'missed the vital bit of application of knowledge'?!!? in that case why is it that in the EFATO section of my check list does it say 'maintain airspeed above stall speed'?
presumably the people who wrote my checklist were all 'needle-chasers' as well are they? lowering the nose unstalls the wing/s and also adds some knots without necessarily losing much height in my experience.
why are people saying that the SSR is wrong? and more importantly implying our instructors don't know what theyre doing?
Yes, from the sounds of it the EFATO section of the check list was written by 'needle chasers'. Is this a school specific checklist, a AFE or Pooleys type, or have you actually checked the POH to see what guidance that offers?
I don't think that anyone is saying that the SSR is wrong, simply that in the early stages of training it is important to emphasise how you recover from a stall. You need to lower the angle of attack of the wing, nothing else matters. In many cases lowering the nose is the action that gives this result, but it is still important for a student to understand how they are recovering from the stall.
There was a load of training bulletins doing the rounds years ago, as a lot of test candidates (particularly on IR) were simply holding an attitude and powering out of an incipient stall situation, without any lowering of the angle of attack. These candidates were poorly taught at the PPL stage.
Lastly, many instructors don't know what they're doing. Many are afraid of stalls themselves, particularly in the PA38 due to all the ridiculous horror stories, so will not give a student a decent chance to experience slow flight and understand it's dangers, and how to effectively recover with minimum height loss.