SSD, interesting point. 'Background' as you suggest will absolutely help and is not an option in the commercial environment. Some would argue that three to five days of well structured upset recovery training in the classroom and in aerobatic aeroplanes as a starting point and maybe a day or two of recurrency training every year (six months? two years?) may not guarantee a save on the scale of Sully's ditching but will absolutely put the pilot in a far better position to ensure that his or her IAs are the very best ones possible.
There has been an interesting parallel debate on one of the LinkedIn groups (Aviation Professionals) where the REAL costs of a hull loss are touched upon, not just from a financial and legal liability perspective but from the actual reputational hit; one commented that you would have to take into account the cost of the accident AND the safety overspend factor, and suggested that for a western European airline, the cost of AF447 would, in ALARP terms, come in well above $1000 million dollars. It is difficult to see how this level of training cost could be exceeded even with the discounted cash flow analysis. And yes, I fully acknowledge that some will view that perspective as sitting at an extreme end of the spectrum. But is it, really?
For me this thread has been fascinating, not just to see the various views (mostly pro-upset training, although a huge variation in what people believe to be suitable or appropriate), but also in the mostly polarised opinions with little apparent swing room. I have already stated my own pro-upset training bias, both from background (RAF, GA safety and aeros FI) and from business, as my company now delivers this kind of training for pilots of larger aeroplanes. Fortunately for us, and probably for some passengers who could well end up better off as a result of this kind of training, a number of Heads of Flight Ops feel that getting this training definitely IS worthwhile.
I met with the fleet manager of a small Business Jet operation today where he expressed huge concern that many of his pilots had rarely been beyond 45 degrees of bank and he had a genuine concern that he was not confident that if a genuine upset was encountered that it would be handled in a way that most likely delivered a safe outcome. The ICATEE suggestion that only new pilots should receive Upset training in real aerobatic aircraft (notwithstanding 4greens support for this mission I've seen nothing that will make any suggested change in training requirements mandatory) is absolutely - in my already declared to be biased view - a great step in the right direction. Real progress is good, but many will still feel that it is nothing like enough.