If it helps, the following is cut-and-pasted from something I'm working on at the moment and hoping that I might publish sometime late next year under the working title "airworthiness evaluation techniques for small light aeroplanes".
3.2. Defining the stall and stall warning for a pilot.
3.2.1. It is important to appreciate that the stall, as seen by the pilot, is not identical to the stall as would be understood classically by an aerodynamicist. The following definition, which is extracted from BCAR Section S, is typical of the definitions contained in any civil certification standard:-
3.2.2. (From S201(a)) Stall demonstrations must be conducted by reducing the speed by approximately 1kn/s from straight and level flight until either a stall results as evidenced by a downward pitching motion or downward pitching and rolling motion not immediately controllable or until the longitudinal control reaches the stop.
3.2.3. A more simple definition, which is a variation upon that taught in the military test pilots schools such as ETPS, is that a stall is the point following deceleration at which the pilot ceases to have full control over the aeroplane. This is compatible with the definition above, since an uncontrolled motion or the longitudinal control being on the stop are clear indicators that the pilot does not have full control over the aircraft in all axes – however wing rocking or other low-speed departures from controlled flight may also be included.
3.2.4. During a test programme, the test team would normally define the stall for a specific aircraft. Notwithstanding that other definitions may be useful in certain circumstances, the three most common definitions are:-
3.2.4.1. The longitudinal control being on the stop (often termed “mush” by pilots). This is most common at forward CG / hangpoint states where insufficient nose-up control authority exists to fully aerodynamically stall the wing.
3.2.4.2. A downward pitching motion (often termed a “pitch break”). This is most common at aft CG/hangpoint states, where there is sufficient nose-up control authority to fully aerodynamically stall the wing.
3.2.4.3. A wing drop, usually accompanying a pitch break. This occurs where the two sides of the mainplane do not stall simultaneously.
3.2.5. The stall warning is those characteristics of the aircraft which indicate to a pilot that he or she is flying at conditions close to the stall and caution may be needed. Stall warning characteristics will vary between aircraft and are invariably noted in the operators manual. The following are typical stall warnings:-
3.2.5.1. Airframe buffet, as localised airflow starts to detach.
3.2.5.2. Stick buffet, as localised airflow, usually over the wing root in a conventional 3-axis/tailplane aircraft, detaches and strikes the tail control surfaces.
3.2.5.3. Artificial stall warning devices, normally either based upon an AoA sensor [ ]or a localised airflow pressure sensor.[ ], [ ].
3.2.5.4. Unusually nose-high aircraft pitch attitude.
3.2.5.5. Unusually nose-up longitudinal control position.
3.2.5.6. Lack of control responsiveness.
3.2.6. During the airworthiness evaluation process for any aircraft, the following need to be determined:-
3.2.6.1. What are the stalling characteristics at representative deceleration rates? Are they acceptable?
3.2.6.2. What are the stall warning clues? Are they adequate?
3.2.6.3. Is the aircraft fully controllable during deceleration down to the point of stall?
3.2.7. Based upon the above assessment, the acceptability of the aircraft may be determined, and the contents of any advice concerning stalling that is to be included in the operators manual.
(Then follows about 10 pages of maths, which I won't inflict).
G