I can only hope that our experts have these sort of issues on their 'W-B' graphs for Quito and CGH, and my primary concern, like Alf, is that although I am well used to operating with PAPIs/VASIs NOT aligned with GPs, my understanding also is that IFR performance should normally be predicated on ILS touchdown point unless clearly differentiated to crews, and I am worried by the apparent 'throw-away' lines of "Oh yes, if you don't duck under and land short at CGH in a heavy 737 on a wet runway OR at Quito in a 340 you will have trouble stopping" and what this might do to the mind-set of other pilots looking at shortish runways. The analysis of these incidents/accidents MUST include the responsibility for instituting correct operating procedures and for the responsibility of crews and management to be alert to these issues and not to turn a blind eye to them for expediency and 'a bit of fun'. Does everyone have a clean sheet here?
It may be 'quite fun' and as long as it is clearly published and approved there really is no issue, but, as at CGH............................
Apart from our own skins, we accept responsibility for lots of others, and safety margins are there for a reason.
I will be relieved if I hear from any QUITO operators who have this published as SOP with warnings about LDA. It is obviously a 'special brief' airfield and I would hope at least 'Cat B' if that exists in Spain? My charts (which may well be out of date) show a 3.2deg GP and 3 deg PAPIs and a LDA of 2290m (not 2610) for (displaced) ILS touchdown with a TCH (ILS) of 59', but the quoted ILS displacement on these Jepps is only 320m so obviously there have been some changes or errors since it measures out at 510m as per the linked chart. Also obviously some sort of deviation from ILS will be required. Should this not be on the charts, rather than relying on 'visitors' having to make up their own procedure at 650'? As Alf says, why not make it a 3.5deg GP or whatever is necessary to cross the ridge at 5 safely?
MB - if, as you post, you are treating this as a 'circle-to-land', are you using 10,500/8km minima?