My condolences to family and friends affected by this tragedy.
A few years ago (ok, around 16) I had to be specifically endorsed to fly the Mojave. The type endorsement was designated PA31L and I had to do it in spite of considerable PA31-350, PA31-310 and pressurised turbo-prop experience.
And frankly, it made sense once I read the AFM and flew the aircraft. The Mojave was, in my opinion, and that of the regulator, of sufficient differences to require specific training.
Suddenly, around 7 or 8 years ago (?), that requirement disappeared and subsequently, PA31L disappeared from my licence. It was deemed that a PA31 endorsement and a pressurisation endorsement, possibly on an entirely different aircraft, entitled you to hop in and fly this aircraft. With no additional training.
I'd like to ask, what risk assessment was done on this decision?
What do other pilots, who have flown both types, think?
I have always thought it was a little laissez-faire of CASA to remove the requirement for specific training. It was a different aircraft in many ways.
This is open speculation, but what has happened could indeed have its roots in training deficiencies arising from poor regulation and poor risk management.
Whatever this young man's rationale was for not accepting YSRI when offered cannot be known (mens era?) but the reality is that he called on the sum total of his knowledge and made a decision. That the decision can subsequently be shown to be flawed is not stupidity, it is tragedy.
We should look for every possible reason as to why he made this decision. Would other pilots of similar experience, training and operating within the same corporate culture, have made the same decision?
And I don"t believe the answer comes down to any single individual who trained him. We work within a system.
Someone wrote, "Human error does not occur within a vacuum, but within systems that either foster it, or resist it...."
The worst part is, that for those who are left behind, this'll never go away.
and for that, I'm truly sorry.