Capn Bloggs;
In fact, that is the psychology and it is difficult to argue when one's daily experience is "12,000ft" in front of one's B737, etc.! Nevertheless, as you'd know, it is habit as well as performance that is the goal. We use the FDM data to emphasize this, but the differences between 5000ft runways and those twice that length are certainly in the data.
safetypee;
I considered that you'd have seen the NLR work; nice to know (but no surprise) that you've contributed to such work as well. The NLR (Van Es, & the Fabregas presentations, etc.), has helped us in our FDM Program work as have the presentations to which you have kindly provided links, above.
The original question regarding "calling crews for every event" is, through the feedback on this thread, largely settled, but the discussion on FDM is well worth continuing for those so engaged.
Regarding the assumptions behind an ILS Glide Slope, I hadn't considered, but understand, that any interference-with/attenuation-of the GS signal could "bend" (alter the "null point") and lead to differences in the air distance from the threshold, (or, as is assumed most of the time, an RA reading of 50ft), to the touchdown point.
We were dealing with chronically long air distances from 50ft RA to t/d and finally asked the question, "Is the touchdown point as determined by the FDM software, accurate?".
Using an FAA paper entitled, "
A Study of Normal Operational Landing Performance on Subsonic, Civil, Narrow-Body Jet Aircraft During Instrument Landing System Approaches" we began to examine this question. It turned out that the FDM Program used only the Air-ground parameter. The FAA study indicated that rather than using air-ground which is often late, a combination of vertical 'g', spoiler deployment (or wheel speed if one has the parameter), radio altimeter and so on, can more closely determine the t/d point and more accurately determine the actual air distance and flare time from 50ft to t/d.
A number of steps were taken to enhance the accuracy of this event, with the result that landing performance data was reliable (within the contributing parameter sample rates available). It was then possible, using airport/runway database information, to place risk more expeditiously, (deceleration required for runway remaining, risk of overrun if deceleration was =< 0.2g, speed-at-1000ft-to-go, etc). The end result is better communication to the pilot group through regular monthly reporting which begin to enable the real-time assessment process, (foresight) described including available safety margins. This has recently been put to work in a challenging airfield and the process and the results (from communication to actual performance) are encouraging. In fact, we deal with the "psychology" of the matter directly, emphasizing that long runways do not necessarily provide equally-generous margins, depending upon conditions.
I am of the view that providing actual FDM data to individual pilots is to be encouraged at every turn, providing the usual confidentialities are formally in place and expected. At present they are free to call the gatekeeper to discuss a flight and often do, I am told. This is "learning for free", in my view and goes well beyond traditional restrictions (perhaps moreso in North America) which consider the data sacred territory when in fact, employed appropriately it is another tool in the kit.