Originally Posted by SWH
Stabilised approaches need to be taught...
That's where we're going to have to agree to disagree I reckon. I'm of the opinion that trainees need to be taught appropriately to fly what they are flying
now, not what they may or may not fly several years and thousands of hours down some future track -when they can be properly and appropriately trained in what they need to know, in what they need to know it in. The "consistent picture they need to hang their hat on" when training and in the early stages of their career does not come from attempting to fly an inappropriate "stabilised" approach. They need to be getting trained to see and accurately perceive the sight-picture in front of them and manage their approach path and appropriately respond to managing their profile to achieve the desired result. Instructors that train their student on the basis of "You'll never fly a [insert desired heavy-metal here] if you do that" are the bane of the industry IMO, not serving themselves, their institution or their students well.
Jabawocky's 1st video is one of the examples I was going to quote myself... their stabilised approach went all to hell in a hand-basket when the power faded. Had a stabilised approach been the only trick in their arsenal, how do you think that would have wound up? They were able to see and do what was necessary to achieve a bloody good result because they were trained to see and respond to what was necessary rather than slavishly follow a formalised procedure. Likewise, Captain Sullenburger of Hudson River fame -how "stabilised" do you reckon his approach was?
The Politically Correct stance of "train 'em for the majors" is bull**** IMO. Many will never make it, some don't want to. They still have years of active GA flying in front of them and need to be trained to fly what they are in.