Now all the PPL's who fly similar hardware have a good think about what you would do in similar circumstances.
I will throw some ideas out.
Engine off for the landing.
Forced landing glide approach
Yes, and probably before I started the round out because I think I would have enough to think about during the landing, and would want a few seconds to adjust to the handling without power.
Oddly, many of my best landings have been from glide approaches, so I would consider this after I was absolutely sure that I would make the runway.
Fast approach
Slow approach
Flat appoarch and a drive on at above stalling speed.
Land on the stall nose high.
Theoretically I would want to land with a minimal rate of descent at touchdown, possibly with the starboard wing somewhat raised.
I could understand why someone may not want to land at absolute minimum speed, as this risks stalling in from a foot or two over the runway. This may be enough to ram the damaged leg into the ground, snatching and causing a ground-loop. I had wondered whether this was the concern that led the pilot to land flatter than he might normally have done.
To be honest, I think I would try not to do anything too clever. Most of my landings on a PA28 were fairly smooth (much better than my landings on a C152) and to me, trying to do something new sounds like asking for trouble. After touchdown I would try and maintain the horizon horizontal by gradually turning the wheel to the port, and I would try to get the nosewheel on the ground before the damaged wheel. But I think that as a relatively low airtime pilot I would do better trying to do something normal, well, than trying to do something theoretically better but outside my capabilities.
I would use all 3 stages of flap (not certain whether the pilot in question did so or not) because though I worry the flaps may catch on the ground and get damaged - possibly causing severe damage to the aircraft - the landing speed could be so much lower that the risk of a catastrophic accident with serious injury etc. would be lower.
Burn fuel off or not.
run a tank empty or not.
I liked the suggestion about burning fuel off just from the starboard tank. Partly because I know how tired I can get after 4 hours in the air, and partly because that's the side without undercarriage, partly because this would lighten the wing and make it easier to hold off, and lastly because that's the side where the door is and I would prefer not to have a fire there!
Another consideration is that the gauges on the tanks aren't terribly reliable and I would rather burn off one tank completely but still retain a fair amount of fuel in the other, than aim to land with minimal fuel.
What control inputs would you expect.
What problems would you have faced getting out afterwards if the AFS wasn't waiting.
Land on tarmac or grass?
Plenty of time to divert to a big airport with a well equipped fire service, but may not offer the option of grass. Even if it did, I think I would prefer tarmac, and I would try to land on the port side of the runway so that if the plane swung to starboard it would have further to slide. On grass I would worry about the gear catching and flipping the aircraft onto its back.
I did wonder whether flying at a higher altitude to burn off fuel would be more or less fatiguing than flying at a lower level. 10,000 feet with the window open could be more bearable in terms of temperature than flying lower, but has other drawbacks. I don't have enough experience to know where the balance lies.
I would talk thoroughly to people on the ground prior to landing, but would ask for silence during the approach and landing. I once crashed a hang glider because I listened to my instructor telling me to perform S-turns which in retrospect really weren't necessary. I also once nearly flew into the hillside, and talking to people who had watched from the ground, it was interesting to see how different their impressions about what had happened were, and what their assumptions about my thought processes had been.
So there we go... Comments appreciated.