Problem on rig landings has always been one of speed control. Stable approach allows the pilot now visual with the rig to give the correct amount of nose up pitch to achieve the steady deceleration and loaded disk required to end up at a hover over a deck suspended in mid-air. Incidentally, that is also the problem with trying to aim too far away from the deck in the latter part of the approach before deciding on committed - hard to do looking at the deck, even harder looking at thin air.
I doubt that we are actually flying a constant angle, but we'll know soon enough as we start to spend money experimenting with the technology of angle guidance. Virtually all pilots I've flown with that are not trying some OEI-obsessed profile will fly reasonable slope and decelerating approaches, just like we teach them. Start them back a reasonable distance like 1-2 miles, and start some kind of deceleration to a point with a reasonable slope to the deck (maybe around 1/2 mile?) and its all going to work out for you. Now you transition to a gradual descent all the while decelerating. Minor corrections are done in the final phase by looking at the shape of the deck.
As far as flying a profile flat on an ARA because of a low ceiling, well what of it? Seems like a normal day in the life of a helicopter pilot - adapting a profile to meet an operational requirement, normally introduced in the first third of a CPL course. The reason the ARA's for the past 40 years have not been a problem in this regard is because they were "set-up" a ways back, and stabilized with respect to speed. I don't see any justification in Bogey's presentation for raising the MDH on an ARA at all.
I've read the extensive (almost defensively so) credentials of the proponents of this new approach, but in the course of their argument I find it difficult to be convinced that they understand offshore approaches any better than anyone else.
Hope I don't sound too much like Swamp76.........