BubbaMc,
I did not say the CAAP was wrong, I said it had some questionable aerodynamic comments in it and that I was still 'mulling over' the statement about stick position being an indication of the approach of the stall.
In relatively simple control systems such as those fitted to a light aircraft, the control column directly repositions the elevator (trim tabs etc accepted). A down force is needed, in level balanced flight, from the tailplane to counteract the nose down moment of the wings.
But the CG position relative to the neutral point influences not only the stick position but also the stick forces; i.e. the force per 'g', required to be applied by the pilot. This CG / NP relationship also affects longitudinal static stability, i.e. the tendency of the aircraft to resume the trimmed state when the control inputs are removed.
Angle of attack is measured from the relative airflow over the wing. Is is possible to have the control column in a position that equates roughly to the attitude that approaches 16 degrees (to pick a number) but due to the flight path of the aircraft not be at or near 16 degrees angle of attack?
I think it is. A side slip to land most probably approximates those conditions.
If you are 'tooling around', non aerobatic flight below 10,000 feet (to avoid reduced aerodynamic damping due to the reduction in air density), then the control column position is most probably a last ditch indication of the impending stall but my point is that there should be other cues that the pilot should recognise before you have to rely on stick position.