...or there are experienced pilots out there with woefully inadequate knowledge of the correct stall avoidance and recovery techniques.
I think this is part of the problem.
Regulators and airlines need to mandate more theory and more practical training with regard to upset/stall experiences. There needs to be more aerodynamics training and more actual flying (airplane or simulator) experience.
It doesn't help that there are airlines in Canada who still teach their pilot to power out of the approach to stall exercise, disregarding an AC that has been out since 2005, and has since been replace with a more detailed AC, that says to treat any approach to stall as an actual stall and use elevator to reduce the AOA. It states that multiple times and it also states multiple times that altitude loss is secondary to stall recovery. It couldn't be clearer - powering out of stalls with zero altitude loss is NOT the way it should be taught but that's the way you get a 4 (highest mark) on the flight test for that exercise.
For those interested, here is the current AC:
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviati...-700-1793.html
Japanese investigators said the ANA co-pilot, who was relatively inexperienced, had less than 2,800 flight hours in another 737 version and only 197 hours in the Boeing 737-700 involved in the incident
I've found throughout my relatively short aviation career that hours mean virtually nothing. You could take a group of 2000 hour pilots and they'd all perform wildly different from each other. You could take a group of 5000 hour pilots and do the same with the same results. And so on. The only thing you'll see is that with experience, you'll notice an improvement in skill and decision making but when looking at a specific pilot, it's impossible to judge a pilot's skill and decision making solely based on their flight hours.
but when they had to wait a bit longer they lowered the nose not long enough, pulled back on the stick too early and went into a secondary stall.
This is an issue with the way they train now. They'll set the airplane up at about 10,000' to 14,000' (most of the time in VMC with smooth flying conditions), in level flight, then slow down at a constant rate while trimming to about 20 knots above the stall speed, then with hands already on the control column and power levers, they will slam the power levers forward as soon as the stall horn sounds and then push a bit on the control column so that they don't climb immediately (because it will if you don't push enough after adding full power). The airplane on these training flights is at the lowest weight that you'll ever encounter while flying operationally and at it's forward CG limit.
That is the absolute easiest possible recovery you could have for a stall event! And that's all that's required... and they're still teaching it wrong. It's frustrating when discussing this with pilots at the airline because they dismiss the AC... what experience and training do they have to say that what is in that AC is not correct?
There is only one way to do it when sufficient altitude is available, lower the nose not a little bit, lower it not to a specified amount of degrees below the horizon, but lower it until stall warning ceases
Before you add power.
Teaching to power out of a stall event (stall horn, stick shaker/pusher, or actual aerodynamic stall) is the opposite of what you should do, especially at high altitude. Rapid power advances may cause asymmetric thrust which, if you are stalled, can put you into a spin.
I think it should be taught to lower the nose until the horn goes off, then smoothly add power while keeping the nose at the same attitude. By the time you've added full power (~2-3 seconds) you should be at a speed to start smoothly coming out of the dive. Adding power while there is still an indication of a stall shouldn't be done, especially at high altitude where longitudinal stability is reduced. This is a generic recovery procedure and each airplane will handle a bit differently but the basics are all the same.
Power is only used to
reduce the altitude loss after a stall. How do you think a glider recovers from a stall?
Thoughts on that, RetiredF4?