That is largely mitigated by the MUCH more reliable turboprop in the M600. They have problems much less frequently than piston engines. Not to say they don't happen, or that it isn't important that pilots train for engine out scenarios, it's crucial for pilot safety and an integral part of Aeronautical Decision Making, but this technology on a turboprop platform has the potential to dramatically reduce the likelihood of a fatal accident.

There even exists software for auto-planning a route for a dead stick landing: Xavion, by the author of x-plane.

I seem to remember reading like 4 or more years ago, that there was an experimental autoland system actually powered by that software, and could autoland in a dead stick situation.

EDIT: Found the experimental engine-out auto-land system based on the same technology as xavion: It is called the VP-400 by Vertical Power. I'm not sure if it ever became a purchasable product.

I think this a case for better GA trining. Expecting engine failure on takeoff, building the counterintuitive pitch-down reflex to avoid stall, and so on. Knowing your minimum maneuverable speed (and marking it on your air speed indicator). Expecting something to go wrong is the key mindset. A GA death happens roughly once a week for the reasons you outline. Emergency situations are not time to learn new skills, you need to have it down.

That's true, but, we also accept a certain risk as GA pilots being non-commercial. The risk we accept is translated into a larger GA industry that makes flying as a hobby "affordable" to mere mortals (read: wealthy non-millonaires and not career pilots.)

We can require more training for GA, but the training burden is already pretty high, and the GA industry is still shrinking last time I checked. Boosting safety requirements in the form of additional training for GA may save a few lives, but also those gains could be simply because there will be fewer hobby pilots.

The fact is that GA planes falling out of the sky just doesn't kill very many people. It obviously feels terrible to the families involved in a crash, but relative to automotive deaths, lung cancer, murders, etc, it is a tiny tiny blip in the numbers. Obviously being a GA pilot boosts your chance of dying in a small airplane crash, in the same way that learning to ride a motorcycle boosts your chance of dying in a motorcycle crash. The alternative of killing off recreational flying, is worse.

I’m not talking about making training harder - just changing the mindset of GA pilots. I wrote more in a reply below if you’re interested.

This system appears to be designed primarily for situations involving pilot incapacitation, not compensating for deficits in pilot skill.

All of that was covered, to the point of automatic reflex, during my Private Pilot training. I'm pretty sure it was standard, and not just my Instructor.

Private training varies, I have a friend that didn’t build that reflex properly until training for instrument cert. If you ask lots of private pilots - what’s more important: constant awareness of minimum maneuverable speed, or stall recovery - I expect most will answer stall recovery. Commercial pilots will answer the opposite. It’s a different mindset that’s been driven by commercial airlines. My point is GA training can be improved, and it’s not hard - just a change in mindset towards risk and preparedness.

I agree that that answer is strange. I would have assumed that everyone would answer that it's better to avoid the stall in the first place than have to deal with recovering from it. Clearly, I'm wrong!

I disagree with that. You might now be a pilot who has lost his experience in how to land an airplane and so will do a much worse job of it compounded by the emergency situation. Every landing is also training.

Yes, that true, but this autoland system is not intended for routine use. It's for emergencies only.

Ah, 'you' being 'the passenger and/or the incapacitated pilot' rather than the regular and healthy variety of pilot. Ok, now I understand your comment. Thank you for clarifying.