Steep approaches (in VMC) - do you fly them, and why, or why not?

It’s much more accurate w.r.t. the touchdown point to fly a steep approach

you see the runway better (better aspect ratio)
a go-around is easier/safer because for any given time before touchdown you are higher off the ground
wind shear is less of a problem because you spend less time in the shearing layer
turbulence is less of a problem because you spend less time in the rough air
in bad visibility, a steep approach may be the only option because you could not see the runway until closer in (e.g. flying level on a NP IAP at the MDA, from the last SDF to the MAP)
one cheat is to flare early, hold it in ground effect and chop the power to drop in
That will work only if there are no obstacles before the runway

I am sorry, but I have to disagree with most of that post.

1. You see the runway with a DIFFERENT aspect, not better.
2. Height above the runway, should make no difference to any go around, unless about five feet.
3. Wind shear and turbulence can happen at any level
4. Viz should make no difference. We all have our MDA, some mandatory, some self imposed. The dive and drive scenario has caused numerous accidents.
However, the most important point is to fly the aeroplane, in relation to all inputs that will/can affect the flight. If that involves a steeper than normal approach, then great. If not, alter to suit.

Quote
I think a powered approach with a steady, low power setting might be the best situation for the engine. Try not to change power settings much until after you clear the fence.

That’s pretty much the standard approach taught for the PPL here in France, in the DR 400 that would be 1700 rpm, speed depending on the specific aircraft, and actual weight, as they come with a variety of engines and tank options, as well as varying passenger loads. Full flap taken on base leg or final. (Not the world’s draggiest flaps….) Power off in the round out. Hold off….
Personally I find this too flat for my taste, but it does mean the round out is through only quite a small angle, so it allows for minor errors in judgement without crunching the nosewheel.
Having got that out of the way, what I actually LIKE doing is an overhead join in the super cub, having bled off the power on arrival so I can fly the whole circuit at idle RPM, flaps and sideslip as required. Speed? Fly the attitude, feel the weight of the aircraft in my hands, and three point on a good day, wheeler for a crosswind. Bouncing is optional.

Depends where I am, of course. This might not be appreciated at Gatwick, but it works for Abbeville.

I´d say an approach with FULL flaps from the beginning and adding more than half power in consequence to drag the aircraft to the runway is very bad strategy. In case the engine quits you are absolutely certain that you will not make it to the landing strip.

Tell me one aircraft except gliders that uses idle power as standard approach procedure? I can’t think of any, so the point is moot. A little power, more than half power, either way you are going to need the engine to work to get to your point of landing…

Reasons not to do a steep approach:
- More margin. Throttle at idle means you’ve thrown away margin as you cannot reduce the throttle further if you need to
- Easier flare. Pitch attitude change in the flare isn’t that extreme, and the rate of descent is less.
- More controllability. Carrying more power on approach means more airflow over the control surfaces due to propwash. Particularly helpful in crosswind landings
- Preciser landings. The ability to cut the power over the threshold means you have more control over your touchdown point.
- Better engine management. Carrying more power means the engine doesn’t cool down too much. In case you need to go around.
- Safer go-around. The engine is already carrying power, so the time it requires to develop full power is short.
- …

I too disagree, with BeechBaby.

Tell me one aircraft except gliders that uses idle power as standard approach procedure?

every microlight round here

Reasons not to do a steep approach:
- More margin. Throttle at idle means you’ve thrown away margin as you cannot reduce the throttle further if you need to
- Easier flare. Pitch attitude change in the flare isn’t that extreme, and the rate of descent is less.
- More controllability. Carrying more power on approach means more airflow over the control surfaces due to propwash. Particularly helpful in crosswind landings
- Preciser landings. The ability to cut the power over the threshold means you have more control over your touchdown point.
- Better engine management. Carrying more power means the engine doesn’t cool down too much. In case you need to go around.
- Safer go-around. The engine is already carrying power, so the time it requires to develop full power is short.

That’s certainly the way I see it.

One might also add that steep approaches carry a greater risk of exceeding Vfe, which is a structural limitation, of course, and worth bearing in mind. Do you keep an eye on that white arc as you wing-ding it down at a Vz of +1000 ft/mn ?

ok, if you do nothing but fly your own plane three times a week, you probably know what you’re doing, but accurate speed control can be a problem for low-hour/infrequent pilots, so, if you can, why not get nicely set up at the right distance from the threshold and go for a smooth, stable approach at 3°/5%?

Calculate roughly what your Vz should be using groundspeed x 5% . In nil wind, in your average GA aircraft, that’s rarely going to be more than around 350ft/min.

Thumbing through my PPL textbook, I am also told that flying a standard approach slope improves safety: compare the two aircraft situated on the same vertical in the picture below, who may not see each other (says the book). Yes, I know it’s perhaps not a very likely scenario, but you get the idea?

I fly airplanes, microlights and sometimes gliders (all VFR though ) Indeed, the proper microlight approach is a gliding approach on idle. For the PPL, I learned 1500 rpm on key point, and let it stay there until just before flare. In practice I do different styles in both gliders and microlight, all depending on the situation. In gliders the final approach is steep indeed, feels straight down compared with other aircraft. In gliders that is the only correct way to do it.

I also thought I had the dead stick landing approach nailed. I have had one of those for real, with a perfect landing, which pretty much proved my point. That was until a month ago. After some acro training (resulting in a dead battery), the instructor and me took a trip in a C-172 and he also wanted to show me dead stick landings. We practiced on a 400 m grass strip. He is an instructor in the Air Force, training cadets and part of the Air Force acro display team. Originally a Air Force Sea King pilot and also Norwegian glider champion. He also tugs gliders, so I know him from some years back. He knows how to handle an aircraft like no other person I know (he is 100% aircraft all the time).

For the PPL training (lots of years ago), dead stick landings were just like any other landing, only with idle power. First, descend if needed and get into a “circuit” downwind position at right alt. and do a final. I also learned never to apply flaps before final, and only when I was sure I would get all the way to the runway. This works well on a 800 m runway (which I had done for real) and larger runways, but do this on a 400 m strip, and 2 out of 3 times you will not be able to stop the aircraft before you run out of runway. The reason is the over focusing of reaching the landing spot, leaving you only leverage to go farther – not shorter, faster – not slower, and the only time you have some level of “thrust” control is on an often short and steep final. His way was rather simple. Make a wide circuit with lots of space between the landing spot and the aircraft. Apply flaps as needed, retract flaps as needed. This gives you a feel for the aircraft and control of “thrust”/descend all the time, as well as it gives you a much better feel for the descend angle. Then if the landing is with full flaps or no flaps, makes no difference, because as long as you land at the threshold with moderate speed it’s all fine. Did some of those, and nailed it every time. Maybe this is how it is teached today (maybe only in the air force yet?), and I could also have got some details wrong, but it worked for me. It actually was one of those aha moments.

Thinking about it, this is very much like a microlight gliding approach (except perhaps the usage of flaps). Anyway, there is no doubt in my mind that for a moderately performing and light aircraft (like a Cessna 172), a gliding approach is by far the most secure and accurate way. In a higher performance (higher wing loading) aircraft things will change because a gliding approach will be rather fast. In many aircraft, it doesn’t really matter. In the Cub in particular, you can do all kinds of cool looking landings, as you also can in many microlights. But that steep approach in the video starting miles away, why?

Anyway, there is no doubt in my mind that for a moderately performing and light aircraft (like a Cessna 172), a gliding approach is by far the most secure and accurate way.

And what is your argument for that?

D&D is all you can fly on an NP approach

Then I must have imagined doing CDFA NPA’s. Not to mention the airlines.