The central aspect of the safety notice is awareness of the aircraft’s trim condition, particularly with conventional trim systems.
Several off-topic posts imply ‘the crew must have known that ”, representing our inability to explain behaviour and awareness.
There are many definitions of (situation) awareness, generally science based, anchoring reference points are useful in discussions - what ‘it’ is, the ‘know what’ part of knowledge. This does not help understand an individual’s activities in forming and using knowledge; assessing training programmes or individual performance - ‘know how to’.
This difference aligns with training knowledge, explicit and tacit, where the factual aspects are easier to teach from books, etc, but the tacit depends on activity, self learning, interaction.
Broadly, awareness is ‘knowing what’s going on so you can figure out what to do’.
How do we determine what is going on. This is classic high level HF, often simplified with a reference point.
One post - ‘knowing where the stick is’, must be considered in relation to some norm, a point of reference. e.g. the seat position, any change in reference could affect the sense of position. Conventional aircraft use force-feel more than position as the primary reference. Zero force = the aircraft is ‘in trim’, but not for all situations; understanding this is central to awareness in abnormal situations.
e.g. training sim, with AP engaged induce a lateral out of trim - fuel imbalance; fail the AP.
As an instructor observe; as a student learn from experience. The normal reference zero force / stick central has changed, how quickly are pilots able to recognise this and adapt, and how, and why. What if trim was unavailable.
How do pilots gain this experience.
Another aspect of this thread is the divergent view of training standards; this too could be ‘relative’.
‘It’s not as good as the old days’ (I was there), but if our reference is biased by the experiences of intervening years, how can we relate then and now. Like ‘policeman are getting younger’, time passes quicker in later life - relative to age.
With high reliability aircraft there is reduced need for the evaluative know-what; complex systems are difficult to teach. There is more benefit - safety value, cost effectiveness in teaching use, application, know-how to manage the normal operational scenarios and use all available technology, both increasingly complex. Not so for the rare failures, these are real surprises, but relative to what.
Not the same as we the ‘oldies’ faced (different reference), but new, emergent, unforeseeable, unexpected by regulation, and thus not trained for situations.
What are the norms for these aspects - defined by regulation / trading standards, how might they be identified.
Instead of looking at training - ‘what should be happening’, flying the line and seeing ‘what is happening’ provides a better reference; an old-fashioned ‘line check’ or what ever the modern term for that its.
Then consider what has been seen ‘down the line’ and how that should be referenced to operational need, but against what norm. The fewer to number of incidents the more difficult the task, but not necessarily a safer operation.
The norm could be awareness of this, or at least continuing to look at real operations, not training.