Yes, that's the way we were trained in 121 back then. Not to recover from a stall, but to power out of a low-speed event before the stall occurred.

He was kinda right. We weren't taught to yank back, but it was max thrust and definitely a "hold some pressure, maybe even slight back pressure." The point back then was to minimize altitude loss and basically power yourself out of the approach-to-stall condition. The old standard sucked. It taught the wrong 'initial action' on the yoke which is what really counted in the heat of the moment. And it completely disregarded the relationship between wing chord line and relative wind.

It doesn't matter if you're 2,300 ft outside Buffalo or above FL350 over the Atlantic. Once the airplane approaches stall or is stalled, there is really only one viable option left. Personally I wish in many instances, instead of "fly the plane" it should be taught as "fly the wing." There are too many instances of pilots pulling back and increasing their AOA when it wasn't the appropriate - or even necessary - response to what was happening.

Yes, but I'm not I'd feel comfortable making that statement for full-reversal-continuous inputs (eg, full left, full right, full left, full right). And yes the control surface should stall, but would you not agree that mostly implies to airfoils directly facing the relative wind almost directly head on? Eg, ailerons, flaps, elevator, horizontal stabilizer. The rudder is deflected into the wind but hard to imagine a scenario in which the rudder itself would stall below 250 knots. As long as the chord line of the rudder and relative wind reach a certain angle, it should stall, but again I don't see how that applies for the rudder. The rudder induces a large side load - severe in the case of AA 587 with full left/right/left/right inputs. Even if the control surface stalls, how are you preventing the large side loads?

Who knows what he expected. American's AAMP did not teach rudder usage in this scenario, especially climbing away from the airport. Using full rudder to correct for wake turbulence is bad juju. All it's really going to accomplish is subject the aircraft to large side loading. From the NTSB report, prior pilots were interviewed who also made comments on how quick he was on the rudders when it came to wake turbulence, and in one case it was bad enough of a sideways movement that the 727 CA thought they may have lost an engine.

You should feel uncomfortable because it would be an unwise thing to say. Making one full control input at or below maneuvering speed is quite different than making full reversal inputs. The acceleration or loading created by reversing inputs is more than the ultimate load as designed. Transport aircraft were never certified to withstand more than one full deflection.

You're not preventing the side loads. The side loading or the relative wind smashing into the deflected tail along with the new rudder position creating a load in the same direction is what causes failure.

Using rudder during wake turbulence is not "bad juju." It is about HOW you use the rudder. I don't believe Boeing or Airbus ever said not to use the rudder during a wake turbulence encounter in their notices to operators following AA587. I believe they said not to use alternating inputs.

To me the scariest part of this thread is the apparent inconsistency on stall recovery/training/opinions from several posters of whom many are very high time and experienced pilots. I really hope all can find a way to get on the same page.

Correct. The issue was alternating sequential full inputs.

The certification criteria required that you could apply and hold full rudder deflection (rudder limiters are often needed at higher IAS). It did not require that you could bounce back and forth between the stops with the tail swinging opposite your inputs. Airbus apparently designed to the certification criteria.

hopefully putting around in my super cub will train me for these shiny jets in 1220 hours

1. All aircraft are not the same in terms of performance near/at/beyond stall AOA. Thus, there can be many different answers that are all correct.

2. There are many techniques that may all achieve the central objective; one being correct does not require all of the other techniques to be incorrect.

3. Tacos.

Pretty much any aircraft that has "Super" in the name. Super-80, Super-Hornet, PA-12, F-100, etc.