Seeing some of the super egos here who have reinvented how to land I would suggest to anyone trying to learn from this thread to just read the operating manual, learn how to do a stabilized approach on speed and make a consistent flare. The vasi and gs are there to help you so use them. I have flown 76 different types of aircraft and all of them, SE, ME and jets all land about the same so keep it simple.
If you are shooting for the airlines you need to land this way or you will get busted by acars below 1,000 ft if you are not stabilized on speed on glide path so why not just learn this way?
I am clearly missing something here.
I am a low hours PPL with absolutely no interest in an airline job. I am just starting on my IR.
I fly in and out of fields with different characteristics (grass / paved, VASI / PAPI / no visual aids, published versus no approaches, obstacles near the threshold versus "clear" approaches etc).
Sometimes, I fly quite steep approaches with little or no power. Sometimes I fly flatter approaches with a bit of power. Sometimes I fly quite flat approaches with quite a bit of power (usually because I have messed something up along the way).
As part of my learning process, I think that it is important to understand the relationship between pitch and power relative to airspeed and altitude without regard to a VASI / PAPI or a glidescope.
If I structured every approach around nailing a PAPI or always loading and flying an ILS approach even in hard clear VMC, I think that I would be ignoring a large part of learning how to fly the plane by "painting by numbers" and would get into trouble at fields without visual aids or published approaches.
If I every get to the stage when I am flying a Kestrel (if it ever comes into existence) under IFR along airways 100% of the time, I could understand your argument. I assume that everything that I have done before that stage will help me manage the aircraft in a more structured environment.