Ah yes, shame it is exactly what happened to one particular twin driver - go figure. Really weird indeed:

1. IMC in the descent,
2. A few vectors from AT,
3. Flaps and gear and speed changes.

Personally never things I do during the descent!

Anyway I am going to stick to my own rules - I shall keep on worrying whats happening any time I am in the climb out, or the descent into, always expecting the worst during these phases and leave everyone else to worry only during the climb out.

Fuji

I think what you are getting at here is more to do with stall/spin situations.
ie getting slow while distracted in a banked turn with gear and flaps down especially in poor vis or cloud.

adding unequal thrust in a stall situation could flip you into a spin in a twin in that situation.

It is commonpractice to only go to the incipient stage when practicing stalls in twins at altitude for the very reason of powering up unequally.
You can get instructor/examiners who are old school and will go into fully stalled scenarios which in my opinion is the real deal.

Speed is your friend and I find it a good practice to carry speed during the approach phase and only come back to VREF when you are wings level and assured of landing.

Many airports require fast approaches to slot in with other traffic. In busines jets I like to hold 150 kts till about 6 miles out and then bleed back to 130 and then back to a typical VREF of 105 at 1/2 mile, but I have often had requests from ATC to maintain 160 kts till 4 dme.

Even in something like a seneca which has a gear speed of 129 kts and first stage flap of 140 there is no reason on earth (or in the sky :) to get below 120 kts initially and 100 kts until very short finals. The speed taking landing flap soon bleeds back to 80 kts for landing and you fly well above your blue line of approx 90 kts almost to the flair.

A lot is to do with knowing the aircraft and being comfortable. How many singles with an over the hedge speed of 65 kts do you see with landing flap and 70 kts all the way in because the pilots are nervous and want everything stable in the landing configuration to early?

Speed is your saviour in windshear as well as being distracted in a turn so maybe we should be talking about variable speed approaches and not getting to fixated with the stable approach so as to avoid the low and slow. To me a stable approach means a managed approach.

Stable approach can be a variable speed approach as long as it all comes good to VREF for the landing and that comes with practice and knowing the aircraft.

Fuji at the end of the day there is always a risk that any of us will loose the plot or have some awful flook happen while flying. I have lost five friends 2 of them 20000 hr very experienced guys so all we can ever do is our best and try and learn tips from others and its not always the highly experienced pilots who supply those tips.

Pace

Pace

You said Why does it have to be one or the other?

I am a great believer in flying a short final at about 5-6 degrees in a single (throttle isn't closed, but little power is used), but also constantly looking for off airport landing options.

Also, there are far too many singles approaching at 70, when it should be 65, I agree it is derived from comfort, but one is trading aerial comfort for comfort during the landing roll - okay if you operate off a long strip, but not so clever on a short runway.

I don't have many hours and only a few on twins, but it seems to me that knowing the type and flying it accurately is important regardless of how many engines.

Especially with very low powered aircraft and low time pilots there is a big danger of getting on the back of the drag curve and a student not having the ability to deal with that situation or the power available to overcome the drag.

For that reason very low powered aircraft often make use of glide approaches where they are high on the profile. 5-6 degrees seems very steep?

But being high means that the student will usually be in a position to tap into potential energy and avoid a high drag low power situation which especially on low powered aircraft could occur with a powered approach.

So stick with what you are taught as my reference to powered approaches was more towards light twins and complex singles.

The problem I see with glide approaches is the fact that you are high on the profile. With power off and full flap should the winds change or the pilot misjudge the descent path to the touchdown point there is little he can do other than sideslipping or increasing speed to make the touchdown point.

Increasing speed holds the risk of arriving too fast or touching some way down the runway.

Glide approaches are argued for with the idea that you can make the runway if the engine quits. That is ok if you can but fixating on landing on the runway also brings its perils. I was taught in life no matter what you do to always have an OUT. Having one option is a game of russian roulette.

On more powerful complex aircraft and a powered approach the pilot can play with all the forces to control his speed and descent profile.

He also has the added benefit of knowing he has power rather than opening the throttle and finding none or landing with a stopped prop. On a powered approach the prop wash making the wings and tail surfaces more effective and an accurate touchdown on the numbers more likely.

Once you leave the VFR airport the usual glideslope is around 3 degrees.

Regarding accurate flying there is no reason why even in a 152 the aircraft cannot be flown down the slope at 80-85 kts reducing to 60-65 kts over the hedge. Get a big dollop of windshear and you will be glad of that extra speed as will the guy waiting to depart with someone calling finals 4 miles out at 65kts into a 15 kt headwind and the endless time it takes for him to land :)


Pace

Pace

BTW my definition of low hours = a few hundred, so not high time, but not a complete newbie either.

I fly into a field with a 1 mile final and am happy to turn at 5-600 feet. The aircraft is a PA28 which will easily get in from there, but if I found myself uncomfortably high on final approach I'd go around, as self preservation wins over pride :E

RoD on final is about 550-600 fpm, unless headwind is unusually light, I can cope with this okay, one needs to monitor it carefully though.

I don't think this technique would work in every aeroplane however, the PA28 is quite draggy and also very easy to handle.

I learned with PAPI, but tend to disregard these when flying PA28s.

I appreciate your input, I shall have a good think about your points.

Final3Greens

Do remember they are only my points. That doesnt make them right ;) or right for you!

Above all only ever do what you are comfortable with and if its out of your comfort zone only with an instructor.

Take care

Pace

Pace, indeed getting slow with asymmetry is a very real danger. I entirely agree that it is far better to stay in the speed comfort zone. However, accidents happen because we end up outside that zone. I was simply pointing out that the approach comprises all the factors that can result in pilots dropping out of that zone, perhaps even too a greater degree than the departure.

The contributory factors are:

1. Pilot(s) may be tired after a long flight,

2. The descent may be from VMC into IMC requiring a transition to instrument flying,

3. AT may be working the pilot hard,

4. The weather maybe a factor,

5. The pilot maybe running various procedures to configure the aircraft for the landing.

Contrast this with the climb:

1. The pilot is fresh,

2. The departure may be into IMC but flights with bases so low that the transition is quick are relatively less frequent than descents into IMC,

3. AT will almost always allow the pilot to manage the departure through the initial climb without “interference”,

4. The pilot is concerned with configuring the aircraft, but other than cleaning up the airframe most of the jobs can be left until the critical phase of the climb has been completed,

5. An astute pilot should be aware that an engine failure may occur during the climb out and mentally should be prepared to react to such a failure. Personally I think every MEP GA pilot should run a quick mental checklist immediately prior to departure of the actions he will take if there was an engine failure during the initial climb.