I suspect that if we looked at the Ops Mans of the main players, there would be large differences in such policies between them. Surely this is not how it should be?
Here's a stabilised approach OMA extract from a non-major.....
8.1.2.5 Stabilised Approaches
8.1.2.5.1 General
XYZ adopts a stabilised approach policy. The policy includes the following guidelines which are sub-divided for clarity and reflect the different criteria and risk factors associated with the different types of operations that are conducted. In other words, one blanket set of criteria is inappropriate.
8.1.2.5.2 Common Criteria
The following requirements must be met for all approaches:
(a) The aircraft is on the correct flight path.
(b) Only small changes in heading roll and pitch attitude are required to maintain the correct flight path, and the rate of power application is normal. Any period in excess of 3 seconds with the collective position at MPOG must be considered unstable and immediate corrective action shall be made. Similarly, any period where the Nr rises above the Np, shall be considered unstable.
(c) The aircraft is in the correct landing configuration.
(d) The rate of descent is no greater than 650 feet per minute. If an approach requires a rate greater than 650 feet per minute, a special briefing shall be conducted. If a rate of descent exceeding 650 ft/min develops the PF will state his awareness of it and his intentions.
(e) All briefings and checklists have been conducted.
(f) Unique approach procedures (or abnormal conditions) requiring a deviation from the relevant elements of a stabilised approach require a specific briefing.
8.1.2.5.3
Onshore IFR Approaches - Specific Criteria
(a) All flights shall be stabilised by 1000 feet above landing elevation in IMC and by 500 feet above landing elevation in VMC.
(b) ILS and RNAV LNAV/VNAV approaches must be flown within one dot deviation of the glide slope and localiser, and Non Precision Approaches flown within 5° of the Final Approach Track.
(c) For Non Precision Approaches (NPAs) the company adopts the Continuous Descent Final Approach (CDFA) concept, and therefore requires that the approach be flown from the FMS using the Flight Director P-ILS function.
(d) An approach that becomes unstabilised below 500 feet above the landing elevation in IMC or below 250 feet above the landing elevation in VMC, requires an immediate go-around. Simi- larly, any approach being conducted visually (including the final stages of an approach initially flown in IMC) that subsequently results in loss of the required visual references shall be imme- diately discontinued.
8.1.2.5.4 Onshore VFR Approaches - Specific Criteria
The aircraft should be wings level and aligned with the runway by 300 ft AAL by day, and 500 ft by night.
8.1.2.5.5 Offshore IFR Approaches - Specific Criteria
For ARA's the aircraft is to be wings level and on the landing heading prior to descending below MDH.
8.1.2.5.6 Offshore VFR Day Approaches - Specific Criteria
Where the sector distance is less than or equal to 2nm, transit height is to be not less than 300 ft ASL. Sectors in excess of 2nm shall be flown at not less than 500 ft ASL above landing elevation. En-route descents shall initially terminate at not below 500 ft ASL. Regardless of the initial sector length and arrival height, the aircraft shall be wings level and on the final approach track/heading by 300 ft ASL.
8.1.2.5.7 Offshore VMC Night Approaches - Specific Criteria
Offshore arrivals and approaches in VMC shall be flown coupled to the flight director until the visual descent gate is established. The normal shuttle and circuit height will be 1000 ft ASL. Short sectors and circuits may be flown at 500 ft ASL if specifically briefed and adequate justification given. The aircraft shall be wings level and on the final approach track and at 500 ft ASL by not less than 1nm. The normal visual approach gate shall be 500 ft ASL, 55 KIAS and 0.6nm from the destination. With some minor variations for deck height, this will give approximately a 7-8° glidepath with good deck ovality and will reduce the time flown uncoupled to a minimum.
CAUTION: Avoid excessively long continuous descents to a deck, particularly from an en-route descent. The likelihood of the approach becoming unstable and the difficulty in accurately assessing closure rates and sight picture variation will increase markedly.
8.1.2.5.8 Pilot Monitoring (PM) Responsibilities
It is imperative that the Pilot Monitoring informs the Pilot Flying (PF) when any of the above parameters are being approached, and that once reached, or exceeded, unequivocal instruction is given to conduct a missed approach if the response by the PF to the PM's advice is considered unsatis- factory. This is particularly critical when in IMC, at night or in a degraded visual environment (DVE.)
Regardless of the defined parameters stated, some degree of common-sense must also be applied along with sound CRM. The primary aim of the policy is to prevent CFIT and this underlying intent should be borne in mind at all times. There may be occasions where discussion is all that is required whereas there may also be occasions where physical intervention is necessary. XYZ does not regard missed approaches as negative events.