[CloudHound]

And yet North Weald remains an AGCS despite being busy and now with NPAS based there too.

[chevvron]

I can think of two airfields in the south of England which were 'required' by the CAA, under the terms of CAP670, to upgrade from AFIS to ATC.
I'd be interested to know which they were, and why specifically. Was this some time ago?

Under CAP 670, the CAA can 'require' that a particular level of ATS be provided at an airfield and in both these cases, the complexity of their traffic patterns caused the CAA to require them to upgrade some years ago.
I also once witnessed an ATS Inspector point out to a third airfield that he could require them to upgrade too.

[JodelDavo]

I can think of two airfields in the south of England which were 'required' by the CAA, under the terms of CAP670, to upgrade from AFIS to ATC.

Redhill and Booker (Wycombe Air Park), both nowhere near as busy as they were when they were required to go to full ATC.

[chevvron]

I can think of two airfields in the south of England which were 'required' by the CAA, under the terms of CAP670, to upgrade from AFIS to ATC.

Redhill and Booker (Wycombe Air Park), both nowhere near as busy as they were when they were required to go to full ATC.

Correct but especially in the case of Wycombe, I understand it was the complexity of operations (eg non radio gliders landing across an active taxiway for powered aircraft for one thing) rather than movement rate.

[Hawkwind]

Stapleford used to be FISO, and I believe that ATSD required it to become AG only. I heard they felt that it was rather too chaotic to be subject of a FISO service. It continues as AG to this day and remains very busy, with the limited airspace available overlapping with North Weald, also AG.

[Talkdownman]

the airfield concerned

Is it still a secret? Is anybody going to learn anything from the OP's critique?

[chevvron]

Some really interesting replies.

It seems clear that mine is not an isolated incident, but that the general consensus is that (yet again) our lords and masters have managed to invent a set of “ATC” services that are ambiguous, widely misunderstood (from both sides) and perhaps therefore not fit for purpose.

The reasons I have not named the airfield concerned are:
1, I don’t bear any bad feelings towards the airfield, I want them to continue operating and I don’t want to say or do anything that might have an adverse impact on them.
2, I am fairly well known (in real life) and I don’t want any backlash against myself or any pilots from my flying club.
3, I am hoping that the AFISO concerned may read this and reflect, / possibly change the way they operate. Outing them for public humiliation is most unlikely to achieve my objective.

Bear in mind that :-
ATC provides Instructions, Advice and Information.
AFIS provides Advice and Information.
AGCS provides Information.
All of these have callsigns which enable pilots to define which type of service is in use.
The use of incorrect phraseology is of sufficient concern to the CAA to require them to mention it in various publications; ATC and AFIS units have 'assessors' who should stop the use of incorrect phraseology but AGCS doesn't, (although the CAA were once planning to introduce some form of assessment) which is not helped by some people believing they can operate AGCS without the required Certificate of Competency and using incorrect phraseology thus causing confusion, especially for student pilots, as to what level of service is being provided.

[TopCat]

AFIS provides Advice and Information.

Advice is the last thing I want.

If it's ATC then fair enough, I have to do what I'm told, so I want an instruction, so that I can obey it.

Or, if it's not ATC, I want information so that I can make my own decision.

Not something vague that's in between the two. Advice is exactly the sort of thing where responsibility is unclear.

[Talkdownman]

AGCS provides Information

Maybe, but AGCS is not an Air Traffic Service, CAP452 says so. Suits me, and a lot of others, I expect...

[Pilot Pete]

I've never once had any issue, or doubt regarding the three types of service.
I do however really take issue with the all too common 'Controlling' from an A/G service.
It can be difficult at a certain moment, to ignore a 'Command' over the radio.
If concentrating, you can instinctively respond to said command before processing that a) you didn't have to comply, and b) your previous plan was the better and correct action to take.

If they get it wrong and you damage your aircraft the response will be, 'well you are PIC.'

[Bathman]

The UK is the only country where Flight Information Service Officers pass instructions on the ground.

I can’t remember where in the ANO that states one must legally obey those instructions though.

I never knew this. So just expand and tell me what I need to do thats different everywhere else.

[muffin]

Many years ago, obeying an instant instruction from an AGS operator got me blown over whilst taxying.

[NorthSouth]

Much more so is when people are unclear about a FISO's responsibility, and are hence unclear about their own. When I used to be based at Goodwood, I would frequently hear "G-XXXX 8 mile final, request straight in". The response, far from explicitly being "Service is AFIS, cannot either permit or deny such requests", or some such phraseology, would invariably fudge the issue completely, with such as "Report 2 miles, keep a good lookout".

Same applies at AG airfields. We constantly get inbound aircraft who clearly haven't listened to the radio and/or think they have some inalienable right to barge into the circuit irrespective of the traffic situation.

It seems to me the key thing in the situation you describe is to avoid all the "hinting" that AGOs and FISOs are expected to do in order to get the message to the pilots concerned. Chances are they won't get the hint. In CAP 452 it says "Information provided by an AGCS radio station operator may be used to assist a pilot in making a decision; however, the safe conduct of the flight remains the pilot's responsibility." What's wrong with that information including explicit identification of other options for the pilot concerned? So in your example, how about:
"G-XXXX 8 mile final, request straight in".
"G-XX the circuit is active, two aircraft on downwind. An overhead join is available at this airfield." Or is that just more hinting??!!

[TopCat]

It seems to me the key thing in the situation you describe is to avoid all the "hinting" that AGOs and FISOs are expected to do in order to get the message to the pilots concerned. Chances are they won't get the hint.

Exactly. Nail, meet head.

So in your example, how about:
"G-XXXX 8 mile final, request straight in".
"G-XX the circuit is active, two aircraft on downwind. An overhead join is available at this airfield." Or is that just more hinting??!!

I think it's just more hinting.

The people that need the hints the most are usually the ones that don't take them.

[NorthSouth]

Well if hinting doesn't work (and I agree it often doesn't) we're surely into "suggesting" e.g.
"G-XX the circuit is active, two aircraft on downwind. Suggest you carry out an overhead join."
Probably at risk of the CAA's wagging finger, but it at least gives better prospects of protecting the traffic already in the circuit.
Then we get into the further problem - do the people who want to join straight in even know how to do an overhead join?