Who said anything about being at the stall? If low and slow, raising the nose brings you back to the desired glidepath, and simultaneously adding power brings you to your desired speed (and pitches the nose up to help you and reduces the stall speed in an SEP).
You can argue that by making each input simultaneously you would be advocating the same as the 'stick for speed' argument, by using that technique simultaneously too. My point is, why teach a student this non-intuitive way of flying an approach? If both techniques work (as they obviously must, reading this thread) why teach a different one for flying down a slope than for straight and level? Also you are then telling the student (someone with little feel for the aircraft and often still flying by numbers) to change the technique as they enter the flare - bleed the speed off with the
throttle and adjust rate of descent with the
stick.
It applies to a light aircraft as it does to a heavy.
And Miserlou, MLS, Slim Slag, if you were low and slow (small increments I'm talking about, not at the stall, different problem and different solution altogether) and you lowered the nose before adding power, you would all be down there with the aforementioned gliderpilot.
As DFC says, it's total performance that counts: attitude + power= desired performance and they need to be considered as 2 simultaneously managed parameters. But to teach that you have to teach one coherent technique in your mind which can work for
all phases of flight: power for speed, stick for flightpath. (Excepting glide and full power climb, obviously).
Think about it, it too obviously works, and it's instinctive - ask your teenage kid what he/she thinks you should do if slow in an aeroplane!
Oh, and slim slag,
small adjustments, classic. small adjustments. If you can feel it you have used too much
I should have said just a
small amount
wrong! 