Stabilised approaches make sense for any type of aircraft. Big or small. It makes your landings a lot more precise and in my opinion makes you better prepared for a go around as well.
My typical approach into normal airstrips/airports is something like this:
On downwind I do the downwind flow/check/thing and pick a location on the runway where I want to be landed latest. (something like: If I’m not down and braking at taxiway E, I’ll go around). When I fly a normal circuit I would turn final around 500ft, that gives me 300ft to get stabilised. That means at 200ft AGL, Vref +10, minus 0, on glide path, with a max descent rate of 800 ft/min, centreline within 5 degrees, aircraft configured for landing.
If you fly bigger or faster aircraft, 200ft might be a bit low and perhaps you need a higher descent rate as well, so adjust according to your approach speed.
Snoopy wrote:
Examining landing accidents seems to have revealed that often the subsequent approach was crap.Examining good landings seems to have revealed that often the subsequent approach was good.
Agree.
Why fly B52-sized circuits with a 3-5 mile final? In some places you will need to carry a passport to fly these.
This is “general aviation”. And the context is not FTO training, which is not training to fly GA planes but merely to get a CPL/IR and then (in the vast majority of cases) never see GA again.
In PPL training, they have to teach these approaches because the whole course is minimal – it is marketed at 45hrs / 10k or so. You cannot teach the average punter to actually “fly” a plane in 45hrs. So by all means, a new pilot probably should fly a long final, until more proficient.
But post-training, people should aim to not fly like that. So many times I’ve seen traffic on final which was so far out it was barely visible, so that’s roughly 3-5nm for a typical 10m wingspan plane. Here is a video showing a stabilised approach from probably about 2nm out (I could dig out the GPS track) but there I needed time to “negotiate” with a bunch of people departing back to N Europe who could not manage a departure from an unmanned airfield (I suspect some had limited ELP) and might just line up and take off right in front of me. In normal circumstances such a long final is not needed.
Ibra wrote:
It’s a matter where you put your cutoff, you have to be right on (ASI & VSI & ALT) or (feel) over the runway threshold, but you have to start somewhere way before that to get that right?Stable at 1000ft agl on 3deg glide path at the right speed or go-around is surely not be adequate for someone who is used to cruise at 500ft agl or turn base leg at 300ft agl but there is a limit on how far you can “save it” to get the landing right?
To the first point. Not necessarily, there’s a strip I go into where I will often land in a turn. I wouldn’t really describe it as a stabilised approach as the start of the turn is probably only commenced at 30-50 ft and I’m still turning on landing although not that much. I’ve no idea of the height exactly as I’m far too busy looking out of the window.
To the latter point by “save it” do you mean make a stabilised approach or make a safe landing? It’s certainly possible to make safe landings from non stabilised approaches.
0fficer wrote:
When I fly a normal circuit I would turn final around 500ft, that gives me 300ft to get stabilised. That means at 200ft AGL, Vref +10, minus 0, on glide path, with a max descent rate of 800 ft/min, centreline within 5 degrees, aircraft configured for landing.
My SOPs are quite similar, although I would want Vref already at 200 ft AGL unless the wind is gusty and/or there is a strong headwind.
Peter wrote:
Why fly B52-sized circuits with a 3-5 mile final? In some places you will need to carry a passport to fly these.
Turning final att 500’ AGL does not imply a 3-5 mile final. Even with a 3° glideslope, that’s would only be a 1.6 mile final. At my home base I fly a considerably steeper approach with a slightly less than 1 mile final.
Off_Field wrote:
Not necessarily, there’s a strip I go into where I will often land in a turn
The oval circuit from RAF 
there should be a clear criteria to call it off and have a go again?
What matters is that you fly the way you have trained. The easiest way to do that is to approach the field so you make a downwind, base and final. If you want to called that a stabilized approach, fine. The point is, it works on all fields. Coming straight to final is no problem if you know the field. Doing that on a short unknown grass strip is not all that easy. It’s better to make the first one a low approach (fun as well ) and then do a proper downwind, base, final.
Ibra wrote:
The oval circuit from RAF there should be a clear criteria to call it off and have a go again?
not quite as the raf usually straighten out before landing. I land this one on one wheel and come round the corner.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by clear criteria for calling it off? If I’m not happy I’ll go around, if there’s an obstacle moved onto the runway I’ll go around. I certainly don’t have set windows of speed, height, wings level, what I’ve had for breakfast, etc.
Personally, flying a very light aircraft of a type with a known penchant for the prop to stop at idle on final approach, I always aim to be high of the glideslope and sideslip in. I would call them controlled (i.e doing what I intend) rather than stabilised approaches. Also, there is often lots of sink before the runway threshold, so whatever configuration is stable at 1000 feet is unlikely to be suitable at 50 feet. I might try to bleed off extra height when I am confident of reaching the runway if the engine stopped, which I suppose is what makes the approach technically “unstable”.
Fairly obviously, the ‘stabilized approach’ concept when applied to light GA aircraft is an attempt by regulators, doing what bureaucrats do, to implement process that removes the requirement for brains or skill to fly a given aircraft. In the real world of real planes and real airports, as @kwlf so aptly points out, the best approach is something that requires a higher level of ability, unless you want to fly a limited range of planes as if on rails to a limited number of airports. That is of course exactly what the regulator, as opposed to the pilot who flies for his own valid reasons and utility, would see as the ‘right approach’ 
Happily there is a whole world of flying that the regulator despite his best efforts does not see from the safely of his GSA-issued cubicle.
