The only time a single is mean't to use a 3 deg glide outside training is when the risk to life and limb is increased due to other factors ie you can't see the ground due IMC and you have to get it on the ground before you run out of fuel. If you have the option to fly it visually you should decrease your exposure to risk by flying it visually with the normal SEP approach angle.
Can
anyone come up with any form of reference that backs-up such a statement or that in any way defines what "the normal SEP approach angle." is?
There is plenty of litrature available to explain why 3 degrees was selected as a standard point to start from.
There are published rules that define approach angles above 4.5 degrees as "steep approaches" and they don't limit that definition to certain categories of aircraft if such approach angles
have to be used.
Can't find anything that defines this "normal SEP approach angle." as being any different from any other aircraft.
Can you?
Perhaps we are getting confused with "optional" techniques and "emergency procedures" when we simply want to define some yard-stick that a student can refer to and 99% of instructors can easily recreate.
Well it is thats why nearly all authorities ban single engine IMC IFR flights public transport.
Applies to a lot of multi-engine types also especially when close to their certified MTOW. So it is not a single engine issue.
Alot of the airports in the UK 3 degree approaches don't allow you to glide clear in case of engine failure.
Indeed, the CAA has seen fit to exempt all aircraft landing and taking-off at those aerodromes from the low flying prohibitions and they do not agree that a C172 flying a 3 degree approach could be classed as anything other than "flying in accordance with normal aviation practice".