Airflow separation may be a more accurate way to characterize what is happening to the tail than stall. This isn't a theory 185flier or I came up with. Sometimes Caravans crash for no apparent reason. The NTSB is not God, and their findings of probable cause are not always correct. (I think its just easier for them to fault improper deicing than to think that a plane with 25 plus years in service could have a serious, unknown problem.) I was briefed on an engineer's report several years ago detailing this phenomenon and it made sense to me.

The way I think it happens is the plane is climbing out and at too low an airspeed and the flaps are retracted. The angle of attack is high enough that when upforce is called for on the tail, the wing is effectively blocking it out. Airflow over the tail is normal until it needs to transition from negative to positive lift. Wings' downwash effects on a tail falling directly behind the wing may be more conducive to a tail with negative lift than to one with positive lift.

Picture someone at a low climb speed pushing flaps selector fully from 20 to zero, then diverting his attention elsewhere. If airflow separates over the tail when positive tail lift is required, and if right at that moment he continues to allow the flaps to retract, he is going to have a very bad day. All it would take to right this unfortunate situation (aside from not having retracted the flaps at too low an airspeed in the first place) would be to put the flap lever back down to where it was before the problem occurred. Then get some more airspeed, carefully, incrementally retract the flaps and continue the flight without incident.

Right at the moment when airflow separates over the tail the result is an uncommanded nose up. There is no Cessna recommended recovery technique for uncommanded nose up, so how is what 185flier and I recommend here in any way contravening Cessna?