When a tragic event like this appearsto have “pilot” decisions / actions as a contributory factor it makes all pilots think hard. It is a natural human reaction to seek explanations that allow one to find comfort; “that can’thappen to me because…. “ In this case,any CPL or ATPL holder can grab the straw of “PPL” or “rich business man”because they are neither, so it won’t happen to them.
It is clear from the records that accidents for which the investigating authority has concluded that “pilot” decisions / actions were a contributory factor happen to pilots of all levels of qualification, training,currency and recency. Therefore a focuson the pilot license type is delusional; that response actually denies the possibility to learn from the tragedy, and so hope to reduce the risk of futurereoccurrence.
The common factor in accidents where pilot decisions /actions is a contributory factor is just that; the pilot made poor decisions and / or took the wrong actions. Typically that happened not once but several times. Looking at one CPL, experienced, current-piloted accident flight :the weather was poor (but he lifted), the client said “don’t bother” (but he went), overhead the destination he aborted due to weather and could have gone home, but instead chose to drop through a “sucker hole” to divert, he could have hovered, noisily, awaiting landing permission but chose to orbit, went IMC and then CFIT. How many options to “do something different”?
As others have said, experience / currency /recency are useful IF they lead to better decision making; to keep you out of the situations where your experience might be required to get you out of trouble. So it is about the mindset of the pilot, and having the sense, and the strength of mind, to stay on the ground, chose a more appropriate route, or simply to put it in a field before you run-out of VFR.