one day they will do the sensible thing and ban all forms of aviation completely. That way there would be no accidents at all.
I tried to find out once where the land within 60% for turboprop and 70% for turbofan rules came from. Its impossible to find any statistical proof at all that those figures are the magic crossover between an increased safety margin with respect to the manufacturers numbers and actually having airports to land at. Nobody at Hoofdorp knew the answer when I was on a postholder course. The EASA regulations will have a very significant commercial impact on lots of small airfields and reduces the attraction of using a business jet. I see it degrading pilot skills - who cares about landing accurately and approaching at the correct speed if you've got all that tarmac to play with - and mathematically it doesn't make sense. A linear scalar factor is wrong. The energy you need to dissipate varies with the square of the speed so safety factors should vary as the square of the ref speed. Penalising aircraft like Mustangs and CJ's far more than challengers and lots of airliners just doesnt make sense.
Also, why is it 60 for turboprops and 70 for jets? You can't account for reverse or beta so whats going on? Its a really crude attempt to account for the above - factors should scale with speed and turboprops on average approach slower.
wouldn't it be nice if pilots and aerodynamacists wrote the rules instead of lawyers..