Pull what
I have thousands of hard weather hours mainly in piston twins and singles and am very aware of conventional stall recovery!
I would go further and consider my strengths as a handling pilot ( I can get other ppruners who have flown with me 2 who I gave Citation SICs to)
I don't disagree with you BEAgle or Mad Jock as that is my stall recovery instincts too.
The method taught by 3 FAA examiners leans more to power/ thrust and maintaining altitude relying on power and a very gradual reduction in AOA.
The CItation is an above wing engined jet which naturally reduce AOA on application of max thrust so maybe that is part of the reason ?
I know when I accidentally reverted to my instincts and recovered as I would do a Seneca twin I got my knucles rapped and saw with my own eyes a large loss of altitude.
Mad Jock made a valid point concerning a max N1 stall in the climb and appeared to take offense at tipping the nose not only to reduce AOH but to tap onto airframe potential energy for more airflow!
Contrary to his argument against power and maintaing altitude ?
BEAgle considers any FAA examiner to be an idiot who should be shot at dawn ; )
Many heavier jets have used power recoveries! Ok maybe things are changing and I would like to know the recommendations for the CITATION with this new recovery approach as i have seen the large height loss with a standard recovery ? I don't really disagree with much of what any of the three of you have said
Pace