djpil, I thought that was the reason for stating it clearly, instead of going through an exceptionally long list of possible names of Aerobatic Maneuvers they instead set criteria and realised that Straight and Steady Stalls (The sort you'd practice in training) could very well be covered by their description so added in that they aren't a Stall. I realise the 60 degree part makes it a few shades of grey but it was nice that at least they realised it then and make the change! I then take it that they only wanted it applied to Paragraph 1 as they still want it conducted above 3000ft AGL for safety reasons which seems perfectly reasonable IMHO.
This isn't intended to be another thread on how daft the new Regs are though, enough of those around and general experience for everyone except for CASA to realise they are! Just a specific question wrt Stalling.
Fujii, the CAAPs still aren't a Law and nowhere in there can I find any reference to any regulations like the old CAR 155. I've seen the new definition in there but conducting an Intentional Stall for the Purposes for Training which can easily be argued involves an "Abrupt Change in Attitude" which the new definition states.
This still would mean that any Instructor teaching Stalling would also require an Aerobatics Rating before they could do so?
I'm still at a loss as to which Regulation or Exemption makes an ordinary part of any training that Instructors regularly conduct without the Aerobatics Rating legal.