NoD point taken re the stall recovery.
A little anology.
2 drivers, one in a manual transmission (stick-shift for our transatlantic readers ) the other an early generation Auto (i.e not DSG/Tiptronic )
During an overtaking manouvere a car pulls out unexpectedly from a hidden entrance.
The driver of the manual car, if he needs more acceleration than is available ,"should " instinctively shift down a gear, as he is accustomed to that action. He may of course fluff the shift, but if he is a decent driver the action should be fairly instinctive.
The driver of the Auto has a much simpler task, he just mashes the pedal to the floor & the box "kicks-down"
However, imagine due to some glitch it doesn't. . . how quickly is that driver going to reach for the lever and negotiate perhaps a detent & select a lower gear ? I would suggest not too quickly, because it is not an instinctive action.
I think the same scenario has perhaps taken place here. The crew are not accustomed ,in manual flying , to using stab trim, so when they really really needed it, it wasn't an immediate instinctive reaction to use it.
Yes, I do drive a manual car, but yes I admire the latest generation of "driver
controlled" but robotised DSG boxes.
It is merely my opion, which of course anyone is at liberty to disagree with or question, but I think that Airbus took "the driver" too far out of the loop. I don't know enough of 777 (& assumedly- if it ever arrives -787 ) control logic, but the little I know suggests that Boeing is more DSG whereas Airbus is the good ol slushtronic, quietly changing gear, smooth, imperturbable, but try asking the driver what gear he is in at any particular moment & see what the answer is.
Of course the BIG lesson here, is in exactly the same way as the Easy & THY incidents, you have to know what you must do to control the aircraft when normal control actions are not enough & you have to be aware what the machine is (or isn't) doing on your behalf. Different philosophies, similar but subtly different traps.