Actually, I thought the article pretty good for a change.

In the Air Force (at least, T-38 Pilot training, and the fighter that I flew), we do lower the nose (at first) as well as add power. Why? Because you end up losing less altitude by getting out of the heavy-buffet sooner. It was the same when I flew with the Navy in the T-34C.

Been a long time since I have flown GA, but I think I was taught that way in C-150s, too.

I was shocked when I got to airline flying and they wanted me to maintain altitude and solve the problem with power. You can't do that in most fighters, let alone a relatively underpowered jet airliner.

It works in the airliner sim if you recover at stall-shaker indications...because you aren't really in a stall yet. But I wonder what would happen if you fully-stalled the airplane (like we do in the military). I'd bet you couldn't accelerate-out with power alone. And I think that happened to 3407 due to ice:

Let's assume the airplane fully-stalled, or tail-stalled. They've been taught, over and over: "Maintain your altitude in a stall recovery!!" (Or you'll bust your checkride). Yet the airplane was descending, with full power. Did they pull-up to hold altitude, only to aggravate the stall to a point that random yaw made it depart?

And that is a fault of the approved training practices that have made this institutional across all airline training departments. This might be a time to re-think this, just like when airlines, military, and the FAA became aware of microburst phenomena and mechanics/science in the 1970s, and new training practices---and rules---were put into place.