zkdli, thanks for troubling to provide that explanation.
The threshold crossed before the runway is clear at the other end is something discussed many times on PPRuNe of course. Has 120.4 perhaps put a slightly different light on the normal observations by looking at the bigger picture that includes the tendency to 'shrink' or 'stretch' separation in the whole approach, and the knock-on effects, rather analysing just bits of it, do you think? Begins to sound more and more like the M4 fast lane concertina played out simultaneously below the approach on many mornings! Many of the worst emergency skid marks are out near Reading on that approach too ... no two are the same of course, and without impacts none are thought more of except for five minutes perhaps by a minority of the drivers who scared themselves, ... yet we all know what causes it - a general lack of two chevron type separation, perhaps mixed with slick lane changes by the 'clever' operators.
As for failing signally, Sallyann, Andrew 120.4's actions have certainly got a much broader audience thinking properly about it the last few days than the few that got to discuss his report originally, and from what he's told us, that's what Andrew 120.4 strongly felt was required. He was talking about this kind of stuff in PPRuNe 18 months ago and getting a good hearing, but evidently it didn't lead to the type of serious force for improvement he was hoping for.
Now at least NATS Group Exec and the regulators will have to revisit it afresh. I can't imagine it otherwise, can you?
Any public and/or political controversy might be a bi-product of further thinking not yet completed, but surely that won't be required to effect improvement?