Unrealistic Criteria
At the same time, some pilots said the criteria for a stabilized approach weren’t realistic, Smith said in an interview.
Researchers are attempting to design new standards that require aborting landings only in dangerous situations, improving safety without unnecessarily boosting go-arounds, which can create their own dangers, Quevedo said.
“We should expect that if we have a policy, the people should follow the policy,” he said. “But that being said, we need to make sure that the policy is good before we make people follow it. I don’t think we’re there yet.”
Given the way ATC tries to manage traffic at some high density airports, there are definite issues with the criteria at some airlines, particularly those that require a stabilized approach at 1,000 ft in both IMC and VMC conditions. I understand the motivation for such policies but they aren't very well thought out if they don't consider all of the operational factors that affect the ability to comply. Until such requirements have been communicated and agreed with ATC providers everywhere, pilots are left with either getting ATC worked up at being unable to fly the controller's desired profile, or management worked up for not being able to fly theirs.
Some will say, "Stuff ATC, fly your profile".
It's not quite that simple. Some crews are allowed to go faster on approach in VMC because they have the 500 ft stabilized criteria and in many cases, ATC sees more of them than they do of the operators that set a higher limit. ATC tends to plan for the majority.