There is interpretation in the way the policy is written and I take the point about shall/should for the flap selection. I do not agree about being able to carry it to a 1000' as the 1000'relates to 'stable approach criteria' which are listed in the previous paragraph. The selection of landing flap is not a part of the 'stable approach criteria' but rather the 'stable approach requirements'. The best interpretation from the lesser conservative view rim has taken would be that the requirement to have the flap set does not have a mandated minimum altitude. I would guess that is more a result of shoddy policy writing and proofreading rather than intent.
Last edited by joe.bloggs; 18th Mar 2015 at 11:56.
Reason: clarification