Take heart, zkdli
What you posted in response to HD about 'how many of the 20% were operating under the reduced
separation in the
vicinity of the
aerodrome criteria' was I think of interest to us all - have you withdrawn it to redraft it, or is it lost now?
In the meantime might I quote what some kind person has posted on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_(Air_Traffic_Control)
QUOTE
In the vicinity of an aerodrome
... aircraft in the vicinity of an aerodrome tend to be flying at lower speeds. Therefore, if the aerodrome controller can see both aircraft, or both aircraft report that they can see each other, or a following aircraft reports that it can see the preceding one, controllers may reduce the standard separation to whatever is adequate to prevent a collision.
UNQUOTE
What part of UK AIP deals with 'vicinity of the aerodrome criteria' in HD's 99.9% under LHR radar control case?
Edit: Is it purely MATS part 1, Section 1, Chapter 3 (see http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP493Part1.pdf) or is it cross-referenced with something else, in MATS part 2 for example?
This isn't the prime case aired by the BBC, but would it be fair to suggest that accepted cultural use of it as a facility to minimise final spacing even further than might otherwise apply could well be one of the factors that encourage spurious knock-on upsets like the one as far out as Reading?