Which is why:If a stall has happened, the first step to recovering and regaining controlled flight with positive lift, is to apply power and push the nose down to help regain airspeed over the wing.
It alarms me terribly that application of power would precede reduction of AoA as a stall recovery technique.
Nobody said that...Mick was talking about simultaneous application of power and reducing AoA (I assume).
Probably, which is why I qualified my statement with:When you are close to the ground, isn't it better to do that than to reduce AoA and then apply power?
I have no idea if a stall is a factor in the sad accident of the Citation, I know nothing of the cause. So this could be thread drift, please excuse that.The only time that could ever be a good idea would be if you've got the plane hanging on power too high to allow it to safely touch the surface but too low to allow for a reduction of AoA.
I value the opportunity of pilots to have a timely and thought provoking discussion, which hopefully increases awareness, and helps to prevent future accidents. However, during those discussions, I find it un-nerving when less good techniques are advanced as good practice.
We fly aircraft with primary flight controls. Engine controls are not primary flight controls. That's not to say that that they cannot and should not be used while flying the aircraft, but in my opinion, the use of a secondary control in an aircraft should not by presented as the first action to take to correct an impending aerodynamic event which is undesirable. Pilots should be thinking AoA reduction first, with all other actions being secondary to that for stall avoidance and recovery. Having engine power applied does not return control of an aircraft, and in some cases may further reduce control - in the case of an approach to stall, the pilot must maintain/regain control, for which the primary flying controls are to be used.
Though I respect Cat's experience, and opinions, I do not go out of my way to support the idea of AoA indicators in light GA training aircraft. To me, the result of AoA information in these aircraft would be a student looking around the cockpit for one more gadget to further bury them in information, which must then be intellectually processed for the brain to add it to the sum of available information to then determine the next action (yes, I intended that long sentence). Rather, better to have less cockpit clutter, less information saturation, and simply train pilots to fly planes by feel and instinct.I can not believe that training airplanes do not have AOA indicators in them considering how little it would add to the cost of the airplane.
I have only ever flown two production aircraft types which did not give adequate tactile warning, to an aware pilot, of an impending stall, and those two types were not CAR 3 nor Part 23 certified in Canada. Other certified types with iffy approach to stall feel will have stall barrier systems designed in, so the pilot does not have to search for the information. We installed an excellent AoA system in the 182 amphibian. I paid great attention to it when I was calibrating it. Once it was working as designed, I have no recollection of actually using it as an aid to flying. It works very well, I just don't bother to look inside the cockpit to gather information it is presenting when flying the 182.
We need pilots whose instinct is to reduce AoA at the approach to unintended stall. Thereafter, if necessary, power may be used to prolong the flight.