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

So why on earth should I do the “Airliner” all the time for no purpose ?
In a gliding approach the trick is to set FULL flaps only very late when you know you will make it.

Look up “stabilised approach” and then you realise why there are criteria, and gates if you will for a stabilized approach i.e. stabilized by 1000’ or 300’, which means on speed, on slope, on centreline, flaps set and no large power changes.
Then you will see that in a normal approach, pulling FULL flaps very late is exactly the opposite of a stabilized approach. It is what you do in an emergency landing.

Would you care to tell your aircraft ? Is your quoted speed best glide speed for max distance per height? And that at engine idle ?

GA8 Airvan. Glide 84 kts at MAUW, max range, engine idle, no flaps.

By the way, there are discussions about continuous “gliding” approaches for airliners to fight noise issues.

With the spool up times of the average turbofan, those final approaches are in a totally different category than idle-power-flap-at-the-last-minute ones.

The two best reasons for a flat dragged in approach

A power i approach with the power on is not a “flat dragged in approach”, IMHO. That’s only the extreme case. Between that and a power-off gliding approach there is the type of approach I would recommend for almost all airplanes. With pitch and power I have two ways to correct the flight path, I correct the descent rate with power and the speed with pitch. If I pull the power to idle i have to control both with pitch only, and I don’t like that. If I’m too low at one point of the approach I’ll have to add power anyway or I’ll not make the runway.

Also in Europe where where you have prescribed traffic patterns at many fields the gliding approach will only work if stay in pattern altitude for some time on final, or you will not make the field. I find it more elegant to start the descent gradually on base already.

What has a powered or non powered approach to do with the term stabilized ? Any glider plane will do a stabilized approach down to very close to the airfield when they set brake flaps “AS REQUIRED” , and that is what I meant with full – or no – flaps : as required. As I told, in my country all students of PPL do a lot of power idle approaches from 2000 ft above the airfield in absolutely stabilized approach at best – not minimum – glide speed. No question of effective controls, they definitely are completely. This is a very easy training item for students and if they can do it with ease so any of you could do that . Even make that for the standard approach from base or final depending on glide qualities. A very flat powered approach is in no way just as stabilized as you tell, I usually see quite some variations in power settings while trying to hit the runway. And my idea of gliding approach is fully stabilized down to maybe 100 ft altitude from 1000ft when you may have to adjust the glide by slipping or setting flaps for the flare. So that is unstabilized because of the very last part of the approach ?? This phase is prob shorter than your powered approach just before flare and touch down. And with a Yak there is no question of setting flaps for the long approach, you have 60 degrees or no, pneumatic, brake flaps really. I´d say 120km Airbus dead engine gliding approach is a very stabilized approach. Spool up time I guess is basically only 3 or 4 seconds, not much longer than you´d set for a Lyco . And no, I don´t believe that the average VFR pilot will be able to perform a stabilized approach in your definition using no IFR avionics for that. It is a lot of guesswork from traffic pattern altitude for most. So that is no great argument at all. Alexis, with your medium approach, in case you would come too short you would fail to reach the airfield by a lot more distance when the engine stopped than with an idle gliding approach from a position in the traffic pattern 1000ft that should normally get you there with no flaps easily. So you would not need any engine at all. Sure, while you don´t have the required practice for your favourite airfields it is not forbidden to add a bit more power to adjust the slope but anyway you would never end up in the weeds long short of the runway. In my eyes a flat airliner approach is simply useless, noisy , disgrace, not elegant. Vic

This is a Stabilized Approach, by definition of Flight Safety:

Recommended Elements of a Stabilized Approach
A
ll flights must be stabilized by 1,000 ft above airport elevation
in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) and by 500 ft
above airport elevation in visual meteorological conditions (VMC).
An approach is stabilized when all of the following criteria are met:

1. The aircraft is on the correct flight path;

2. Only small changes in heading/pitch are required to maintain the correct flight path;

3.The aircraft speed is not more than VREF + 20 kt indicated airspeed and not less than V
REF

4. The aircraft is in the correct landing configuration;

5.Sink rate is no greater than 1,000 fpm; if an approach requires a sink rate greater than 1,000 fpm, a special briefing
should be conducted;

6.Power setting is appropriate for the aircraft configuration
and is not below the minimum power for approach as defined by the aircraft operating manual;

7. All briefings and checklists have been conducted;

8. Specific types of approaches are stabilized if they also fulfill
the following: instrument landing system (ILS) approaches
must be flown within one dot of the glideslope and localizer;
a Category II or Category III ILS approach must be flown within
the expanded localizer band; during a circling approach,
wings should be level on final when the aircraft reaches 300 ft
above airport elevation; and,

9.Unique approach procedures or abnormal conditions
requiring a deviation from the above elements of a stabilized
approach require a special briefing.

An approach that becomes unstabilized below 1,000 ft above
airport elevation in IMC or below 500 ft above airport elevation
in VMC requires an immediate go-around.

but we are talking visual approaches, no IFR ceremonies ??

A stabilized approach is a stabilized approach. Of course it is not possible to stay on a 3 degree glide slope power off. But that does not imply that a VFR Approachcan/should not be flown in a stabilized manner. I do it, or try to do it on every approach.

(A “visual approach” is also an IFR maneuver)

I can fly an approach which I categorize as stabilized where there will be a constant turn from downwind all the way to very short final. Power as required, though it might well be idle, with flaps or a slip to control descent rate as desired. I accept the notion that in an “airline” Flight Safety environment, they would like everything settled and constant lower than 500 feet, and that’s not wrong, but it’s not the only way either.

To me (just my own interpretation), “stabilized” conveys an approach in which the appropriate condition of flight you have established for the aircraft will continue more or less unchanged until you flare for landing. The condition of a constant turn to final can be stable. Even entering and exiting a slip can be stable, if everything else is similarly stable. I really like curved downwind to base to final for forced approaches, as you can increase or decrease the radius of the turn rather than trying to stretch a glide, if you judged poorly.

My best indicator is that the approach is stable, if the pilot’s mind is at short final, while the plane is still a half mile back, and the pilot has it worked out so the plane is going to be where his mind is, with no great changes.

I can fly an approach which I categorize as stabilized where there will be a constant turn from downwind all the way to very short final.

The RAF do it that way every time. I view stabilised as an approach taking place based on (and in line with) a plan.

+1