Beagle
I agree that the technique works in any aircraft but that was not my point. In teaching the ‘point and power technique’ we are programming students to check approach path with elevator – therefore speed becomes a secondary consideration. If the aircraft descends below flight path and attitude is increased to recover, speed will decrease. The rate of decrease is dependent upon angle of attack, the greater the angle the more rapidly speed will reduce. On short field approaches where speed is targeted at the minimum approach speed there is not much margin for error.
On the other hand students trained in the conventional manner will recover from a below flight path or high ROD situation with power, a pre-requisite to going round which will be the next step if the ‘swimming in glue’ syndrome continues.
I worked for a school that taught the ‘point and power’ technique exclusively. One of my students during STOL practice failed to recognise a low-speed high ROD situation because he was too intent on pinning the aim point with elevator. My calls for ‘power’ went unheeded until I slammed the throttle forward. We landed softly with full power!
Low time students just don’t have the experience to put it all together, all of the time. Training should therefore safeguard the student until the basic skills and situation awareness are developed. In training pilots onto turbo props/jets I have never had a problem introducing the ‘point and power’ technique. To most experienced pilots the approach and landing just seems to happen with no conscious thought until taught an alternative method.
Our company operates a diverse turbine fleet including Cessna Caravans. The latter regularly operate into 420 metre strips. I note that in STOL operations our pilots make a conscious effort to fly the traditional method with the aircraft trimmed for speed and the power varied to achieve the flight path. Therefore turbines – small ones at least – do not have to be flown using the ‘point and power technique’.