Originally Posted by Clandestino
Let me list some of the ways in which this statement is wrong
1. pulling can lead to high-mach-low-threshold transient stall warning if aeroplane is jerked into climb, reasonably smooth pull from about 1.5 to 5° will avoid it
Easy stuff in turbulence
2. when settled at 5° pitch, AoA will be near cruise pitch and will gently increase towards 5° as speed is bled off. By the time it gets there, you won't be at high mach anymore.
Easy stuff in turbulence
3. If no valid mach, stall warning reverts to low threshold
I like that ''If''
4. stall warning is not stall itself - a fact cheerfully ignored by those unable to tell the difference between "approach to stall recovery" and "stall recovery".
It does not matter, both should trigger the very same procedure (the new one) NOSE PITCH DOWN + THRUST REDUCE
5. when arguing about Habsheim showoff, you repeatedly claimed that alpha prot prevented aeroplane from achieving higher lift at even higher AoA (backside of the power curve, anyone?) and now all of a sudden, stall warning is considered to be the edge? Are you having it both ways or are you about to make a breakthrough in aerodynamics - discovery of the area of fantastic aerodynamic performance between alpha max and stall warning?
Because Alpha Max is simply not Alpha Stall Warning and Airbus did that for a reason.
Alpha Max = protection = do whatever you like = still flying
Alpha Stall Warning = Do NOT stay there = still flying but for how much longer ?
Airbus chief pilot has got all of it now : No more 5 degrees pitch up - Finished : "When you lose the speed indications in cruise, that is the most simple procedure to apply : You have to do NOTHING"
Clandestino, it could be understandable you recommend to apply 5 deg of pitch up as a first measure the time to get some figures from the QRH, but it is absolutely non sense you pretend to be comfortable to apply it vitam eternam. It tells a lot how you see yourself as a pilot ... as it shows in your writing style too.