Once again we are losing sight here of reality, with spelling police, Tristar sales and sniping in flow.
Main points, I feel:
As said on the many threads here before on the 'speed on finals' topic, IF you cannot accept it, tell ATC EARLY. Likewise they need to tell you EARLY, either by Notam/chart or R/T pre-notification before finals. It is no good suddenly asking at 7 miles, (or requesting a 'new' specific exit as we bravely wrestle with the controls at 100kts on the runway, avoiding the orphans' school and housing estate).
To me, there has to be more to this 'sacking' than we see here. While '180 to 4' is just NOT practical in anything but a Harrier or prop, ONE whoopsie should NOT result in a sacking.
Nearly ALL of us have to adjust our planning to 1000' stable now-a-days whether we like it or not - fact. I came from an environment where it was 'throttles closed, on speed on the numbers or you are a pansy' to airlines and made that adjustment (well, most of the time
).
If EJ are making life impossible, as BA tried to do at Brussels for example way back (another thread), tell them! ASR/Flight report. Make a FUSS. If the management wet dreams are making life difficult/impossible for ATC, take action, be it reports/filings or even send arounds if you have to (the latter rapidly focussing bean-counters' attention).
160 to 4 is not impossible, but it needs a bit of work. On a previous thread we established that a pre-requested 170 to 5 was 'manageable' for ATC but would reduce the rates.
My experience of FDR monitoring has been positive. The 'cowboy' element can easily be identified. If this guy was not such, and had just this one 'event', the decision is bizarre and in my opinion could easily have been handled differently.