Modern pilots have never experienced a spin because it is no longer taught in basic training.
The powers that be decided that there were more deaths in spin training than from accidental spins.

In a spin recovery ailerons should be positioned as specified in the pilots handbook for that particular aircraft.

For reasons that are quite longwinded to explain, the effect of aileron on a spinning aircraft is dependent upon the relationship between the wing inertia and the fuselage inertia of the aircraft at that moment in time (Often referred to as B/A ratio). For some aircraft there is always a benefit in applying a particular aileron (in or out spin). If so it will say so in the pilots handbook.

Many aircraft however operate in a regime where the B/A ratio is close to the point at which the required antispin aileron may be in or out depending upon things like CofG and fuel load. Since its obviously better to apply NO aileron rather than the WRONG aileron the advice is therefore to leave ailerons neutral for those aircraft.

Spins, (incipient and fully developed) - and of course the recovery therefrom - are mandatory parts of the gliding training syllabus in Australia and probably elsewhere, and AFAIK all pilots down here are required to demonstrate effective recovery from spins as a part of their annual checks . Gliders can spend a lot of their flight regime circling in thermals - not all that much above the stall speed, often at high angles of bank and in varying turbulence. Additionally the correct and constant use of the rudder is essential for efficient turning, so it all has to be closely co-ordinated. While pilots are trained to recognise and correct at the incipient stage until this becomes an automatic and instinctive reaction to the telltale symptoms, it's clearly far better to fly with sufficient accuracy and awareness such that the issue never arises. Happily most / all gliders require very similar control inputs for spin recovery. Spins were fun. I used to do one or two occasionally as part of the rare and privileged 'hangar flight' in the early days when I was young and adventurous, and gliders were much less "slippery" than they are today.

Condor
 

It wasnt incorrect spin recovery but an idiot who had adjusted up the brakes and restricted the rudder movement. He had been grounded after running out of fuel taxying in after a cross country and took it on his own initiative to illegaly adjust the brakes and not tell anyone. He later became an airline pilot.
My pupil many years later got into modifying pitts to roll faster, I gave him a grand to travel to portugal to see if we could buy the air force chipmunks. He was a big bloke and had served on avaition fuel convoys in the way. His first crash was air testing an aircraft in shoreham after major restoration where the AoA rear spar clevis pins had been left out.
The Christian Eagle crash was an inadvertent spin although the report stated he was doing low level aeros which I don't believe...but who believes all accident reports in their right mind anyway.
my bit about centralising the controls wasnt about spin recovery.

In a loss of control scenario, " ... low level aeros ..." could be unintentional. What an uninformed witness describes as "low level aeros" could be attempts to recover control of an airplane. The cause of a loss of control is all too often never determined. R.I.P. your friend.

Grog

I'm a dinosaur from the time when perhaps most aircraft and certainly all trainers, would spin and spin recovery techniques were a mandatory requirement of the ab initio syllabus. As a consequence, I have never had a problem with controlling any aircraft cleared for such manoeuvres. Actually, not quite true. I once came very close to disaster when a Chipmunk went almost flat in an erect spin - I was lucky to recover but lost over 2,000ft in the process. Never went more than two turns after that.

Wonkazoo is correct - the absence of spin appreciation from statutory licensing requirements is a serious omission. Frankly, I don't subscribe to the theory that modern light aircraft don't spin and therefore teaching recovery is not necessary. That might have a spurious validity in a straight and level stall (if the a/c can be made to stall) but most incidences seem to occur in the circuit, suggesting a spin initiated by an unintended wing drop or something similar. The rudder has become a secondary level of control and little understood by those brought up on flat-engined, nosewheel aircraft.

In a parallel thread related to IMC ratings, I have suggested that all PPL candidates should receive ca.10 hours basic IMC experience to give them a degree of competence when caught out by weather. Similarly, I think it would improve general safety and prove a useful piloting experience (I'm not advocating an advanced "skill") if spin recovery was reintroduced to the standard examination. Of course, where they find suitable aircraft is different problem . . .

As this tragic accident shows, even experienced display pilots flying aerobatic aircraft can be caught out by certain types of spin. No matter how much spin training they have received in a Cessna 152 during their initial PPL course. Therefore I personally think that teaching spin avoidance instead of spin recovery is the right thing to do.

No spin recovery training for glider license (LAPL) in Germany.

I was thinking of something less prosaic than a 152! Nevertheless, I agree with you absolutely, However, things don't always go as expected so it is useful to have a "plan B"; avoidance first and recovery second. After all, we do spend sim time practising recovery from unusual attitudes which might be seen as an extension to my argument.

No, let me rephrase that.
As this tragic accident shows, even experienced display pilots flying aerobatic aircraft can be caught out by certain types of controls malfunctions or sudden medical problems.

Too soon for me to simply conclude that he screwed the pooch on a spin via a grainy youtube video.

Could it be as simple as the pilot applying an incorrect rudder input and holding it thinking that it takes a few turns for the aircraft to recover? Then by the time the mistake was realized it was too late to recover?

Older aircraft don't always react as they should
 

Had and know of several occurrences especially in turbulence.
Doing a clean stall in a Beech baron had it flick inverted with ailerons and rudder virtually centred. Similarly mountain flying in a grob twin Astir doing figure of eights at 200ft agl. Colleague doing high fly in a trident 1 and when the stick push went off the nose just hovered for several seconds.

According to tvn24.pl (https://www.tvn24.pl/plock-pilot-jak...950295,s.html)

The camera that was attached to the outside of the plane and was pointing into the cockpit has been recovered. The face of the pilot although partially obscured is visible. Pilot was conscious until the very end and perished during initial impact. There does not appear to be any urgency in the pilots actions, which leads to speculation that the pilot might have been confused by the the reflections from the water surface and not aware of the low altitude. Preliminary investigation by Panstwowa Komisja Badania Wypadkow Lotniczych (NTSB equivalent) determined that the plane was fully serviceable and did not suffer any in flight malfunction. Although fuel contamination has not been ruled out as tests are still pending. At this point the main cause of the accident appears to be a pilot's error.

Olek