If I got the shaker, I'd push.
That seems real reasonable. But read the NTSB description of the Colgan stall training: you do three stalls. One clean, one in landing configuration, and one in takeoff configuration. This last must occur in the middle of a 30 degree bank.
In
all cases you
must maintain current altitude +-100 feet, or you fail the test. According to many of the Colgan check pilots, the 100' is a hard limit, and there are no excuses. You aren't going to be able to push over very much and maintain altitude unless you are also very good on the throttles and prop pitch. Also (according to the NTSB) Colgan doesn't train or even much mention the stick pusher. So there is a chance they wouldn't even know what it was or what was happening.
This tells me two things, I think. 1) The pilot has never had "stall" training in this plane. He has had (I guess you could call it) "stall anticipation training". More exactly, he has never seen a real stall, only stick shaker or stall buffet. And 2) he is trained to get out of a stall with added power
while maintaining altitude within 100'. I think I agree with Will: he was probably doing as trained to fly out of a "stall".
(I wonder if powering out of a "stall" is good training or bad. Most stalls happen at low altitude, where you better recover in a few hundred feet. So from that POV powering out seems like a good idea. And if you are far enough from a real stall, I suppose it makes a good deal of sense.
But if you are in a real stall it might be the last thing you want to do in a prop plane. There were planes where cranking up the torque when stalled would twist you into a vicious spin. It is an open question in my mind whether this plane naturally falls off on the left wing in a stall, or if having lots of power on caused it to fall off.)