Yes
Tommytoyz, a good discussion on this under-appreciated fact, thank you.
The question has been raised here before and this is a good contribution to the discussion. Airbus' May 1999 edition of "
FAST", (Airbus Technical Digest) discusses this in an article entitled, "
Airplane upset recovery: A test pilot's point of view", p.18, elaborating on this caution.
This said, the next question is, what does the simulator do in such circumstances?
Obviously the sim doesn't just quit working so there is the consideration of
degree of fidelity and not a question of fidelity itself. The data up to the approach-to-stall is assumed to be accurate.
It has been suggested that while the behaviour is not based upon post-entry-into-the-stall and actual stall data, there remains a certain level of useful replication by extension. The real question is, how much and how useful? The best advice from the AWST article is to train well to recognize and stay out of such extreme circumstances - good advice!, but we have had a number of full-stall accidents over the past seven years or so.
I am (was) a line pilot and am not a test pilot or an engineer so do not wish to tread in these areas without due care, but what seems required for recovery from a full stall in terms of pitch attitude and unstalling the wing from AoA's as seen here does not seem to differ wildly from technical expectations. Discussion?