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

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.

Disagree. The best way, IMHO, is a power on approach that gives me maximum control and feeling in pitch.Only in completely calm conditions a gliding approach can be just as safe. Also: In many heavier aircraft the braking effect of the prop in idle is so great that a gliding approach would only work with a very steep angle. After I switched to the 4-blade prop on my SR22 the prop acts like a (big!) air brake when i pull the power. A gliding approach is not possible(practical.

And what is your argument for that?

It works every time, everywhere, leaving engine or no engine an irrelevant factor. It won’t work in a B737 (I would guess), but we are not flying B737s.

In many heavier aircraft the braking effect of the prop in idle is so great that a gliding approach would only work with a very steep angle

So is many draggy microlights. It would be impossible for some to follow a normal circuit on a larger field using gliding approach, they would have to turn to final half way downwind. So is the Cub. That is why I said I use whatever method is suitable. In the end, it is just a question of where to cut power though, so the gliding approach will always work. I mainly fly two microlights, the Atec Zephyr and the Dynamic WT9. They are both high performance cruisers, faster than a 172. Their gliding abilities are very different though. The Zephyr glides almost like a glider (GR 17:1), the WT9 falls like a brick in comparison (GR 10:1), and with full flaps it goes as steep as a glider with full brakes, probably also due to the propeller being tuned for glider towing. The Zephyr is perfect for gliding approaches, and the WT9 is harder. In practice it is just a question of where to cut power on downwind, but being lazy and because it feels more natural for that aircraft, I end up flying the WT9 as a normal aircraft with power on approaches, even though I really shouldn’t (by the book).

It is easier to land with a working power control, of course. But with very little practice anyone will get the hang of gliding approaches in most light airplanes.

It works every time, everywhere,

Power-on approaches also work every time, everywhere. Well, obviously they don’t work if the engine doesn’t work, but: Given the advantages that e.g. Flyer59, archie, Jojo and others have mentioned, that seems to me a very weak argument as the chance of engine failure after the point where you could start a power-off approach is very slight. So, that aside, what is your argument for gliding approaches being “by far the most secure and accurate way.”

That you personally like them better and have learned to fly them with precision I don’t doubt, but that is another thing altogether.

I think my SR22 with the 4-blade has a gliding range of 1:8… or worse. It’s only 9.6:1 with the normal 3-blade! With CAPS on board that’s ok … 0:1 :-)

So, that aside, what is your argument for gliding approaches being “by far the most secure and accurate way.”

Their arguments were against steep approaches. I don’t have a real problem with those arguments exactly, even though they are imprecise and can be disputed . In any field the most important thing is to follow the pattern and the circuit, but also the speed of the pattern and the size. You have to follow the flow. This will often rule out gliding approaches in it’s purest form. You have to adapt to the circumstances with the performance of your aircraft

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.

- Throttle at idle only means only exactly that. You have thrown away your throttle margins and have to adapt with side-slipping, wider turns, slight s-turns and so on.
- Easier flare. Yes, it IS easier to land precise with power control. This does not mean it is very much more difficult without.
- More controllability. Maybe, but this is highly aircraft dependent. Besides, in difficult windy situations you want to get down on the wheels and cut lift as fast as you can. You do not want to “hover” in the gusts, fighting it more than necessary. The Pawnee hand book say wheel landing on one wheel works best for crosswind. Maybe it does if the crosswind is a 100% steady laminar thing. But my experience (and everybody else) in normal gusty conditions is get the speed down and all three wheels down as soon as possible.
- Again yes, but some practice you can do it without power control. Besides, this advocated probably the worst landing method in existence that is way too often used for short field; the creeping landing (full flaps, lots of power, shallow approach and cut power at the threshold).
- Irrelevant for newer tech engines, and if you use so much power that this is a relevant, than you are doing a creeping landing (in my opinion).
- Safer go-around ? I mean really? Full power is within a second from idle (It’s not like you are idling from 10k feet) and ever so often during the approach you can “clear” the engine to be sure it is in working condition.

But, secure and accurate. It is secure because it will work no matter what. You don’t really have to do anything special if the engine should quit. It is accurate because with some (minimum) of practice it will be accurate. You don’t need power control to make an accurate landing in a light aircraft, it’s a myth as any microlight pilot can tell you. It’s more of a habit kind of thing, and PPL pilots are lazy (I know I am, just sliding in on old habit).

A power off approach does not mean that you can’t add power if needed, it just means you misjudged when to remove the power.

So what is going to happen when our hero gets the approach wrong at idle power, stuffs the power to full and yanks back?

Nothing good. Depending on how fast feet and how current they are, it could get very nasty indeed.

a go-around is easier/safer because for any given time before touchdown you are higher off the ground

This is incorrect I believe. For any given lateral distance from touchdown, if you are on a steeper slope you will be higher, but descending at a higher rate. If you are on a 6° approach you will be descending at double the RoD of a normal instrument approach, and the time to take any action will in fact be reduced and the action required more aggressive.