Are my views outdated these days, given the abilities of the modern aircraft?
No, absolutely not - our company (and most others I could mention) have strict criteria defining what constitutes a stable (and thus acceptable) approach. If these are not met (typically bya minimumof 500' aal) then a go-around is mandatory.
Would you expect me to instruct you to go-round if I thought the approach was unstable, from what I observed on radar?
No! Radar is 'history' in terms of displayed height and ground speed - we have (naturally) a much greater dynamic picture of the state of the aircraft, in terms of airspeed trends, actual wind readings, and a far better appreciation of the time and distance required to configure the aeroplane and correct back to datums from any deviation.
wouldn't you have every right to complain about ATC giving you an unstable approach?!
Some pilots may complain, but I wouldn't consider it a 'right' - if the information is available to them regarding range to final/touchdown then they have all the information to decide whether or not they are capable of achieving the required stable flightpath prior to landing. Pilots don't have to accept a 4 mile final if they don't want to, all they have to do is inform ATC.
The difference with accepting vectors to 4nm and flying a self-positioned 4nm final is that issue of the unknown: If we decide to make a 4nm final from, say, 30nm out, it should be no big deal; in the same way if you inform us with a bit of notice that that will be the end result of your vectors, we have plenty of time to decide whether we can achieve it or not. If we are expecting a 9nm final and receive a last-minute 'short-cut' to 4nm, then it
can cause real problems.
It is the issue of unpredictibility which causes the most stress in the flightdeck, when considering ATC vectoring: at busy places like LHR, the vectors are extremely consistent (due to the nature of the airspace) and therefore predictable - we can then plan everything to happen when it needs to and acheive nice continuous descents.
The 'problem' with regional airports in quiet airspace is that by nature you have more flexibility, and so our final approaches can take a much wider range of forms.
The key, I believe is to keep pilots informed! Just letting us know
early if we are to expect a short approach or if self-positioning will be likely. Updating us on approximate track miles to touchdown is a huge boon when we are trying to plan a continuous descent and a stable approach, something which the 'regionals' don't do so often.
As far as relating what you see on the radar to whether or not
you should discontinue the approach, I suspect you are already of the opinion that that is not really your job! Different companies and fleets have widely different standard procedures and performance - it would not be possible to offer that kind of direction sensibly without great experience with the aircraft type or company concerned.
Of course we need your advice if it looks like we are having trouble, either with navigation, descent towards terrain or maybe just appear too high for the approach - and don't be shy! High workload in the cockpit can mean that subtle hints from ATC aren't effective. But let us fly the aircraft!