An interesting, if somewhat predictable thread, with for and against thoughts as to dive and drive versus stable approach path flight conditions. I declare a bias in that I am fervently for the latter, whenever that option is practicable.
I have always viewed the target height increment as a sensible consideration which, I had presumed, most pilots added informally if not required to do so by formal directive - emergency situations notwithstanding.
I incline very much to OzExpat's philosophy and have only one thought to add to the discussion . ..
From reading in other fields, and my (sometimes bemused) observations from the back seat in the sim, it is very clear that the human beast works best in a "steady" environment, (cf detection of terrestrial threats with peripheral vision in the hunter-gatherer type of chap).
Pilots consistently perform comparatively poorly in error detection and correction tasks if the environment is rapidly varying (typical in a difficult dive and drive situation), yet perform comparatively well if the environment is stable (as in a well disciplined ILS).
I do not suggest for a moment that the former does not have a place in the pilot's arsenal, in the same way that the circling minimum weather approach is, on occasion, very useful. However, if we are inclined to the view that airmanship, basically, is peer-reviewed risk management practised in aeroplanes (and rotorcraft, of course), then we ought to consider preferring the risk averse practice of adopting stablised approaches where such an option is reasonably available.
[This message has been edited by john_tullamarine (edited 25 May 2001).]