Not according to Bombardier, Colgan, Transport Canada, or NASA (who all testified today).

A couple things I noticed in the hearing (biased, b/c I do recognize the pilots were likely @ fault, but I think Colgan is trying to avoid any responsibility in the matter):

• the accident crew set the power to 75% during their attempted stall recovery. The procedure calls for 90% as outlined by Bombardier, and followed by Colgan
• Bombardier Q400 Chief Test Pilot said (I'm paraphrasing) 'altitude has nothing to do with stall recovery'. It became VERY clear that Colgan's CA Prior (who has 25 hours TT on the Q400, yet is responsible for Q400 sim training) did not agree with this philosphy. His initial comments reflected the Colgan procedure at the time ('maintain altitude", otherwise known as ZERO altitude loss), but then said they now expect recovery in 100'-200'. One of Colgan's sim instrutors reported that 75% of the pilots he sees pull BACK when they encounter a pusher - just like the accident crew. Perhaps the standard to "maintain altitude" has something to do with this?
• Colgan DO says: if you get sick within 2 hours of your show, he thinks it is most appropriate to call fatigued, not sick
• overall impression is the DO and CA Prior were the most pilot unfriendly of the group by far (CA Prior did not compare favorable in Q400 knowledge when compared to the Chief Test Pilot for Bombardier, who testified with him

Colgan pilots - what's the deal with your sick call procedures? Do you really not call in sick when your sick, but rather fatigued?