"Hilton" wrote in
ink.net:

snip
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.

Exactly - nothing on the *preliminary* report - that's why they don't
stop there. This does not suggest that "mechanical problem was not
likely the cause". All it says is that the preliminary report showed
nothing wrong with the major aircraft systems. Do you know that his
static port wasn't blocked, that his altimeter was set correctly and
reading correctly, that he didn't suffer a heart attack, that the
student didn't committed suicide, ...

snip

The whole situation is unfortunate, and it is impossible for anyone to
accurately state what happened.

However, on an ILS approach, I don't believe a failed PitotStatic System
would prevent the glideslope from reading fully deflected at 1 mile and
300' low. If I'm not mistaken, at 5 miles, the reading is about 50' per
dot, and at 1 mile the reading is about 8' per dot.

Furthermore, the fact that he is reported to have read back his altitude
in response to the warning and it was within 100' of what they told him
during a descent strongly implies that he did not have a blocked static
port...

Additionally, the fact that he was as much as 400' low outside the FAF
implies that he was not properly managing the airplane for a significant
amount of time.

While it is not clear what exactly went wrong, there seems to be
evidence that the instructor may not have been very conservative or
attentive. Whether or not that was the cause of the accident or even
contributed to it is impossible to say.