I am assuming the poster meant that the POH or FM may list a series of manouvres approved for the aircraft and might include some that now require an aerobatic or spin 'flight activity endorsement' on your part 61 licence before you can do them.

Best Practice? Where does that gem come from? Where is the regulation requiring stalling to be conducted above 3000 ft or to be recovered by 3000 ft? It would surely depend on aircraft type. With Cessna, Warrior et al, a competent pilot should recover with less than 100 feet height loss so why 3000 ft? Of course it could be a flying school money making exercise since it takes a long time to get to 3000 ft in most light singles especially on a warm day. All the time VDO is merrily clicking away..
What is a HASELL check? Unable to find reference under Definitions in in AIP or in any manufacturer's POH

MOS: A5.1 (a).

urbandictionary.com sums it up quite well:
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....eb63540c20.png

As the discussion is slightly drifting out of context, I'd like to ask flight instructors reading this:

But it won't tell anyone how many were on board! :ok:

Why limit the query to stalls. Would you not also want to practice forced landings, precautionary search and landings, low level circuits, flapless approaches, go arounds, simulated brake failure landings and the list goes on?

By all means do. Hereby happy to extend the query to include those activities.

Don't know about RA but you must practise engine off (idle) approaches if you are to have any confidence in carrying out a real one. You will become rusty or very rusty without some practice.
Stalling doesn't require the same amount of judgement and calculations so, while it is good to practise, doesn't need so much.

From what I have read, it is permitted but there are some requirements:
For a male pilot-
Both hands must remain on the controls,
The passenger/co-pilot/best friend/wife/girlfriend must hold the container and "steer"
Don't know about female.

Glider pilots are taught stalls and stall recoveries often at 1500 feet. None of this 3000 ft rubbish and gliders don't have an engine to help recover with minimum loss of height. 3000 ft just in case the stall turns into a spin was never the reason why 3000 ft was mandated years ago. That was purely for aerobatics and a stall is not an aerobatic manoeuvre.

On the other hand if you are in a Mustang fighter and you inadvertently hold the control column back in a stall the Pilots Notes states: "a wing will drop very rapidly and the aircraft will become inverted" "Power on spins should never be intentionally performed. As many as five or six turns may be made after recovery action and 9000 ft to 10,000 ft lost" Page 33 RAAF Publication No 780 dated September 1950. So there is one case you would be wise to practice stalling above 3000 ft..

Stalling is not an aerobatic manouvre otherwise instructors without an aero activity endorsement (and the majority won't), would not be able to do them - let alone teach them.

There is no 'stalling' flight activity endorsement (like there is for spinning) so you can stall without holding a licence (ie a student), therefore a student should be able to legally stall an aircraft solo.

As I see it...

I can see no regulation that would prevent allowing a student who had been assessed as competent to enter and recover from a stall, to practise them as part of their supervised solo consolidation. (Would love to know if there is a regulation though - is there anything I am missing?)

The decision to allow a student to practise stalling solo on any particular flight would depend on the student's training, ability and currency on the aircraft (as assessed by the instructor supervising the solo). The instructor would have to explicitly brief the student on what manouvres and sequences they would practise on the solo flight.

Am I missing something?

Agreed jonkster, although I don't think that Okihara is a student?

Stalls were mentioned in the old version of CAR 155 and my interpretation of the rambling text was that stalling had to comply with all the rules about aerobatics except the one about needing an aerobatic endorsement i.e. harness secure and above 3,000 ft etc. These days there is no minimum altitude specified in the rules. Except that some pilots will be trapped by CASA's new definition of aerobatics - some of my students and PPLs have nicely put me into a spin unintentionally.