rarelyathome, to teach understanding should always be paramount in my view but 'Pavlovs dog' techniques are too often the method used with stalling. The required "recognition" will come from the understanding. I'm sure that you have also noticed the word "prevent" which follows and to be effective requires recognition. In the full brief you will, of course, have a section subtitled 'recognition' or 'signs' and this will also include the specific characteristics of the aeroplane being used. The onset signs vary enormously from one aircraft type to another. Understanding the stall and separately the particular characteristics of the aeroplane being used should be clearly emphasised.
On a wider issue, some years ago a young Flight Instructor who worked for me attended an interview with a UK major airline. In answer to a specific question with regard to the approach he answered that his priority would be to ensure against a potential stall. One of the interview panel, a senior captain, responded curtly: "we do not stall in this company, nor speak of it". Perhaps the word "upset" is to his liking.
What is rarely emphasised is that the aircraft will not stall itself, it is an inanimate thing. The aeroplane is not a horse with its own mind. It is therefore the pilot who brings about a stall. This must also include auto-pilots and flight management computerised systems. Airlines are keen to rid themselves of expensive pilots and increasingly moved toward automation: the pilot is seen as unreliable and a weak link in the system. Many of the auto systems in large transport aircraft drop out when the aircraft goes outside certain parameters. The designers are desperate to widen the parameters and keep the pilot out of it. The stall requires responsibility but if the pilot does not have control until the bitter end then the designers are in the firing line. Too much to bear so get rid of the word stall. Lets find a word less definable, "upset" is indefinable and convenient enough to use when we can't blame the pilot. But that interpretation is very possibly unfair and simply wrong.
Last edited by Fl1ingfrog; 6th Dec 2020 at 15:06.