As I said elsewhere, I don't understand why the PF continued making nose-up inputs in a stall environment. A suicidal thing to do, and elementary for anyone who's flown an aircraft. The results are plain (and very sad) to see, but how on earth does a proffessional qualified pilot with hundreds of lives in his hands make such a mistake?
Perhaps I'm jumping the gun, perhaps there's more to it and someone might put me in my place, and I don't mean to be disrespectful to a person who's no longer with us, or his family. I'm just shocked by the reading.
Should airline pilots have a yearly 'refresher' in a light aircraft to remind them of the basic principles of flying?
Yes, you are "jumping the gun". My suggestion is that we wait for a clear report on exactly what the crew was given to react to the situation in terms of displays, indications and warnings. A well meaning bunch of engineers attempting to automate an airliner to the maximum extent possible in order to provide the lowest training costs can create a confusing disaster when problems occur, especially when different systems start conflicting. The QA A380 comes to mind.
I once experienced a subtle airspeed failure at night in a B767 on takeoff with a slew of warnings at rotation. Both of us simply fell back to power, pitch, and a quick look at the runway length remaining which was normal. It was very confusing and cannot imagine a low time crew processing the problem along with the seat-of-the-pants feel that comes from 6000 hours in type. What would be even more confusing would be yokes/sticks or throttles that didn't offer feedback as to what the other pilot/autopilot or autothrottles were attempting to accomplish.