I beg to differ. With Land After there is only one other aircraft to identify - that which is already on the runway. The clearance is only issued when the leading aircraft is a specified distance down the runway, giving you an initial idea of the minimum landing distance available and advance warning of what you'll be doing if your brakes fail, ie turning off the runway. That minimum distance is in no way contingent upon the performance of the leading aircraft. Now compare with LAHSO, when you are required to identify a single aircraft approaching the intersecting runway, when you are unsure of its exact position, when the visibility may be poor and when it may be on a constant relative bearing, thus even harder to pinpoint. Your landing distance is now contingent upon the performance of the other aircraft and his complete and accurate comprehension of and compliance with the LAHSO instructions. It offers little room for error and provides no formal seperation in the event of both aircraft choosing to go around. Give me Land After anyday.
A competent pilot should have no problem executing them day in and day out
To err is human.
Now to address some of C&Bs points:
if you were the aircraft ahead and you heard the aircraft behind stating a requirement for a sterile runway, which would obviously mean that you would be required by ATC to execute a missed approach; I am sure your opinion would be that the crew behind 'pressed on'
No, I'd be of the opinion that the crew behind had a problem and I did not so I would do my damndest to assist. just like I have been willing to enter the hold at Glasgow to allow an urgent but slower air ambulance ahead of me. One day it might happen to you and you'll be grateful for the help.
you were flying an aircraft in a similar situation that you would assume the traffic to be insignificant to have any effect on the outcome
I don't know where you fly to C&B but you obviously consider MAN a 'busy' airport. I don't think it comes anywhere close being a truly busy airport and would be far more comfortable with the level of traffic there than at LHR or JFK. I am also far more comfortable with traffic levels at airfields with 2 usable runways. Belfast may have two runways, but how big? The difference in fuel between Belfast and MAN is truly negligible rather less than the accuracy of the fuel gauges.
I have seen some significant differences from that forecasted. I feel very uneasy about assumptions that can have such significant knock-on effects
Never assume - check! If you don't trust the flight plan winds get an accurate update from Gander or other traffic. Surely you don't think they just plugged the winds in and sat back for 6 hours waiting to see what happened?
As for landing with 5 tons of fuel onboard without declaring an emergency, I cannot believe you would keep this a secret, I cannot imagine what you are saying is SOP. Plus you haven't answered my question. How much fuel would be left in the tanks after a missed approach into a visual circuit? The reason why I think this is important is obvious - what about a second chance if something should go wrong.
Keep what a secret? Landing with fuel above reserves? Perhaps you did not read my earlier comment?
FUEL ABOVE RESERVES. Neither the CAA nor BA require you to declare an emergency if you land with fuel above reserves. 5T is quite likely above reserves on an LAX. After a visual circuit you would probably have 3T left. 5T gives you enough time for a radar circuit and a long talking to ATC to ensure they fully understand the position. Believe me these things happen with reasonable regularity at LHR and the CAA are fully aware of the situation. Sometimes, with the best will in the world, people get caught out.
f you have a choice of landing without making a fuss or pressing on and ignore at least what would be my concerns (outlined above), would you label yourself ignorant or arrogant
Neither. You appear to assume the crew ignored all your concerns. They didn't. They considered them closely and decided they had a different view from you. Three very experienced long haul pilots decided they had a different view from you. Why are you right and they wrong?
‘why did I pass suitable aerodromes and leave yourself with just one chance’ – was it really that necessary?
They didn't. They left themselves with several chances. It was only a late problem that reduced them to what they considered possibly one chance, although in reality it wasn't.