JohnBurke

The aircraft was not safe. It was no longer airworthy. It was not legal. Neither of you had any means of determining the status of the engine or airframe without a thorough inspection, which would have required, by necessity, a teardown of the engine and up to several weeks of time. A great deal of potential damage can exist beneath the surface, often unseen. A big question mark and an unairworthy aircraft does not make for a safe flight.

To be airworthy, an aircraft must be within compliance of its type certificate, and safe to fly. Yours was neither airworthy, nor legal, nor safe.

The fact that your instructor was neither calm nor collected means he was not safe for flight. He certainly did not set a good example, but his actions were not legal, not conductive to safety, and his actions as a mechanic and instructor could easily cost him his FAA certification.

It's rightly said that when you undertake a flight, you should place the safety of that flight at a greater premium than your family, your religion, your government, or your pets. If you fail to conduct that flight safely, you may never see your family again, go to church, pay your taxes, or feed your pet. Stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime, your instructor cost his employer money as well as put the reputation and future of the company at risk. How much money might he have saved had your engine or propeller failed on your trip home.

What was he thinking conducting the flight back at a couple thousand feet, instead of climbing high enough to buy more glide time? Stupidity. Not as stupid as departing at night cross country after the deer strike, but one more broken link in the chain.

There is a moment in the film "Blue Thunder" in which the main character comments to a young, junior pilot, "You're supposed to be stupid. Don't abuse it."

You're not stupid. You're a student. When you're flying, you're flying on your instructor's certificate. He's responsible. With the added qualifications of mechanic, his culpability is all the greater.

His attitude was laid bare when he made the call to fly home after the deer strike.

I'd have already fired him. His employer may have little choice if the FAA becomes involved, and the FAA should be involved. This pilot lacks the maturity, experience, wisdom, skill, leadership, and fortitude to make a simple, clear-cut decision. This event was not a grey area. It was not questionable from a maintenance standpoint, nor from that of an instructor. It is a gross failing on both counts, and you do your instructor no favor by attempting to absorb some of his blame.

You keep saying you should know better. You should know better than to continue flying with this instructor. Learning is defined by a change in behavior. Whether you fly with this instructor again will attest to your learning from this event.

Absolutely not; that's a very dangerous assumption, and no engine manufacturer provides guidance, following a prop strike, which suggests that so long as there's no visible damage on the prop, the matter is concluded. Quite the opposite. Damage may have taken place in multiple locations, many of which cannot be seen externally, and many of which can only be detected through nondestructive testing.

Really no risk of that, but the fact that the damage occurred to a part mechanically attached to the aircraft, following a collision on the runway, indicates a requirement for inspection beyond the surface. Had the airplane been altered in a manner acceptable to the administrator? No. It was unairworthy. With respect to the transponder antenna, several avenues would have been available for remedy, none of which were taken. An external inspection would have been insufficient for any of them.

The transponder wasn't inoperative. The antenna was ripped off. Structural damage occurred. Not the same as inoperative instruments or hardware. While the instructor might have sought a special flight permit, the barrier to obtaining that permit wouldn't have been the transponder, but the prop strike and collision on the runway. As a certificated mechanic, the instructor couldn't reasonably argue he was unaware. That makes his decision all the more egregious.