Recomend that you find out what FAR-23 and CS-23 are and then review your post.
I did have a look in FAR-23 and can't see any reason for a review of my last post. FAR Part 23 seems to be all about airworthiness standards for normal, utility, aerobatic and commuter category of aircraft.
In a nutshell: A long list of important requirements and methods to find out if a modern aircraft can be granted an airworthiness certificate.
I did not find any paragraph talking about light aircraft doing 3 degree approaches. Please point out the correct paragraph for me, I would like to see what FAR-23 has to say about the matter.
What I did find though is how you measure the maximum travelled distance in still air when you have an engine failure.
Far Part § 23.71:
The maximum horizontal distance travelled in still air, in nautical miles, per 1,000 feet of altitude lost in glide, and the speed necessary to achieve this must be determined with the engine inoperative , its propeller in the minimum drag position, and landing gear and wing flaps in the most favourable available position.
The method of testing this doesn't come as a surprise to me, but I think you (DFC) and others teaching 3 degree approaches religiously in light aircraft should go up in your training aircraft (don't bring a student) and switch that engine off when you have established yourself on final approach (I have a feeling that some of you teach 4 mile finals as well).
Yes, you will discover that you can't glide a 3 degree approach! Make sure you get that engine started again before its to late.
The students of yours that forget to set fuel to rich or forget carb-heat on a murky day might not be able to get that engine going again.
As an instructor, can you please let us have a drawing of the runway aspect you teach
I'm not an instructor, but I do have a night rating and have not bent any aircraft yet
If you still would like to have my non-instructor view on the matter let me know. I doubt you want to hear anything from someone with my opinion, maybe since this is an instructors forum and non-instructors and students should keep away? .
If I interpret your statement correctly, I must conclude that instrument flying on single engine aircraft is inherently unsafe and should not be taught. Are you really saying that? ]
No, you didn't interpret me correctly.
If I fly IFR in clouds at FL40 and we have a cloud base well above MSA I don't think instrument flying is unsafe. With the correct traffic service it might actually be more safe than staying at a crowded VFR level.
If I continue on a 3 degree approach in a SEP with nowhere to glide clear on a sunny day when I could have chosen to fly differently I do believe my choice was wrong and inherently unsafe.
If I'm tracking an ILS on a 3 degree approach in a SEP with nowhere to glide clear In IFR conditions I do think its inherently unsafe, but I'm aware of the risk and will do it anyway.
And Finally:
If I, as a student, track an ILS on a 3 degree approach in a SEP with nowhere to glide clear on a sunny day I will accept the risk, but I would also know that I should use a totally different approach when I fly VFR because my instructor taught me this in a solid way during my PPL studies.
DFS: We don't need FAR-23 to be capable of applying some common sense.