If pilots of a 121 operator are inventing their own stall recovery methods, contrary to published company manuals, and contrary to how they are trained, then the training problem would be even more serious.
Actually the procedure they followed was developed by NASA during tests evaluating the issue of tailplane icing.

Didn't help being paired with a non-assertive crewmember who was still mostly disengaged (quite possibly from illness/fatigue/lack of rest).
Right. On that we agree.

In fact, no US certificated aircraft has been identified as being succeptible to "tailplane icing stall."
Um....Vickers Viscount, DC-4s, the Convair turboprops, YS-11s and Jetstream 31s all had fatal crashes as result. The DHC-6 also had issues. Non fatal incidents involved the Saab 340, DC-9/MD-80 series and the ATR-42. (http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/I...cident_History)

The following comment is made on the cited page: "Stick Shaker/Stick Pusher

It is considered possible for a pilot to confuse the stick shaker with the elevator buffet condition, followed by interpreting the stick pusher as an elevator snatch. This reinforces the requirement to be aware of airspeed, configuration and pitch control forces. Misinterpreting the shaker/pusher for a tailplane stall could be a catastrophic mistake; conversely, misinterpreting the elevator buffet/elevator snatch behaviour for a main wing stall could be equally disastrous."

I have seen that previously mentioned in NASA papers on the subject. There's a LOT of NASA research on this for something that isn't a factor at all according to you.

I agree that a disengaged crew here played a major role and the "startle factor" was what sealed their fate. My point was simply that mindset can cause bigger issues than "stupid pilots".

To back the icing issue contention up (emphases are my own):
VICKERS VISCOUNT:
4/6/1958 Freelandville, Michigan Capital Airlines Flight 67 (I have a piece of this aircraft in my garage; we found it when we went to put flowers at the site on the anniversary of the crash)

PROBABLE CAUSE: "An undetected accretion of ice on the horizontal stabilizer which, in conjunction with specific airspeed and aircraft configuration, caused a loss of pitch control."

1/29/1963 Kansas City, MO Continental Airlines flight.

PROBABLE CAUSE: "An undetected accretion of ice on the horizontal stabilizer which, in conjunction with a specific airspeed and aircraft configuration, caused a loss of pitch control."
4/14/1963 Oslo, Norway Icelandair Flugfelag Islands flight
POSSIBLE NOT CONFIRMED
PROBABLE CAUSE: "The accident to TF-ISU is assumed to have been caused by the fact that, during the approach to Fornebu, the pilot lost control of the aircraft at such a low height that recovery was not possible. From the evidence available, it has not been possible for the Commission to determine why this happened. There are possibilities, however, that the cause may have been that ice formed on the stabilizer or that the propellers went over to ground fine pitch. The Commission considers that the latter hypothesis is slightly more than the former.


1/15/1977 Stockholm, Sweden Linjeflyg Flight 618

PROBABLE CAUSE: Ice on the leading edge of the stabilizer resulted in flow separation and stabilizer stall.

JETSTREAM 31:
12/26/1989 Pasco, WA http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=19891226-0

PROBABLE CAUSE: "The flight crew's decision to continue an unstabilized instrument landing system approach that led to a stall, most likely of the horizontal stabilizer, and loss of control at low altitude. Contributing to the accident was the air traffic controller's improper vectors that positioned the airplane inside the outer marker while it was still well above the glide slope. Contributing to the stall and loss of control was the accumulation of airframe ice that degraded the aerodynamic performance of the airplane."
1/30/1991 Beckley, WV
PROBABLE CAUSE: "Flight into known adverse weather conditions by the pilot, which resulted in ice accumulation on the aircraft and subsequent loss of aircraft control (tail plane stall) as the flaps were fully extended. Factors related to the accident were: the pilot's inadequate use of the preflight briefing service, inadequate training provided to the pilots by company/management personnel, inadequate surveillance by the FAA, and icing conditions."
YS-11:
1/10/1988 Yonago-Miho Japan (icing/slush on the horizontal stab prevented rotation for takeoff causing a runway overrun)
3/15/1989 Lafayette, IN Operated by Mid-Pacific Air

Those are just the ones I found in a quick search before I got bored with the exercise....

That's interesting, because "tailplane icing stall" is not mentioned in the Comair 3272 probable cause published by the NTSB.
By the way, I got my commuter crashes mixed up. It was the crash at Pasco, WA not Detroit that I was thinking of. Sorry about that.