The problem with the regulator (regardless of which *AA it is), is they seem to have a belief that light GA should be flown like the airlines. It then seeps into many parts of GA (e.g. the absolute hate on Reddit’s r/flying towards a couple of people who like to do back country adventures in their kitfoxes and put it on YouTube, and yes, have occasionally hurt an airframe doing so).
That is one reason why I don’t waste my time on Reddit 
But you should tell them about EuroGA 
Can’t help seeing this in the context of my Pitts instructor (ex USAF, btw, and U2 pilot among other things). ALL approaches were flown at idle power, descent rate >2000 fpm. His reasoning was (a) that way you can see over the nose (b) you’d better be able to land power off, and no better way to be sure than to do it every time.
A landing from power off abeam the numbers was always fun. It can JUST be done, but you’re still finishing the turn as you flare. (Gliding in a Pitts makes a brick seem sailplane-like).
Of course all other things being equal, a stablised approach is a Good Thing, and you’re less likely to bend something. There’s certainly an element of the “superior pilot” thing – the superior pilot makes stabilised approaches so he/she/they/it doesn’t have to demonstrate their ability to land from just about anywhere anyhow.
johnh wrote:
the superior pilot makes stabilised approaches so he/she/they/it doesn’t have to demonstrate their ability to land from just about anywhere anyhow.
Plus 1. In my aerobatic training for the YAK50, my excellent Russian instructor took us every time to 250 yards from the numbers at 1000’. His calm logic and reasoning was that if the engine quit we would make it. Secondly it sharpened up our skills of landing from just about anywhere.
That said we had to always keep an eye out for the 7 mile final club aircraft coming in below us….
What you did a mile back is irrelevant.Quote
For a light airplane, I agree. Sometimes, what I did a mile back (or less) was the takeoff. I set up the approach after airborne from that. Mostly for fun, and practice, and a couple of times an EFTO. I’ve landed on runways, and waterways, where a mile back from the touchdown zone, there’s an obstruction, so a straight in final is not possible – good landings are still flown.
“Stabilized” is a term with varied meaning, depending upon what you’re flying, and who’s watching. Airlines define it, and for their operations, that’s perfectly fine. Were I to be flying someone’s airliner, I would be content to fly an approach with the established parameters they define. For a lighter airplane, I like to see a pilot has the plane in a configuration, and flightpath which if continued will place the plane at the proper place for a good flare over the landing surface. If a turn is a good way to get there, that’s fine. A turning final, can be flown with steady loss of altitude, and deceleration throughout the approach, with only a brief straight “final” approach.
I find that many pilots, who typically fly in an airport circuit environment, are comfortable flying a normal circuit. ’Makes sense, and is perfectly fine. But the skill to fly a decent landing either at very little notice “EFTO”, to a place not ahead of you “engine failure enroute”, or requiring an approach around an obstruction is a good skill to also have.
Where is this picture taken from? It looks like ENHV…
johnh wrote:
Gliding in a Pitts makes a brick seem sailplane-like
I wonder how many hours, if any, before feeling at ease in the Pitts? I think glide ratio with propeller full fine may be 1:5, and in coarse, 1:6?
Base to final at White Waltham 25 leaves little forced landing sites to choose from.
I wonder what a glide ratio of a brick really is. It could start spinning around it’s axis, and this will create the Magnus effect. With enough alt, giving it a high speed, it may not be all that bad ?
It is Honningsvåg Norway (I had to look up the code, I only remember names.). It’s not the only place I know which obstructed approach paths, but it’s a good example of the need to not constrain one’s self to “straight in” thinking.
This morning’s landing at home was a power off from downwind for practice. My amphibian is very damanding to glide well (that glides like a brick thing), but it could be a required skill one day, so I parctice. Gliding descent rate of 1000 FPM at 80 MPH in a turn, prop full coarse, and a touchdown to be proud of. But, that could have been classified as a stabilized approach, so perhaps the good touchdown was to be expected!
