Bloody Nora... just read the updated report. My original impression was of his ETA NP being 1630 Local. The way this thread has developed alerted me to the error in my impression... that's just untidy.
Remoak is spot-on with his analysis. The loss of experience, knowledge and ability in the instructor cadre is an issue that the regulators in both NZ and AUS (to my personal knowledge) are aware of and publicly (? within industry anyway...) acknowledge -but they're apparently quite prepared to sit on their fingers and do precisely
nothing about it. Darwinism at its most savage? If not quite yet, then surely soon.
Similarly, the reason for the loss of knowledge/experience etc. is
readily apparent to the regulator as it is to industry participants. GA pilots doing the "hard yards" in old, poorly equipped and (sometimes) maintained airframes, most of which must be hand-flown 100% of the time VFR and IFR are usually paid
less than the pimply 15yo Macca's trainee that hands over the $2.95 burger that probably represents the most nutritious food they can sustainably afford. What a friggin nonsense that is. The regulator however, simply washes their hands of any responsibility to the pilots -beyond making it harder more time consuming and more expensive for them (personally) to meet their regulatory responsibilities. Exactly where did the regulators expect the "I'll fly for free" attitude to wind up? Exactly where it has and will contine to do -until the regulator acknowledges their responsibility to the pilots is
the same as their responsibility to ensure the fiscal integrity of the businesses they certificate. Surely you can't be having a fiscally responsible business that doesn't accept their fiscal responsibility to their employees. I certainly can't think of any other business models that would survive like that.
The only way to prevent this sort of thing is to ensure the experienced pilots are encouraged to remain in or return to GA. That means they have to be able to afford to do what they love and they have to be supported by the regulator rather than have the regulator hound them out of industry because of passing some arbitrary number on a calendar -with that number being set by a (medical) profession that can't even get it's own ****e all in the same sock. Too busy playing politics.
<sigh>
/rant_off
