Delta 191 control column push
Control column forces are not recorded on an L-1011. There is no way to conclude what it could have been without using measured control surface position and backtracking with numerous assumptions in a very dynamic environment. It is a thin thread to hang an argument on compared to hundreds of optimal trajectories to find the very best that can be done in a defined windshear with a defined aircraft. Then, knowing the very best, comparisons were made to other recommencations to see how well they performed. The maximum angle of attack trajectory performed very poorly.
My question has been answered as it now appears that some airlines are teaching the power off stall with power on recovery while keeping a high AOA to minimize altitude loss. In my opinion, this came from the stick shaker technique for wind shear recovery and is a very dangerous technique unless ground impact is imminent (like radar altitude less than 100 feet). Not only is flight path perfomance considerably degraded with the high drag, but there is the danger of a dynamic stall; the stall in the worst case will be power on and there is inadequate instrumentation. The question is: are the stall related accidents which the industry is now concerned with, related to stall recovery training?
Contrary to poplular opinion, transport aircraft are not required to have the stick shaker activate at 7% above a 1g stall, but 7% above Vmin which was allowed to be less than a 1g stall. This was an issue in the Congressonally mandated National Research Council study on windshear after the 1982 Pan American crash in New Orleans. That report (Library of Congress no. 83-63100) says on page 63 "The minimum speed at which level flight can be sustained is the 1g stall speed (Vmin 1g), which is typically 5 to 7 percent faster than the FAR stall speed."