Knowing my personal limitations with computers, I no longer teach instrument flying. Even the radio is computerized.

In contact flying, contact with the earth is essential. If we will lose good contact at 100', we need stay below 100'. No exceptions. No integration of instrument with contact. Integration kills.

Upon losing contact with the earth, we become totally dependent on instrument indications. We also have to totally believe the cross check of instrument indications. That is why dual source of basic instrument indications and pitot static test is necessary to achieve safe unquestionable belief. No exceptions.

For the non trained or occasional actual instrument pilot, this is more important than for the regular IMC guy.

In my thinking, questionable instrument indications are less safe than no instrument indications for those of us who do not fly IMC regularly. And for me any computer generated instrument indication, without a young instrument pilot beside me, is questionable.

I ask because I don't know, having never gone there: Does indoctrination in the integration of instrument flying skills with contact flying skills and primary instruction in the stabilized airspeed approach to round out and hold off cause discomfort with the use of pitch to control airspeed reduction and power to control sink, on short final, all the way to touchdown?

I understand the controls, especially aileron, are more effective at 1.3 Vso than at Vso, but the wing in low ground effect must be well below Vso to fully stall.

In slow flight, I have found the rudder to be more effective with power than with the throttle closed.

If stall short of the runway is the major concern, and long runway the norm, why isn't the soft field landing the normal landing? It is power pitch to touchdown.

I understand the need for simulated forced landing practice to the ground, the spot landing. Extra airspeed, however, is evidently not needed when most touchdown beyond midpoint in actual forced landings.

Is airspeed reduction on short final just too dangerous statistically, with loss of control as the most common reason for accidents? Presently too much, rather than too little, airspeed is the culprit.

Computers can land airplanes very efficiently, but not short, using instrument indications. Could integration of instrument flying skills with contact flying skills be stabilized 1.3 Vso approach (instrument) with maintenance of the apparent brisk walk rate of closure short final to touchdown on the numbers slowly and softly (contact)?

As always, thanks for your insights Contact and Happy New Year!

Best,

Tommy