Au contraire, sir - I'd *love* to know why they didn't hear it - and if it didn't sound then I'd be the first to say that would be a major problem. But unless you're accusing the BEA of falsifying evidence, then the presence of the Stall Warning alarm on the CVR is a documented fact, which closes that line of enquiry and this conversation.
@Capn Bloggs - As with any work, on the line I'm sure you'll encounter super-competent pilots, pilots who shouldn't be allowed in a flight deck and pilots of every level inbetween, with most hovering around an average competency level (which in most cases requires more general competence than a lot of jobs). However, you'd think that "No pilot would...":
- Take off without permission
- Retract LE devices below a safe speed
- Fail to deploy high lift devices at all prior to take-off
- Fail to turn on engine anti-ice when taking off into a blizzard
- Shut down a healthy engine and leave the damaged one running
and yet pilots have done all of those things, and some pilots have repeated the same mistakes made by their predecessors. This is not to say I think pilots are incompetent, far from it - because of the staggering number of flights that get to their destinations safely every day - but "No pilot would..." turns out to be a demonstrably false assertion. "No pilot *should*..." on the other hand, and you won't hear me arguing.
To go back to your question, the change in paradigm was based on a desire to start from a "clean sheet" when it comes to flight deck ergonomics based on the technological leaps made during the Space Age, not because of any desire to impugn pilots as a whole.