I thought the story was that the normal training should have sufficed, and that it did in some cases where the same issue occurred and the pilots were able to handle it (themselves not having any special training either).
The argument was that the problem could be handled as any other pitch-trim runaway situation, for which pilots were already trained.
There were, however, reasons to be skeptical. Firstly, unlike in most other cases, it was not designed to halt when opposed by the pilot’s use of the control yoke (to do so would defeat the purpose of MCAS.) Secondly, it was found in flight testing that MCAS needed to be made much more aggressive, yet the original decision was allowed to stand. Thirdly, it could stop on its own accord, only to start up again a few seconds later.
Consequently, while MCAS failure is nominally handled as a form of trim runaway, it did not present itself to pilots like the trim runaway scenarios they had trained for.
So it seems like successfully handling the situation hinges on how much the pilots have abstracted the training vs applying it by rote. This abstract vs rote distinction is a common theme in Westerners looking down on other cultures, so I guess it lines up with the “third world” comments on the situation.
Except in the second crash, as I recall it, the problem was correctly IDed, but manually adjusting the trim was impossible without adding nose down (to unload the control surface). This led the co-pilot to re-enable auto-trim, which re-enabled MCAS, which then drove the plane into the ground.
There may have been a path to saving the aircraft, but it definitely didn't seem at all intuitive. And figuring it out while the plane is actively trying to crash itself is a pretty big ask.
If a successful resolution of the problem depended on pilots making the right abstractions from their training for prior versions, then that would, in itself, establish that it was a serious error to withhold information about how MCAS operated.
