i can't believe how much such a simple statement in the regs can be misinterpreted:
centaurus:
The guide or best practice only of 3000 ft is certainly best practice for ripping off a student. For decades flying schools have perpetuated the myth that recovery from practice stalls must be completed by 3000 ft. It originated from Tiger Moth and Chipmunk days when the propellers of those early types were prone to stopping during aerobatics and stalling.
WRONG! I hate writing these things out but here goes:
CAR155(2)
For the purposes of subregulation (1), straight and steady stalls or turns in which the angle of bank does not exceed 60 degrees shall be deemed not to be aerobatic flight.
CAR155(3)
A person must not engage in acrobatic flight in an aircraft:
(a) at a height lower than 3000 feet above the highest point of terrain, or any obstacle thereon, within a radius of 600 metres of a line extending vertically below the aircraft; or.......
How can you say that all stalls can be conducted below 3000 feet? Only "straight and steady" stalls may be conducted in such a fashion.
What is a straight stall? It's impossible to conduct a stall with exactly zero degrees heading change at some point throughout the manoeuvre. Remember a .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00001 degree heading change is not "straight". I think the lawyers would have a lot of fun pointing that out to some smart arsed pilot who claimed the he/she could do a straight stall.
The people ripping you off are the ones that only teach or get a student to practice a so-called straight stall.