Mike Ash wrote:

xyzzy wrote:

The way you recognize a tail stall is that pitch control becomes
abnormal when flaps are extended. Plus knowing that you're in icing
conditions.

This still sounds like a total crapshoot to me. You can lose pitch
control during a regular stall, and icing can precipitate a regular
stall as well. Obviously in this case the signs were interpreted
incorrectly. Surely it's not a case of "heads we live, tails we die"?
There must be some way to tell which kind of stall is happening besides
these indications which clearly weren't correct in this case, isn't
there?

I guess there doesn't *have* to be, but it's kind of scary if there
isn't.

When the flaps are extended, and a tailplane stall results, the aircraft
immediately pitches down. There is no stall warning or stick shaker
activation.

In the case of the Buffalo accident, the nose did not drop, but the stick
shaker activated shortly after the flap setting was made. The stick
shaker is fired by low air speed, and is only a warning of impending wing
stall, with some airspeed margin. It is not an indication of tailplane
stall, or of an actual wing stall. Therefore, the correct action when
the stick shaker fired should have been to push the nose down to keep
speed up and reduce AOA. No question.

Further, the Q400 supposedly will never see a tailplane stall in icing,
but the crew may not have known that. The Saabs the captain previously
flew are subject to tailplane stall in icing, and he might have reacted
based on his previous training and apprehension about such stalls.