UPRT is a response to the handling of large aircraft with complex flight control systems that much is clear. It is not appropriate guidance for light singles or twins. It makes no sense to me to attempt to mimic heavy aircraft handling using a light aircraft: an Extra 300 or a C152 aerobat. The training is bound to be inadequate. In all the documents referred to earlier in this debate and others none refer to simulating heavy aircraft handling in anything other than the aircraft itself or in its approved simulator. To revisit the basics of the stall and the incipient spin is, of course, valuable for any pilot at any time. As an aside: the underlying principle for all skill tests is that the POH is the overriding document for the aircraft in use. The CAA are right to complain when the candidate is deviating from this. It is also unfair on the candidate who may be failed.
It is naïve to claim as EASA does that "startle" or "surprise" once experienced can be replicated in all circumstances. If this claim is based on qualified guidance I would like to see it. The human does not automatically transfer skills but requires specific training for each event.
I can't see the purpose of a disagreement over the low nose recovery between whether to power or roll first or apply simultaneously. Terra firma and VNE must be paramount surely. If speed is allowed to increase then there is an increase in stability making it harder to recover with the possibility of airframe failure,
I'm not happy with UPRT being applied to light aircraft handling and which is superficially different from what is already well understood.