PJ2 -- just to clarify one ongoing DIFFERENCE for TURBOJET pilots employed by any FAA Part 121 operator: You pointed out the lack of any "energy management" ELEMENT in the Stabilized Approach criteria for many Euro'-pilots --
"... nowhere does it state that the engines must be spooled up ...".
However, for Part 121- pilots, the FAA retained (though FAA's Southwest Region's TX-based company's RESISTED) the "energy management" ELEMENT
"engines spooled-up". The citation (source) is the legal requirement imposed on the FAA's CMO & POI to ensure that each operator includes SPECIFIC wording:
FAA Order 8900.1 CHG 0; 9/13/2007;
VOLUME 4 AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT AND OPERATIONAL AUTHORIZATION
CHAPTER 2, ALL-WEATHER TERMINAL AREA OPERATIONS
Section 3 Factors Affecting All-Weather Terminal Area (AWTA) Operations
4-221 STABILIZED APPROACH CONCEPT … Significant speed and configuration changes during an approach can seriously complicate tasks associated with aircraft control, increase the difficulty of properly evaluating an approach as it progresses, and complicate the decision of the proper action to take at the decision point. The handling and engine response characteristics of most turbojet aircraft further complicate pilot tasks during approach and landing… A stabilized approach for turbojet aircraft means that the aircraft must be in an approved landing configuration … must maintain the proper approach speed with the engines spooled up, and must be established on the proper flightpath before descending below the minimum “stabilized approach height” specified ...
"NOTE: Principal inspectors shall not approve an operator’s procedure unless the stabilized approach concept is used for all turbojet aircraft operations…."
Previously (before 2007) the "engines spooled-up" requirement & wording was in FAA's Order 8400.10. During the 1990's and 2000 there were repeat efforts to get FAA's SW Region to comply -- but the Texas companies controlled the local regulator. Some TX-company pilots did not know about the FAA's "engine spooled-up" requirement (their company didn't want their pilots to know about the more co$tly requirement).
For pilots employed under other reg's, the ALAR standards avoided FAA's wording "engines spooled-up", instead the ALAR "energy management" element is:
"Power setting is appropriate for the aircraft configuration and is not below the minimum power for approach as defined by the aircraft operating manual...."
Basically, FSF's ALAR "energy management" element is NONE AT ALL, but the FSF's
ALAR Briefing Note 4.2 does offer some background (the engine accel' curves). The weasel-wording relieves the manufacturer and the airline of any responsibility (pilots get full blame for results of un-spooled ARC-mishaps).