CFIT is not the same as a stall, nor is response to stall necessarily related to stall near the ground, though it can be. A colleague of mine died thanks to an OCF condition that was recovered but then ended up not so nice due to an
accelerated stall during recovery.
I was in no way relating a CFIT escape with an approach to stall response. I suppose that both would be related in that you'd tend to approach the limit of AoA for the condition during both maneuvers, but it would vary with situation.
I have also lost friends to CFIT. Two were on low level nav missions. Each hit something, which was not part of the plan for that mission.
I lost another friend in an A-6 that Stalled low over the ocean when he overcorrected a high closure rate on his lead, low altitude rendezvous.
Not CFIT either. Ejection not in time.
Typical CFIT scenario is an
unstalled aircraft hitting the ground due to any number of errors that get it there unintentionally. The Escape maneuver you refer to, robot assisting or not, has as its purpose to FLY away from the terrain using the best performance the aircraft can give you.
A stall ends your flying and begins your plummeting.
It may also end up with aircraft meeting terrain, unintentionally, but the C part is no longer in application, as you are no longer in Controlled Flight when stalled. You could call it OCFIT (Out of Control Flight into Terrain) or simply a crash. Dead no matter what you call it, absent an ejection seat.
Thus, if you are WARNED that you are approaching a stall, you FLY your plane at an AoA and attitude and power setting that both
a) avoids a stall (because as soon as you stall you begin to fall, more or less, and are not really flying)
b) gets you away from the ground (which you wish to encounter under more frienly circumstances a bit later on)
Are we clear on the difference?
I didn't drag CFIT into this, and would like it to stay out. Plenty of post for that over in the thread regarding the Islamabad crash recently.