For those that argue attitude for speed is safer - can they explain why recovery from the stall enforces reduction of angle of attack rather than increasing airspeed?
I feel sure that you fully understand all of the principles, but the final statement regarding reduction of angle of attack rather than increasing airspeed (with power) is the basic fundamental for teaching new pilots the art of stall recovery; in fact, they are taught to do both... reduce angle of attack (to unstall the wing) and simultaneously applying power. An advanced flying student, or a more experienced pilot, would of course understand the merits of what we're trying to achieve. However, as anyone will tell you, if you're revalidating your PPL and you choose to carry out stall recovery by the application of power alone... your examiner will fail you!
Our RAF bretherans will tell you that 'point and power' is the technique taught to military pilots; for after all they are (in the main) going to be flying those sharp pointy and slippery things.
I guess that the argument is 'twofold'... we're not routinely expected to stall on the glidepath, so why not use 'point and power' for glidepath control. However, during the final approach phase; revert to 'attitude for speed' and 'power for attitude'. The 'twofold' argument is really only applicable to advanced students/experienced pilots and not for the part-time weekend flyers.
I wholeheartedly agree, that larger aeroplanes (with the attendant inertia) and 3 degree path with a +4 degree attitude require more refined handling skills. Having said that, an aeroplane such as the TriStar was designed for 'point and power' from the onset... too high on the approach path; push on the yoke, where the Direct Lift Control would maintain the attitude but increase the ROD by modulating the speedbrakes.
In conclusion, it all rather depends upon which flying community we're trying to teach! If you designed DLC into a Warrior... well, we'd end up with more accidents!
Horses for courses.
TCF