I'm beginning to wish I hadn't started this thread! Thanks to all (well, nearly all..) for the comments. Interesting one about the visual approach AM too vs. instrument AM.
I think "duty-of-care" comes into this whole issue and I know that is highly contentious with ATCOs and pilots alike. In this particular, matter, just how far should ATCOs go in offering info/advice to pilots to stop someone making a smoking crater in the ground (or worse?). Personnally, I don't have a problem with the principle behind the AM procedure or even in the imposition of a weather-related approach ban, but it's the wording of the MATS 1 SI, the assumptions made therein, the anomaly with the JAR approach procedure for pilots, the required timing of the RTF messages and the contradictory nature RTF messages that irks me. Still, there you go....