Yes Will, no doubt guilty of over-egging the custard there...or drinking too much red wine
We seem to be training to ridiculous (& seemingly unnecessary) criteria, perhaps even well before the basics are firmly imprinted...
Attaining a high level of proficiency in such a specific task must be accurately contextualised, if that be say < 400 ft on the approach, then equal or more emphasis requires on simple instinctive flying.
Shaker should should then become more of a wake-up call than a frightener, which it seems to have become here... some or all of the following seem implicated here: lack of situational awareness, tiredness, over-concern about icing and poor CRM/crew combination.
Training specifics and pass/fail skills can, if the candidate fails to fully contextualise, create a 'set of dots' in a 3-D world. If these are too bright and remain randomised there is always a danger that what should be innate, previously learnt behaviour (the unchanging backdrop those dots should reside upon), fades in significance.
I suppose the questions raised these days are along the lines of: can 'anyone' be trained to be a good pilot, by training alone (i.e. just a job, as any other) and not by a degree of self assessment, introspection and honesty. Without early years immersion in flight, flying and aviation, the backdrop - a lot of re-programming is required.
Is it again a case of not just knowing what you know (the dots), but knowing what you don't know - and at least not going there without acquaintaing oneself with that particular skill or knowledge, or suitable hand-holding.
What was so obviously missing, to me anyway, was that backdrop, in this case - a wee precuationary push on that stick, and the bells, alarm heart-rate should have died away almost instantly - time for a quick instrument scan and a more leisurely reach and more leisurely push on the power levers.
=====
Yes, that link should have appeared in AF447 thread... not here. Thanks