Tom Fleischman wrote:

Baloney, it contains a lot that is new.

1 - There was communication with the tower throughout the approach and
the pilot was WARNED that he was too low and continued to descend
anyway.

So ? If the instructor was in the cockpit drinking beer with the student
and jerking off with a magazine, that hardly bears on the *ridiculous*
conclusion made here that somehow this flight *never should have been
made* because it involved because it involved a student and a pilot
flying IFR. The status of the passenger was irrelivant, he/she could
have been sightseeing for all I care. If the instructor was current,
then he/she could fly IFR.


2 - It appears that his medical was out of date and he was not legal to
be PIC on that flight.

3 - There was nothing wrong with the major aircraft systems that could
be evaluated on the preliminary report suggesting that a mechanical
problem was not a likely cause.

4 - It appears that American Flyers is incapable of even keeping track
of the medical currency of their instructors, a fairly simple task.
That is gross negligence IMHO.

I don't know where you get the idea that I have set myself up as judge
and jury on this. Obviously you have not been reading my other posts on
the subject. But the more information that comes out on this crash the
more disturbing it becomes.

Now, what's YOUR agenda here? Eh?


So maybe the pilot screwed up. Maybe American fryers did. Whats the bearing
on IFR safety here ?

"I'm sorry, I'm from the FAA, you can't go IFR with that student"

"but hes not a student, hes just a passenger"

"well, thats ok then...."

BTW from the report, all you have is the airplane was low, and the instructor
knew it. You don't know why he was low, or what he was doing about it
(if anything). That's an example of your being "judge and jury" here.