I'm not saying airplanes don't depart controlled flight when they are purposely and aggressively flown well past the stall, but I would argue they should not recover as easy as they do, especially at low altitude.
This maneuver just cheapens the games and unfortunately it's becoming more and more common.
I don't know where you would find a statistic for this outside of oral history, but I would bet the overwhelming majority of world war 2 fighter aircraft that departed controlled flight below 1,000 feet AGL resulated in the total loss of aircraft and most likely the pilots life, yet in AH just move the rudder here, move the throttle there and you're recovered.
Because we get to do it over and over without actually dying, we get to find out where the actual line is exactly. Like Lusche said.
Again, based on what? Given the same atmospheric and aircraft conditions between attempts, IRL it should also be rudder here, throttle here, stick there, recover as well. Physics are very repeatable.
Unfortunately because the game is based on math in a relatively simplified game world giving it the same inputs under the same conditions produces the same results. I'd like to see way more variables in the air conditions as well to make things like that riskier, but the amount of computing power it would take to do that would be monumental.
I personally prefer that the game reflects what the plane is doing in the air to the best of its ability versus having a "feature" where it would just decide what you've done isn't realistic so your spin is now unrecoverable. Kind of like maingunning aircraft. If the round intersects the plane, it hits it. If the plane gets airflow over its flight surfaces, it recovers from the stall.
An awful lot of people seem to know what the planes shouldn't be able to do, but it seems very few can describe exactly what they should.
Wiley.