Doug the Head please, please, do not associate anything as crass as airline management with something as wonderful as Comfortably Numb, I'll forgive you this time.
160 to 4 is not a problem, the problem is when certain people high up the chain decide to publish in detail a procedure for just about everything. Frankly, if we cannot find a way to fly 160 to 4 and get it configured by 1000' then we should not be doing this job.
As for arguing with our ATC colleagues about who is God today this has got to stop. We all have to work together to make this system work, ATC tell me to do something, I then as aircraft commander decide if that is a safe and viable course of action. If it is then it gets done, if not we try to find another way. We do this all the time and don't have protracted discussions about it so why get all upset about 160 to 4?
Of course safety has to be number one but the FDM or whatever we call it today has shifted people's focus away from the runway to 500' above it and we have an almost manic focus on the 500' gate and the parameters that have to be satisfied. Just the thought of getting that phone call is pre-occupying guys attention way out on the approach. Not a good thing in my book. Sure, monitor what is going on but try not to be as draconian with the data usage. A phone call for bug +12 knots passing the gate and then landing safely on speed is getting a bit too anal. Especially when we know the autothrust can be a bit wide of the mark, especially with flap 3 landings and tailwind on the approach (A319 that is).