and 3 degree approaches are not appropriate for light VFR singles except under unusual cirmstances.
This is the sort of grass airfield Tiger Moth folk lore that has been around for far too long.
If you can fly a 3 degree glidepath in a large transport aircraft why can you not fly similar in a light aircraft?
VFR? So its OK to fly an ILS while IFR or in IMC at 3 degrees were you may not be able to see any approach obstructions but its not when you are VFR, how ridiculous.
So its OK to take a 747 over obstructions on the approach on a 3 degree glidepath but you need to be higher in a light aircraft?
(This is where they usually trot out that old chestnut about if the engine fails you wont make the airfield on a 3 degree glidepath but even that has been proved wrong at Heathrow)
3 degrees is generally the
minimum approach angle were clearance above obstructions in the approach funnel is guaranteed. 3 degrees is perfectly acceptable in any aircraft were a 3 degree glidepath can be flown. Its amazing how many instructors quote this 3 degree myth but then go out and teach use of 3 degrees with VAPI and PAPIs at NIGHT!
Caenarfon was shown in the AIP as having trees(since removed I believe) as an aerodrome obstruction on the approach to runway 26 at the time of the accident.
There is a common tendency for pilots to duck under the glidepath at any approach angle were displaced thresholds exist and this, coupled with the focus going from the approach to the touchdown point in the latter stages, means that approach obstructions are sometimes overlooked. This ducking under tendency is also seen more often at unfamiliar airfields or on performance limiting runways. Ive seen it happen in both large transport aircraft and light aircraft. Ive also even heard an instructor teaching students to always aim at the first of the two displaced threshold arrows to achieve an early touchdown, more ridiculous folk lore!