[QUOTE=Mach E Avelli;10333068]
But consider that most accidents result from more than one cause - often a combination of equipment, environmemt and the human.
*** so aircraft - weather and location and pilot.
Old aircraft, primitive instrumentation, poor performance, mountainous terrain, bad weather, non existent instrument approach (and possibly no aircraft capability to do it anyway).
** New aircraft have a good and recent crash history - No it is actually published performance that the pilot studies and is aware about, I don't think any person disagrees about the weather being bad or that it was know an instrument approach was not possible - but they were far from needing an instrument approach.
Even if the tail did not fall off or the elevator cable did not break, or an engine was not down on power, this was no simple CFIT.
*** Fact trouble was far before the crash so no the tail did not fall off nor could a elevator cable have broken (check the actual flight data) - an engine down on power is a long shot - ref the POH and the surrounds and make a call. (but a good climb on a engine low power)
CFIT implies it is all the pilot’s fault. All avenues including structure and maintenance history and instrument serviceability must be investigated. We owe that much to this unfortunate pilot and those who will grieve for her.
** Prove one fact mate! you have nil.
So here is another statistic ( I saw it on TV so it must be right): Of all occupations, that of aircraft pilot is the 3rd (or may have been 4th) most dangerous. Note “occupation” so the implication is that weekend warrior PPLs are not included. Now, we all know that airline flying is the safest mode of transport, so take out airline pilots from the data and we have GA as a very hazardous undertaking indeed. Up there with firefighting and bomb disposal.
*** Disproved in a thread last week!