Thread drift I know, but;
Learning to "feel" the aircraft as you fly (an approach and landing in particular) is vital. Dependance on an airspeed indicating system in anything other than a very high performance aircraft is to me foolish.
During the early phases of my night training (1970's) more than half the circuits flown were with absolutely no instrument lights at all - thus no instrument information available (yes, I had a flashlight, but it's use was not permitted for training). The object was to learn to feel the plane in it's approach configuration. This has eased my remaining flight many times over that years, as bugs in the pitot tube will cause odd errors in indications (ever seen an ASI read negative once airbornre?) and numerous cockpit lighting failures over the years have meant that you're feeling your way down, not reading instruments to do it, and at night, with fewer visual cues.
I once flew an instructor home after his delivering an aircraft. I purposely flew an extra slow curved approach, while watching and waiting for traffic to clear. Peeping stall warning, 'cause that's what it's there for. Once on the ground, the instructor reported to anyone who listened that I was an "idoit" for "flying around below stall speed". His boss correctly asked him if I was below stall speed, why did I not stall? (He had no answer for that). The truth is, I was looking out the window, and had no idea what speed I was flying, and as long as the approach felt safe and with an adequate margin for safety for the conditions, I really don't care what the airspeed was in numbers - it's AoA and G that matters really.
Several times I have had to "help" with an approcah in its latter stages from right seat. most GA aircraft do not have two ASI's, so I'm not looking at one in front of me. When we're slipping over trees into a small sheltered bay in a lake, I'm not looking over to the left panel in any case! I'm just going to feel my way to the appropriate approach attitude.
Those pilots who depend on indicated numeric information to the exclusion or obliviousness (if that's a word) of flying their aircraft with respect to "feel", in visual conditions, are overlooking their resonsibility to fly as safely as possible, and should refresh themselves with some very basis skills. Those skills are equally valuable for most any aircraft they would fly.
It is certainly possible for the characteristics of an aircraft to change in flight (airframe ice) such that flying an approach by adhering to flight manual speeds would be very dangerous. The pilot must "feel" that the aircraft must be flown faster to be flown safely in that condition. I hold the personal opinion that a Dash 8 400 would not have crashed in New York State last year if the pilots were simply "feeling" the plane.
I know that the flight training community puts a lot of thought into what are appropriate things to train new pilots, but the thought that elementry flight training does not leave a pilot able to confidently land without referring to indicated airspeed alarms me.