a determination was made that he was not qualified for any
class of medical certificate at that time."

I would thus modify my statement to say that he was not legal to fly as a
pilot in command at the time of the flight. A pilot needs a certificate AND a
medical for that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
[...]
I would thus modify my statement to say that he was not legal to fly as a
pilot in command at the time of the flight. A pilot needs a certificate
AND a
medical for that.

Whatever.

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:23:49 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

I would thus modify my statement to say that he was not legal to fly as a
pilot in command at the time...

I seem to recall that as well. However, it's irrelevant to my point
that as an experienced pilot (which he was), his accident was
different from Lidle's and Kennedy's classic low time blunders.

Nor, BTW, despite the FAA's action, was alcohol a factor in Denver's
crash.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I learn the innermost secrets of the people around me, they reward me in many ways to keep me quiet.

Dana,

his accident was
different from Lidle's and Kennedy's classic low time blunders.


I don't even think those too are similar enough to compare. Just as one
difference, Lidle had a flight instructor with him.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)