One thing I dislike about [...] use of a verbal "STALL, STALL" (instead of a stick shaker) is that humans have a tendency to filter out aural inputs when concentrating or highly stressed. Meaning the STALL warning may not even be heard when it's most needed.
There is an interesting quote in
this article from the pilot of Cathay Pacific 780 who after other severe trials had no control over engine thrust whilst landing and so came in extremely fast ... he said
“At that point, we started getting a lot of warnings going off in the cockpit, too. The cockpit started to become a very noisy place. All the systems are built into the airplane to warn you you’re approaching a dangerous area … the warnings were coming so thick and fast they were going over the top of each other.
“I had to put them all to one side, ignore them, and concentrate on what I thought was the most pressing issue, and that was to get the airplane on the ground as close as possible to the end of the runway.”
Which turned out safely for all involved.
Problem is, I'm not convinced that a stick shaker is much better - I can think of at least two [...] crashes where the pilot pulled back in response to an erroneous overspeed indication and stalled, then apparently dismissed the stick shaker as 'Mach buffet' due to the perceived overspeed.
A glider pilot much earlier in this thread mentioned that his stick would shake as an indication of a stall because the lack of clean airflow over the control surfaces. It was a direct mechanical link from the fluttering surfaces to the stick.
I know it's not a direct link in a transport. But does that mean that both edges of coffin corner provide the same cue to the pilot when different responses are required?
Given the choice between the two (and I realize never getting there is the best option) is exceeding the mach limit more recoverable than the stall at cruise altitude?