But you know that you can land an airplane completely algorithmically, and in the majority of cases do better than humans can... it's called autoland. And you have systems that tell you when to flare. The "art" you're talking about is only because the airplane is too cheap to have a radio altimeter and autothrust.

I read it. You said skill = art+science. It can be done better with pure science, autolands consistently have less touchdown point dispersion than manual landings. Again, there's no reason why a computer can't land your plane, and computers/instrumentation do help out greatly in manual landings. The mythology you talk about is largely because the plane is too cheap to have good instruments. You said "But the only thing… the ONLY thing that gives the batter a chance of hitting" and say he needs practice. Wrong: a RA would GREATLY help.

You bought into the flaw of the American self-funded PPL education. It's pedagogically awful. It's absurd to have lesson 1: deadstick landing, lesson 2: OEI landings, lesson 3: normal landings, but that's what you literally are advocating. Go look at anybody else: the Air Force, ab initio airline pilots, NASA: leave behind the crappy 172 as quickly as possible and get into a turbine.

This answer ignores a clear criterion stated in the question: Setting the “it’s something you get the feel for” advice aside... The asker is obviously seeking practical information rather than an adage.

@jsejcksn, and that's a valid criticism. But I also think there is merit in pointing out a fallacy in the question. Unless someone can make a case for a "deterministic guide" (whatever that might even be...) yielding better results than actual practice in meeting the ultimate goal of improving (human) landing performance, I stand by my answer.

@Farhan, let's take this to Meta...

I'm a fervent advocate that stabilized, properly flown approaches are the cornerstone of a good landing. I also agree strongly with @MichaelHall that the flare and touchdown (i.e., "landing") is a skill that is acquired thru a combination of practice and cognition. Putting landings in a box titled "algorithm" is contrary to the reality of the empirical evidence of those who have flown and instructed new students. Suggesting that modern avionics (e.g. RAs, auto voice callous, etc.) can effectively substitute for the cognitive development achieved thru instruction and practice is unrealistic.

@jsejcksn, taking your earlier comment to heart, I have added some additional explanation asserting a bit of the science behind psychomotor learning so that my answer doesn't come across as a simple platitude. I welcome any additional feedback.

@user71659 If you’re referring to Garmin’s Autoland System, it seems like that’s not fully determined. Garmin states both that it should only be used in emergencies when the pilot cannot land the plane and also that the “aircraft may require maintenance after Autoland use”. In other words, it doesn’t seem like there is currently any deterministic system for landing, even in the digital realm. This isn’t surprising, as the number variables and how quickly and unexpectedly they can change alone defies determinism. discover.garmin.com/en-US/autonomi

@user71659, My earlier replies were deleted for being impolite, but I feel compelled to respond because your comments are not aligned with my message, and you offered no suggestions to actually improve the answer. Character limits preclude lengthy replies, so this will be blunt and to the point: 1.) I know about autoland and autothrottle systems, but they are generally cost prohibitive on light GA trainers, and clearly the question is about human pilot landings so your comment isn’t applicable to either the question or my answer.

And I wasn’t speaking about “art”, I actually refuted that landing is art, because the intent of landing is not to evoke an emotional response as artists seek to do, it is simply a functional skill, to be performed safely. 2.) I most definitely did NOT say that “skill=art+science” as you stated. In fact my point is diametrically opposite to this. And then you again launched into a discussion about computers landing better than people. I don’t appreciate you hijacking my answer to pontificate on your technological opinions that are not germane to the subject at hand.

3.) You then assert that I have “bought into” some sort of flawed American system of actually paying for lessons yourself, (as opposed to ___ paying???) when I have done nothing more than espouse actually practicing landings over seeking an ill defined deterministic approach to improvement. You critiqued three specific lesson plans, that included landings, call them absurd, and said “that’s what you are literally are advocating”.

I will offer an apology for being rude the first time, but I am personally offended that you would attempt to put words in my mouth in the manner that you did. I believe that you ought to retract your comments, or offer an explanation as to how you have arrived at the conclusions that I was advocating for anything other than the actual points I made using my own carefully chosen words.

“Leave behind the crappy 172 as quickly as possible and get into a turbine.” This point I actually agree with. But unless ___ is footing the bill most common people are priced out of the market.

@user71659 Leave behind the crappy 172 but don't get into a turbine, get into something without an engine, that will improve your landings more than anything else.