Slim Slag,
You should be able to demonstrate a height losing forward-slip to landing to your PPL examiner.
As I mentioned in my post, there is a relevant use for high rate of descent sideslipping, ie during a PFL when needing to lose excess height to stop in a required space.
It is not a technique for either slipping 'quietly' into an airfield or as a common practice during a normal powered approach.
Side slips are generally used to land in crosswind conditions, and plenty of students also learn this technique as part of their training.
The 'wing down' crosswind landing approach is different to the type of sideslipping I was describing: A small angle of bank with rudder to keep straight and power to fly maintain rate of descent is not what I was criticising. It is the few individuals I have flown with who cross control with no power at low altitude to produce a high rate of descent INSTEAD of achieving a stabilised approach.
it's skidding that causes stall/spin accidents in the pattern
Side slipping causes accidents in the pattern as well as other reasons, including skidding.
In fact at my last BFR, the aerobatics instructor took us to altitude and all we did was cross controlled stalls, late recovery stalls and MCA work
And good practice that is too, but practicing recovering from a mishandled approach is of little benefit if you fly a technique below the height from which it is recoverable. The best idea is to avoid sideslipping - it isn't necessary.
My aim was to highlight the fact it is not a recognised method of adjusting a normal approach, merely a technique to be employed in extremis when no other options are available, ie forced landing.
You shouldn't be worried about them.
After flying F16s to 747s as well as 1500hours of light aircraft instruction and pleasure flying (still current), I'm not. But I'm worried that other people don't appreciate their risks.