Oh it does feel good to hear so many esteemed individuals re-enforcing one of my favourite hobby-horses. 2Donkeys, you're a pilot after my own heart.
I was taught doing my microlight PPL (before my GA/SEP PPL) that it's only got one engine and you always fly as if it was about to stop. Flying in the back of a Hawk on my ETPS course we applied the same principle, albeit that we did at-least have an opt-out. This is good practice, and even some GA instructors understand the principle.
Yet this apparently goes out the window in the standard GA circuit where a flat 3° approach is considered more important than the risk of engine failure. The problem (at most airfields anyway) is utterly avoidable through a combination of a steep approach and [shock from the audience as I speak a civil heresy) a constant aspect circuit.
On the odd occasions (about half a dozen a year) that I fly new homebuilts I always try and fly constant aspect, tight, circuits so that if the engine coughs I'll make the runway from anywhere in the circuit. Middle of this year I proved it worked as a Jabiru decided to stop going in the middle of base. Tighten the finals turn a little, sweat a little, don't bend an aeroplane!
3° approach, combined with a civil rectangular circuit, and this is absolutely impossible.
If at Kidlington they are teaching 3° approaches to their baby ATPLs I can understand the rationale. IF they have properly assessed the risk - which in my book means only doing it on runways where there's an option if the engine conks.
G