What next: nothing personal (although I think that the theory I was spouting was pretty much from the JAR CPL/ATPL syllabi which I think are the same in the UK and Germany). You perhaps got me at a grumpy moment, but equally contradict me any time - nothing like a good aviation technical argument.
8282: whatever else you did, you got a great discussion going. My complements for that. I do agree with others about the flat approach, but a great many instructors do teach light aeroplane flying as if it was airliner flying so this is almost certainly their fault not yours. But get rid of the hi-viz!
Pace: I'm pretty certain that any experienced pilot, such as yourself, will use power and pitch (and possibly other services) holistically to control speed and flightpath. However, it used to be standard teaching to do RoD/ flightpath with power and speed with pitch; in recent years that has reversed, and if you're going to be regimented about it, certainly that works best on an instrument approach in a jet: it is much more debateable on a visual approach with (a) piston engine(s). I'd venture that anybody without a lot of hours both overall and on type, probably should stick to one or the other.
Everybody: I was taught some years ago that a landing is never over until ALL of the bits have stopped moving. It's an adage that's served me well so far.
Also, the use of flat powered approaches operating power against services should be regarded as more of a jet thing - in most turbine aeroplanes it is quicker to get rid of gear and flap than it is to spool an engine up from near-idle. In most piston engined aeroplanes, particularly anything with electric flaps, the converse is true.
G