Instead of trashing someone is isn't around to defend himself, what would we prefaced the accident by speculating the guy flew this route regularly, was proficient in the airplane, had lots of current time, took care in his planning and when flying with his family, had checked wx and notams and fuel and all the things we are supposed to do.  What if someone said all those things were done and the pilot was normally a stickler for safety?   How about we start with that as an assumption instead of the pilot assumed to be "auto-deficient" as we see from the back benchers?

I think you owe this guy the courtesy of assuming he was a good pilot and look for circumstances that would take us all by surprise instead of the easy solution that he was a dolt.  I don't understand the need for speculation immediately that the pilot was not proficient or skilled or ignored rules.   Those early comments are really harsh considering the circumstances.  Shame on you guys.

Paul
Legacy