Gary Drescher wrote:
Hilton wrote:
Tom Fleischman wrote:
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, ...

He had an opportunity (and responsibility) to verify his altimeter reading
when crossing the FAF. And when he acknowledged the low-altitude alert,
the
altitude he reported was consistent with ATC's radar. And regardless of
his
altimeter reading, he would've been well below the glideslope.

He was already inexplicably low; he acknowledged a low-altitude alert
while
continuing to descend, taking the time to report his altimeter setting and
his indicated altitude, but without mentioning any mechanical or medical
problems; and then he had a heart attack, or his student carried out a
murder-suicide? I think Tom is justified to conclude that such a sequence
is
unlikely.

I absolutely agree that it *appears* that the CFI messed up. Most accident
sequences are pretty 'obvious', this one included. But just when you think
the cause is obvious, it turns out to be something else. I've just seen too
many accident reports like this to state absolutely what happened only a few
days after the accident with minimal investigation. Perhaps some guy taxied
into the ILS critical area by mistake? Heck, I don't know. While the
'obvious' conclusion is that the CFI screwed up, let's not trash the guy's
name too early in the investigation.

Hilton