John/Genghis:
I hesitate to jump in between two of my favorite contributors here, but, in a way, you are both right.
In reality, most experienced pilots control the speed and angle of descent on the approach with a combination of throttle and pitch, subconsciously balancing kinetic and potential energy with the stick, whilst adding, and subtracting energy with the throttle.
Unfortunately, in it's pure form, this skill is very difficult to teach, and so most instructors use one of the standard 'devices' of splitting the functions of throttle and stick to make it easier for their students to find somewhere to 'hang their hat' whilst they 'get the hang of it'.
It shouldn't matter which of the two methods they use, because they are just a means to an end. The end being to develop the student's appreciation of energy mananement to a point where he/she can dispense with the device the instructor has used, and use the controls instinctively to manage the energy as required.
Having said that, some types of aircraft lend themselves to one method or the other, and the instructor should use the method best suited to the type being used for the training. For instance, high wing Cessnas lend themselves to 'power for angle of descent/pitch for speed'. This is at least partly because an increase in power to arrest a 'too steep' descent will by the nature of the aircraft configuration, pitch the nose up.
I find that lighter, low wing loading aircraft tend to favour this method, whilst heavier, higher wing loading aircraft tend towards the 'point and squirt' method.
Unfortunately, many students, mainly due to lazy instructors, never progress beyond the device their instructor used, and try to apply this to all the aircraft they fly, thus finding it difficult to fly approaches in aircraft that don't favour the particular device they are still using.
MJ
