vilas, #335 '…
if at 1000ft if speed is +15 and GS half a dot above it fits into stable approach but can end up in overrun if not handled correctly.'
Landing distance required must be
calculated (considered) for foreseeable error situations, planned for situations - approach speed increase for wind, or 'near enough'.
The approach speed must be
adjusted during final approach to achieve the expected landing performance, but that would be 'unstable' - the clash of reality with procedural requirement, requiring a balanced judgement influenced by rules, interpretation, safety culture.
Uplinker, GizmO, re
touch down position from FDR.
This is relatively easy to measure, even the most basic recordings provides a reasonable indication.
A key issue is the use of the data; view the human as the threat, or learn from aggregated data about influencing conditions, specific runways, airport restrictions.
I recall one analysis, many years ago, which identified a correlation between the point of touchdown and runway length; the study ranged many airports in a large operational system, and aircraft types according to long haul / short haul.
Thus with all other things being equal, if pilots can touchdown within a suitable distance on a short runway, then why not on a longer runway; a lengthy and repetitive discussion - because its human.
The operator published the findings for awareness and recurrent training comparison - the training results on all runway lengths was acceptable - we can do it, we can choose to do it, but not always.