Aerobatic Flyer
Years ago I flew Cessna 180 aircraft in and out of short strips, clay-pans and sometimes just rough clearings in remote areas of the country. Some were one-way strips due to the slope or terrain. Our technique was to approach at 1.1 Vs. The full flap stall speed of the aircraft was 36 KIAS therefore approach with full flap was flown 40 KIAS. In such a scenario the final approach required much control with the throttle to keep the aiming point correctly positioned – we had the throttle friction backed right off. As angle of attack was just below the stall there would have been no room to manoeuvre with nose pitch if the aircraft slipped below the flight path. The aircraft was stabilised at 40 KIAS in pretty much the three-point attitude and being a tail wheel type required little or no further flare. However sometimes conditions could inflict a higher rate of descent just prior to ‘impact’ and this was corrected with power!
My philosophy on the technique centred on a right-angle triangle. The baseline representing horizontal speed, the perpendicular representing ROD and the hypotenuse the TAS. If ROD could be increased for a given TAS then the baseline would reduce and so would ground-roll! In such a technique the use of power is the only way to arrest ROD.
I don’t advocate STOL at 1.1 Vs. If the strip is too short to approach at 1.3 Vs then simply reduce payload until it fits – particularly since a Cessna Caravan costs many times more than a C180. I would advise any non-instructor types to use the technique they were taught and stick with what works best.
My commentary on the topic was more aimed at instructors and the need to consider all teaching options as many students progress into various types of flying. We should therefore not only teach both techniques but also ensure the student is fully conversant with the logic of each. My preference is to delay the 'point and power' technique until it fits the scenario i.e.: high inertia, low drag airframes.