Discussions on the FSF report elsewhere, questions what might change if all of the limitations for a stabilised approach were removed. The objective of stability before landing would remain, but without being 'boxed in' by SOPs, pilots might achieve more 'successes' because they have been allowed to use their expertise and judgement.
A change could also aid identifying the real problem areas in landing. Fast, long landings, might still occur, but this might place greater focus on the earlier stages of the approach.
The FSF data independently lists deviations in glidepath, VS, and airspeed, but jointly these might be as expected if the initial approach vectoring was too high; the pilot puts the nose down, speed increases, high VS. Three issues separated in data, but jointly stemming from a single earlier event.
The industry needs to pay more attention to these 'remote' issues.
A37575, sometimes it helps to be politically correct. Those 'errant' crews who may not be disposed to a GA might similarly have problems identifying or rejecting a high, fast intermediate approach. Similarly, removing a bias might identify problems with ATC or specific operations; or even corporate pressure.
The industry should consider moving time pressured tactical decisions to a more strategic point during the approach. Emphasise the descent / pre landing briefing - 'what ifs' for changes in ATC, wind, runway conditions; encourage crews to be be prepared.