The ICAO definition is:
““maneuvers intentionally performed by an aircraft involving an abrupt change in its attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal variation in speed.”
The USA and Europe have definitions which are almost exactly like the ICAO definition. The USA regulation is below.
The USA has an additional rule requiring the wearing of parachutes.
UK has this definition: ‘aerobatic flight’ means manoeuvres intentionally performed by an aircraft involving an abrupt change in its attitude, an abnormal attitude, or an abnormal variation in speed, not necessary for normal flight or for instruction for licenses or ratings other than aerobatic rating
EASA also has an additional rule clarifying that training undertaken for a licence is not aerobatics.
Why am I focussing on the definition by ICAO and other significant countries rather than the Australian definition? CASA had a definition of aerobatics identical to ICAO’s definition but changed it when Part 61 was introduced in September 2015.
Why did CASA change the definition of aerobatics? Why is CASA’s definition of aerobatics so much different than that of other countries?
Consider what CASA requires for training towards a licence and consider whether, for example, any unintentional wing-drop at the stall is aerobatics per CASA’s definition. Not a problem of course if it is a dual flight and the instructor has a spin or aerobatic training endorsement and they are in an aircraft approved for intentional spins.
Every pilot should know the definition of aerobatics as you are not permitted to do it unless you have an aerobatic endorsement. You must know the limitations of your licence.