I have found that different aircraft need a different approach to landing. For the TB range 9, 10 and 20, I agree with Peter.My better landings always came with a trickle of power and to feel it. I never got it quite right, reducing power too early and sticking to the numbers. With the Seminole and the Seneca I always needed to keep a little power into the flare and full or first stage flaps would depend on wind conditions. Robins, Da 40 and DA42 seems to work better reducing to idle power quite early, but the Robin one needs to keep pulling the stick slowly to the full back stop position in the flare, but one has to push a little forward when the nose wheel touches the ground so that you don’t suddenly shoot off into the undergrowth, because of the nosewheel centring mechanism, whereas the da40 and 42 is better if you don’t pull the nose up more than 5 degrees above the horizon in the flare especially in this summer’s hot conditions.
I also agree with Capitaine a taildragger always seems easier to get that lovely kiss landing, especially a Jodel or a Menestral.
Most of new-PPLs landing mistakes (including mine) happened as they were taught to land on the numbers, power-off with a short-time flare (I don’t see any reason for that on a big runway), unless the day is ideal this will always result in unstable approaches and reduce any learning benefit from previous landings (the same “landing on numbers” instructor will tell you “every landing is different”)
However, having a stable approaches and lengthy flares over a “landing bands” assuming a long runway will help to “get used to landing”, as well as keeping some power make it really safe and fun…of course one can reduce the size of “landing bands” depending on the weather/experience/aircraft/runway, but I always increase it when anyone of these is unfamiliar
Later if someone want to learn how to do short/spot landings, there are some good teachers (especially in tail-wheel space) and most of their techniques are highly unorthodox to be written in the POH
I agree with ibra. It depends on the runway.
1000-3000 meters:
I’d rather have some energy left and reduce the power gradually by feeling while loosing the last few feet than dropping onto the runway at the numbers semi controlled.
600-1000 meters:
Aimpoint, power off, pull, stall drop and stop.
My technique almost „caught“ me though when landing on a very long grass runway with CBs in the vicinity. Kept high energy in case of windshear/burst and the grass was wet after recent rain…took forever to stop.
I now try to better anticipate all landing variables.
Airborne_Again wrote:
If you have no power and fly at a constant altitude, maintaining altitude by raising the nose, then “doesn’t have enough speed to maintain alt.” will coincide will stalling.
Never heard of such a definition. Stalling is when the AOA exceeds the stalling limit. There is no way you are able to do that with the main wheels on the ground because the tail will touch the ground first.
LeSving wrote:
Never heard of such a definition.“Definition”?
Stalling is when the AOA exceeds the stalling limit..You don’t say!
There is no way you are able to do that with the main wheels on the ground because the tail will touch the ground first.
The critical angle of attack is lower in ground effect. Certainly the main wheels are not on the ground during the flare.
I have a slightly different perspective.
For a new but qualified pilot, I think there is an unnecesary fear of flying at 1.3x stalling speed in that configuration. Except in a gust situation or in a crosswind where the POH suggests adding some speed there is no need to fly faster and it leads to float and much longer landing distance, more tyre wear, more brake wear etc. Of course you can get away with it but it isn’t good technique and actually makes your life harder.
The margin at 1.3x stall over the threshold is very significant particularly in a piston where engine response is rapid.
Just my personal opinion.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Certainly the main wheels are not on the ground during the flare.
They eventually have to be. I’s maybe easier to look at this with a tail wheel aircraft. It can be landed with the main wheels first, and at that state it is actually flying just fine. Then speed decreases due to drag/braking, the AOA increases until the tail wheel touches the ground. At no point is the wings stalled, and the lift decreases even though the AOA increases. The “opposite” of this is a bush type landing. Here the aircraft descends at high AOA (relative to the “wind”) with an L/D ratio of 1:4 or something? The flaring is only to arrest the downward motion, but by doing so, the aircraft also changes direction to almost pure horizontal motion and looses enough speed to touch down 3 point and therefore with far less speed to fly again. It hardly flew to start with on final, powered by gravity in more or less a 3 point attitude relative to the “wind”.
JasonC wrote:
The margin at 1.3x stall over the threshold is very significant particularly in a piston where engine response is rapid.
You can add to that we no longer have much of high drag aircrafts from 1960 era (avgas barrel was 3$), recent fleet is fuel efficient and floats a lot while runways gets shorter…
If one can nail the speed on approach consistently any speed from VS0+5kts to 1.3*VS0 will do even in gusty conditions as long as you are not afraid of pushing the nose to the ground and gun with with engine power or just scarify your aiming point (trying to land on numbers with 20kts headwind is just stupid, my attempts were just fails/go-around even with rapid engine response)
When conditions are variable/difficult, you end up with a trade-off between exact runway touch point and unstable approach, you can’t have both…personally, I prefer to have a stable approach (Va and RoD) and monitor if my touch point will fall in a predefined runway band rather than trying to sort quickly all of it in the heat of the moment while speed is behind the drag curve and height is in ground effect
I mean in gusty conditions relying too much on a responsive GA engine to land on numbers is the source of the problem not the solution 
Where did I mention landing on the numbers?
Basic document 1 for EASA exams has a limit of +5/-0knots for Vat/Vref. Turbofan aircraft are intolerant of coming in fast and overruns are usually associated with fatalities for jets.
https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Standards%20Doc%201%20v9_Nov%202014.pdf
