BSU,
Before the big bang there is no experience, after the big bang there is experience. The individual chance of a critical system event occurring is unassociated with experience. The risk of a bird strike, engine failure, trim runaway is equally distributed across the career of the crew member. The recovery method suggested by the FCTM is apparently problematic given recent history, and the wording is hardly confidence inspiring. If the pilot was old enough to have had training that included the gems on this that are coming out now, then that is wonderful, and all would still be right in the world. Reading the FCTM alone would not necessarily result in competency in conducting the implied manoeuvre, one which assumes that there are two pilots in the seat at the time, and that sufficient altitude exists to recover the aircraft from the trim problem.
The more reflection on the recovery technique, the less it appears to be reasonable to be conducted, and at the very least the more necessity there is to undertake the training in the simulator. A yo-yo manoeuvre is not what one expects to be needed in a Part 25 transport, it is likely to spill the champagne in the front and to end up with a flight attendant shaped dent in the overhead lining down the back. The calendar indicates this is now 2019, and the FCTM suggests in rather vague terms a procedure that is essentially aerobatic, and Wilbur and Orville would have not been so happy with in 1903.
The design standard and the design is unlikely to be changed any time soon, but anyone considering that the crew of these two accidents were deficient in dealing with the trim condition needs to take a look in the mirror, and think seriously about the situation they were placed into. Post hoc, it is quite easy to say "I woudn't have done that" or "I would have done this", but I can say that I trained late in my jet career on the 73, under an FAA 142, and the implied procedure of the FCTM was not a takeaway, conceptually or in practice. Having flown some rather lousy designs where jack stall could occur, the concept in the unloading is not alien, but when the procedure calls for both pilots on the controls at the same time, and to undertake a ballistic flight path either upwards or downwards as determined by the in trim speed that has been established by the uncommanded motion, that just doesn't appear to gel with the spirit of RPT jet transport certification by the leaders of the worlds aerospace regulators.
The recovery technique that is implied in the FCTM, and which is not incorporated in the QRH as a recall item, is rather depressing, no matter how much lipstick is put on it.
In respect to the "errors" suggested to have occurred, the alternative observation is the pilot had ascertained that the stall warning was spurious, and therefore engaged the A/P, and retracted flaps. Perhaps he had a compelling reason to maintain speed, perhaps arising from the fact that the AOA outputs to the ADIRU and alters that sides IAS as a function of the sensed AOA, a refinement of the air data system... therefore having both AOA and IAS issues, the pilot elected to prudently maintain power to gain separation from the hard stuff. Perhaps. Equally as likely, under the assault of information and task demands that confronted the pilots, they were cognitively overloaded. Perhaps. Getting into a situation where you are leaving teeth marks on the elevators is never fun, and even less when there is a risk of catastrophic outcomes. The next crew to experience such conditions will have been gifted the insight that sober reflection on the situation that befell these crews. Whether the pilot had 1.5 years or 150 years is unlikely to be a factor in the outcome of the event, IMHO.