It's all in the mind.
It is not about technique is is about understanding actions and reactions.
Whopity has it perfect with their piece of string idea.
The best way to look at this is to put 2 people from opposing camps in the sim ( a good sim!!).
get them to stabilise on an approach and then pout them at the correct speed and below the glide path (safe approach path if one prefers).
One will add power (thinking they are low) and will also at the same time pitch up to cancel the increasing speed trend.
In other words they will will flatten the trajectory while maintaining a constant speed and by this regain their ideal trajectory.
The other will pitch up (thinking they are low) and also at the same time add power to cancle the decreasing speed trend.
In other words they will flatten the trajectory while maintaining a constant speed and by this regain their ideal trajectory.
The difference in the highlighted parts in the above to examples is the difference between the mind-set of "point and power" and "power for altitude".
Having said that, in my experience candidates who think in terms of "point and power" perform better than those that think in terms of "power for altitude, attitude for speed".
Why is there a difference when it is only a mindset?
The answer is that in the power for altitude case there is no real emphasis on learning to recognise where the trajectory of the aircraft is pointing. People who are good at recognising where the trajectory of the aircraft is going to hit the ground will not only do accurate approaches with power but they will also use that information to make critical decisions in PFL / glide approach situations.
-------------
skipping classes,
It seems to me that to get back on the 3 degree glide (in case of being above it) one has to point the airplane short of the aiming point to get back to the glide path first and then re-aim for the 3 degree.
Absolutely correct, and if you find while trying to correct that you have the throttle closed and the trajectory is still beyond the aiming point with the correct speed, you are going to miss the aiming point unless you can add more drag.
As I said above it is this critical ability to recognise the current trajectory of the aircraft and to change it if required that is essential no matter how your mind works. Every pilot should be able to fly a constant angle approach at a constant speed and every time be in a position that if they did nothing else they would smash the nose into the aiming point at the correct speed.
----------
Probably only those playing airliners and flying long final approaches insist on 3 deg visual glidepaths in light aeroplanes.
Probably before your time but I think that you will find that 3 degrees is used because it is a natural approach angle that pilots prefer and enables the majority of powered aircraft flying to make stable approaches while clearing obstacles by a safe margin.
Many palces specify it as a minimum for noise.
It is what the figures in most performance tables/charts are based upon.
As soon as one makes steeper approaches then other factors some into play - for your average light trainer - more groundrush and more positive roundout all of which make the basic approach a bit harder for the student doing it for the first time.
I am all for making a glide approach and being able to say "I don't care if the engine stops because I will get in anyway" but I think that when training one has to start with the easiest method and expand from there.
We agree about "long approaches" though establishing final at about 1.5 miles and 500ft is far enough out and if every one did it there would be some noce and tidy circuits......and that is about 3 degrees!!
