So many techniques, so little time
I've been instructed on several subtely different stall recovery techniques during my travels, spanning powered aircraft and gliders.
Ultimately the recovery technique to be used depends, I suspect, on the nature of the stall and the point at which it is recovered (incipient or fully developed). Would I be right in saying that a stall recovery is, in the purest terms, to ensure that the angle of attack is reduced to within the critical angle and that laminar flow is restored over the wing?
In which case, if recovering from a power-on stall, wouldn't pitching to the horizon be sufficient, provided the angle of attack had been reduced? My logic being that the chemical energy of the fuel is then being converted into the kinetic energy (airspeed) required to promote laminar flow. This holds true if in a power-off (or unpowered) stall, as then you would be relying more on gravity to provide the airspeed required to restore the airflow.
Curiously, when I was converting onto gliders (which happened after I learned on power), I pitched forward during stall training with the CFI.
"What are you doing?" he asked.
"Breaking the stall," I said to Sir in the back. He then explained that I had been a little more heavy than I'd needed to be in the process. I was subsequently taught to progressively, smoothly and more slowly move the stick forward, until the wing was flying again. The reason being that this minimised height loss - always the aim when soaring.
It occurred to me that gliders pitch down by just enough to acheive the aim, because they have no other way of turning potential energy into kinetic (hence airspeed). So, with a powered aircraft, providing that the AoA was sufficiently reduced, wouldn't a pitch to the horizon be sufficient? Certainly that's what I was most recently instructed to do as part of my pre-commercial 'polishing'.
It'd be good to get some feedback from those with more experience under their belts...