Editor:

I was afraid that when Jessica Dubroff's quest ended in tragedy last week, the public would be assigning the blame to the wrong question as to why it happened. They are. The reason that her flight crashed was due to poor judgment, but not one on her part. She was not allowed to make those types of judgments. Experience of the instructor, not age, was the critical factor in this crash.

The same questions are being asked by everyone, including those on the April 15 Wildcat editorial page. I would like to provide my responses to those questions. First, the need to be 16 to attain a license of a motor vehicle is the same as it is for a private pilot to be 16. It is the age in which the government credits young adults with the ability to exercise sound judgment.

Airplanes have dual controls, and though it may be hard to believe, things happen many times slower in flight than they do on the ground. David Hinson of the FAA stated this in his press conference last Thursday. While it would only take a second or less for disaster to strike on the ground, it would take much longer for it to occur in the air. This allows for ample warning and time to remedy the situation from either seat.

Secondly, Keith Allen ("Don't rush a child into adulthood," April 15) criticized that if extensions were required for Jessica to reach the rudder pedals and to see over the dash, then she was not ready to handle the airplane, physically. At flight schools across the country, there are many individuals with varying forms of disabilities that are able to fly airplanes with certain extensions. These same individuals are operating motor vehicles with the same success. Should we then criticize this? And how many times have we heard of people driving on seat cushions or telephone books?

Finally, and most importantly, should children be able to make the decisions related to the flight environment? Absolutely not. They are capable of it at that age, which is precisely why they are not allowed to. All decisions regarding this flight were the responsibility of the pilot in command, and that was the flight instructor as federal regulations, and common sense, state. Jessica would not have been allowed to depart if her instructor would have disapproved, which he should have done.

The person responsible for this tragedy was the instructor. He made a critical error and allowed the aircraft to be overloaded. This becomes a deadly oversight when combined with the thin air at high altitude like at Cheyenne, Wyo., an environment that the instructor had no experience with. The aircraft was not able to achieve stable flight, due to a loss of lift from the wings, and then stalled to the ground.

We saw how much Jessica loved flying, as do many others young and old. It takes training for anyone to be able to make sound judgment regarding a flight. The more training a pilot is offered, the safer pilot they will become. At no point in any pilot's training are they allowed to be the sole decision-makers. This privilege only comes with a license. That Cessna with that instructor at that time and place would have crashed with or without Jessica in the plane.

Brad Milligan
political science senior