Tell ya what, Clark, come fly my Aztec and show me how you'll land it, then I'll show you how I land it. If you can do better than me, I'll buy you a beer. It ain't your Dakota, even though it does generally fly like an oversized Cherokee. My point is that you are making a generalized statement that does not apply to all aircraft. Your Cherokee is not an Aztec is not a King Air is not a Citation is not a 747.
Mari is correct. I don't land with power, I just use power throughout the pattern and only pull it back for that last bit once close to the runway. Have you flown anything much larger or having a much greater sink rate than your Cherokee? I have about 130 hours in one, and the technique I use for greasers on it is different than on the Mooney and Aztec.
If you're so concerned with "proper technique" then I'd question your focus on "fly the plane," which is more important. Do what it's asking you to do. That may not be completely in line with what "proper technique" states, at least per your book. Your passengers care about what they perceive as a controlled, safe flight, not about you following a book of suggested techniques that they've never read. I'd argue that if you pull the power back to idle abeam the numbers and come in you'll arouse a lot more concern from many than if you bring it back slowly, and getting that last bit done over the numbers.
Ted, you're reading way to much meaning into my posts. Stick with what I've written and we won't have a problem. As I posted, I fly the approach at low power and land power off. I never suggested pulling power abeam the numbers. In a similar vein, you've written, "Smoothing out the last bit of landing with a hair of power." To me, and I believe most folks, the last bit of landing is the touchdown so you did advocate landing with power.
Since you're wanting to play CFI even though you've never flown with me I'll explain a bit more. Now I'm not concerned so much with "proper technique" as much as operating in a safe manner. There are many different ways to interpret the statement and it has many implications. On landings, to me it means that I'll aim long (suitable for length) and I'll have the power back to idle as early as I can (making the runway is assured and I'm adding the final notch of flaps). I've learned to manage the round-out and touchdown with power off and I think it is a really good practice. Occasionally, when I screw up I'll carry power to touchdown and that is what I call cheating.
Will landing power off work for all aircraft? I certainly wouldn't make such a claim but I will point out that even the Space Shuttle flys the approach and lands power off!
Purty high wing loading on that brick! Also excellent pitch authority. I wonder if those approaches are stable enough for Ron?
As for the Aztec, I'm sure your technique, what ever it may be, is right for you. I'm also sure there are several techniques to use for landing it. I think it is your call entirely on what is best since you own it. As a free lance critic about all I do get is my opinion on what is cheating. I certainly don't mean any harm with my opinion or really even think less of other people for "cheating" when landing. We all do what we need to do or file an insurance claim...or both sometimes. :smile:
On the Cherokee, some folks say to keep power on or not to use full flaps or even go to full nose up trim just before touch-down. All I've found necessary is to stay on speed and be willing to pull as firmly as required. It did take some practice to get there, learning the timing of the pull and what the descent angle was like with different flap settings but it worked out.
I suspect I'm no different than any other pilot on the practice requirement and that is where we each develop our own style of landing. Of course we're influenced by our training and our individual experience and priorities when developing our techniques.
You're obviously putting a lot of emphasis on the passenger's experience and take full advantage of two engines.
While I want to be sure that a passenger is never bothered by what I do with the aircraft, I also will operate in a manner I believe to be appropriate. From that perspective, I detest shallow (<3 degrees) approaches. Other folks might detest high sink rates (>500 fpm) but I know that in the Cherokee as long as I'm on speed I can arrest the sink and land smoothly power off. As Mari noted, when the power comes off depends on what is being flown. Passengers are the easy part, I tell them what will happen, they see it happen and know I'm in control. Beyond that, their mental health is their own problem.
Here's a side story about when I was learning to land a Remos G-3. The darn thing is almost a motorglider but seems to lack in its ability to arrest sink rates at approach speed. I couldn't figure out an approach profile that I liked. Discussing the problem with an instructor, a long shallow approach was suggested. The instructor quickly followed that suggestion with the comment that the method would result in an off airport arrival if the engine was lost. The method was taught by the instructor to her primary students and I'd seen them in the pattern (well, sort of if you accept a 1.5 mile pattern). I never could reconcile the shallow approach with the risks it presented. We each make our own choice.
As I said, it's hard to use power to maintain glide path without using power. And as I've also said, despite some claims to the contrary, I've never seen anyone fly a truly stabilized approach without using some power. But I'm willing to be impressed.