Low time PPL's new to complex types
From a discussion elsewhere about a particular accident, I made the following post. This theme is not new to me, and I have seen it from many sides over the years. It's probably worthy of some thought, particularly as GA airplanes are becoming much more advanced and capable....
Though I have no direct knowledge of this accident, nor the pilot's skills, the discussion brings to my mind the general topic of sub-standard [skills] PPL's. I'm thinking that this might become a "Private Flying" sticky, we'll see...
In my time doing advanced GA "type" training for PPL owners new to their advanced type, I have clear recall of three PPL's, who after more than a dozen hours in each case jut were no up to my minimum standard. The first element of my challenge has been that I am not a certified instructor, and the Canadian regulations did not require that I be, as as a CPL, I am entitled to give float training, which was what two of the three (C 185 amphibian, and Lake Amphibian) were, (the third was familiarization training on a Bellanca Viking). So, in each case the pilot came to me as a PPL, who I would have presumed had demonstrated the basic skills for that privilege. In all three cases, after that amount of training to the pilot, and after consulting mentor instructors I know, I determined that I lacked the time or technique to give the pilot what they needed, and I stopped, without providing the requested "letter to the insurer". Sadly, in each case, the PPL flew that airplane away anyway - I had no power to stop them, they just had no insurance - a severe attitude indicator on its own!
I have never heard that any of them were ever involved in an accident, so apparently, for whatever amount of flying they did, they were good enough to survive. Does that mean that my standards are too high? They did earn a PPL by demonstrating the minimum skills in a "simple" trainer. But now they were flying a complex single GA type, which was much more capable and demanding.
The pilots who have mentored me over the decades characteristically demanded high performance from me. In hindsight, I can see that they were teaching me what they knew I needed to know, rather than teaching a syllabus or to pass a test. I can now see a difference between being actually mentored, and simply being put through a program - it can be a very big difference! Very few students or new PPL's would know the difference, and indeed some newer instructors, who are eager to satisfy their employer would think to challenge the norms. Ultimately, this comes down to the responsibility of the PPL student to seek out and demand training to a high standard - once they figure out who can provide it.
In training I started last fall for a new PPL on the new to him very advanced Cessna amphibious floatplane, it was obviously well outside his norms. His attitude was excellent, and he had no resistance to my requiring a greater skill set, but I worry that his PPL training did not prepare him for what could be differences he would likely encounter with more advanced types. After 7 hours in three sessions of so far land only, we're not even half way where he needs to be for me to send him solo on wheels, let alone on the water.
I think about these low time/experience in complex GA airplane accidents, particularly where there may have been a dependence (for lack of skill or capacity) on cockpit automation. I'm not sure that we're pointed the right way on this. I recently rewatched "children of the magenta", which can easily be found on YouTube. I wholly agree that when things start going bad, particularly in VMC, turning off the automation, rather than depending upon it to assist you is probably the better thing!