I've read with interest all of the previous posts and there is obviously consensus about the "standard stall recovery" as taught by the RAF. That is as it should be.....
One difference between military and civil training is that military aircrew are exposed a lot more to "unusual attitudes" - I mean in the 3D sense! Whether taught on the Chipmunk, Bulldog, Grob or Tucano turning upside down is not a problem, there is a 5-point harness, you are wearing a parachute, the ac is stressed for the manoevre (if the recovery goes wrong) and the whole emphasis of training is developing "poling" skills to manoevre later ac at the extremes of their flight envelopes.
Contrast that with civil air training. The ac are mainly used in straight and level flight, emphasis is on safe navigation, and the procedural aspects of flying pax from A to B. The ac are not stressed for aerobatics (generally speaking), you are restrained by little more than a car seat belt, and the instructors have not just come off a fast jet tour! The student pilots are of all ages and not in the 19 - 24 age range, fit and keen as I was 30 years ago!
Hardly surprising there's a different approach! The question is which is the more realistic of what happens in the real world. I first flew solo in a Cadet Mk.3 after 21 launches and 92 minutes dual aged 16. Before doing so I was taught stall and incipient spin recoveries, cable breaks and I think gliding is a superb (and cheap) introduction to powered flying - it certainly has made me very conscious of having always having a "field" available for a FL.
MB