Having posted about stalls, and linking an NTSB report, it occurs to me to highlight the other aspect of that report which deserves some sober thinking - the affect of the Garmin ESP system on the pilot's handling during intentional stalls. The report I mention (and contributed to) is reproduced in part here:
https://www.accidents.app/summaries/...20221118106317
Prior to being asked by the NTSB Investigator to comment this investigation report, I was unaware of the existence of the Garmin ESP system (it's new, I generally fly legacy airplanes). So, I had to do some research and thinking to consider how I, as an old pilot, would handle such a new system, as probably the "old" accident pilot had to - unknowingly, I suspect. After sending my comments off to the NTSB, and filing a mental note about new avionics systems, life went on. A month later, life included test flying a Cessna 182P amphibian. During stall testing, sure enough, the airplane begins to "take over" un announced, including a dramatic pitch down, when the pitch trim rolled from full nose up, to full nose down in 5 seconds (normal electric trim operation would have been 15 seconds). Rather startled, I recovered the resulting pitch over (amphibians do not build up speed near as quickly as "clean" planes, so not a serious outcome, but a serious event in my estimation. With no placarding, nor warning, while flying a type I've been flying for more than 40 years, something new happened - control was "supplemented" away from me by a system I did not know was there.
I recalled the comments I had made about the Garmin ESP system in the Caravan. This airplane had a new suit of Garmin glass. Then I remembered the ESP green 45 degree roll indicators, and this airplane displayed those. I wrestled the airplane through roll, and sure enough, the ESP system was activating, and supplementing my control inputs. This sent me back the manuals, and a much better research into this system - and how to turn it off (recommended for flying intentional stalls). There are other concerns beyond the scope of this discussion, including a less than safe possible situation resulting from the combined ESP system, and the MT reversing propeller installed. That's a whole other discussion.
In the mean time, I'm posting this here, for the simple purpose of reminding instructors and check pilots that a new, or retrofitted legacy airplane, could have this system installed. In "normal" flying, I would support this system, as being a "JFK Jr. saver", so a good thing. But, it needs to be properly understood by the pilot, and during training, disabled (a few menu pages in). I have made a safety recommendation that at the very least, such systems must be placarded as being installed and operating in the background. I also have recommended that any airplane with this system be required to have white marks on the pitch trim wheel, which would make uncommanded motion of the pitch trim wheel more apparent to the pilot.
So, if you're training a pilot in a glass cockpit plane new to you, it would be wise to determine the possible presence of the system. The pilot in the referenced accident report did not do this, though in many other aspects, I know that the pilot prepared very professionally for the flight test - in an airplane new to him. The ESP system supplementing his handling efforts during the recovery from an intentional stall made recovery less confident (read the report summary, and draw your own conclusion about that). Then train your candidate pilot to be more aware of the operation, particularly in the background, of systems in the airplane they are flying. The Flight Manual Supplement will describe this system, but it's not in the first few pages - and not placarded!