The reason for change in stall recovery procedure was that the earlier procedure was based on recovery from approach to stall. When a few crashes happened in the US because when the pilots opened thrust the pitch up prevented them from lowering the attitude. So a SAFO was issued and FAA asked the manufacturers to have relook at the procedure. There are some Airbus discussions and conferences which give good understanding of this current procedure. In that one of the test pilot explains it is difficult even for them to identify between approach to stall and real stall. When the emphasis was shifted from preventing loss of height to reducing angle of attack many airlines were uncomfortable and asked what about low altitude stall? So the obvious answer was same procedure. One thing has to be understood that one cannot afford to stall near ground and if you have been that sloppy then some loss of height is inevitable in recovery. You definitely have to reduce the AOA but how soon to recover the flight path will depend on the how close to ground one is and even then if you begin too early it will stall again. The commuter crash was stall near ground. The thrust didn't help, may be they would have still crashed if they would have lowered the nose. In the air every situation is not recoverable. The only way to ensure safety is not to get into those situations.