Not quite sure if the benefit would be that great for requiring recovery from a full stall in training for all aircraft. The EMB120, sure, straight wing, and pretty conventional stall recovery characteristics, might hold some value, as a full stall would probably be very recoverable, with a little bit of altitude.

The CRJ on the other hand, I tried practicing this in the sim as well, and I'll tell you I could not recover the aircraft in any reasonable amount of altitude. Granted, this was a true FULL stall, beyond the buffeting and any hope of roll control. It was wicked, I was amazed at how long it took to fully develop and just how slow the IAS got (<80 KIAS). I was even more amazed at just how hard it was to recover, 20 degrees pitch down and 170 KIAS and the thing was still stalled, not to mention one of the engines flamed out in the process. I'm a firm believer that prevention is the key here. Kinda like spins in the Grumman Yankee.

Perhaps if training was modified to allow some loss of altitude during the recovery process if necessary, a situation like this might have a better outcome. It works great in the sim to maintain attitude during the recovery, but lets face it, in the real world if one gets THAT slow, there are probably mitigating circumstances that one might actually have to lower the nose to effect a prompt recovery (ice, steep bank resulting in a high wing load, turbulence/windshear, etc.).