SSD, I don't entirely agree. Of course, many things done in a plane can be lethal if executed without an adequate margin of safety (which is often speed), but skidding/slipping turns can be safely accomplished, and should be a practiced skill for all pilots - appropriate to the aircraft type.
Speed awareness is of course vital. but with a margin of speed, full deflection uncoordinated turns can be made. There are reasons for doing them in certain flying roles. But, with any unusual maneuver, it is one of the "swiss cheese" holes lining itself up, so the pilot must have an awareness of this, and be compensating with skill and attention to mitigate risk. I think that we have agreed that this Caravan pilot was, and good on him.
I would have considered a skidding turn to align with the runway with even higher risk than was apparently involved here. I would rather be more aligned (even if not perfectly) with a suitable roll out area, than crossing possible ditches or other obstacles the pilot might have been aware of wings level. My experience with the Caravan is that it has more rapid response to aggressive rudder input than aileron input. If I had to roll to coordinate a turn, I might not get it rolled back fast enough to hit wings level. This is worsened if I stall a wing while doing it (displaced ailerons/spoilers and all). Aside from inducing a spin (which would take a few moments to develop anyway) a rudder correction can be very rapidly applied and withdrawn as needed. During cross wind testing of a Grand Caravan, I was touching down in 25 knot crosswind, wings level, with full rudder applied (both directions, per crosswind direction tested) with no difficulty in control whatever.
Yes, there are types not as forgiving, but it is the responsibility of a truly competent pilot to have an idea of the what the plane will safely do. All planes I have flown will safely skid a turn to some degree....
Indeed, DAR. That's why I wrote "can be lethal". I used to do 100% skid turns when running in for a parachute drop; the jumpmaster woud tap me on the appropriate shoulder and I'd stick in a bootfull of rudder with opposite aileron (to prevent any roll). This was so the JM could keep the aimimg point on the ground in view at all times during the run-in (if we'd done conventional banked turns he couldn't do that).
But we had speed, and we had height (in the unlikely event of a sudden wing drop forward stick and rudder to centralise the ball would have been no problem).
About my fourth flight carrying jumpers in a C 185 (with really no jump pilot training whatever) I had the plane slowed back to about 55 MPH (it was STOL kitted). The JM loved it when I flew really slowly on jump run, and I liked to keep them happy.
Well, the three jumpers all climbed out, but did not jump. They went hand over hand up the wingstrut. Followed by the JM. I had four of them trailing the strut, and full rudder, and lots of aileron in to keep it straight with all of that unexpected drag. As I was about to yell out there "what the hell are you doing?". the JM yelled "Yahoo!", and they were gone. Well with all that control applied, as the plane reached the stall, then suddenly the drag was gone, the thing just tumbled, I had no idea which way was up. I was really concerned that I might hit a jumper, but had no idea where they were, and no control anyway. Some kind of spin/spiral dive/split S/immellman recovery worked, and all was fine.
After that, I insisted on briefings before jumpers exited.
If the pilot is good and precise. knows the aircraft then there is nothing wrong with that approach. Where I do agree with you is that many pilots are not that precise and as such maouvres like that should be avoided. Engine out is just a red herring for while the pilot no longer has on tap energy from the engine he does have potential energy albeit sacrificing altitude to achieve the same or even better as there is no torque effect from the prop. It all depends on the pilot and this was well executed