digital, sorry to hijack your thread a bit but I'm puzzled by some of the comments. Like I said upfront, the subtleties are complex - they need not worry you for the RT test, as others have said you're asking pertinent questions and with the guidance of instructors I'm sure you'll have no trouble but....
homeguard, what is the basis for your statement?
An Aerodrome Flight Information Service may not provide a service to aircraft other than those operating or who intend to operate within an ATZ.
I believe the area of responsibility is a bit greater.
Again, I would ask the basis of your statement
An Air Ground station must not provide a service and the station is not always required to be manned. It is simply a communication device. They are not empowered to provide traffic whereabouts.
I'm puzzled by your assertion that the station must not provide a service - what is it doing then? Why do you say that it is not always required to be manned? What do they communicate? And I'm afraid that there's plenty of evidence that AGCS stations are passing information about other traffic - just listen.
The reality for AGCS is that it is an all but undefined service in legislation and rules. Although I would take issue with the statement, the CAA clearly indicates that AGCS is an air traffic service although there are
very limited rules about what the service can do and don't waste your time looking for references to it in the legislation - I think it's mentioned once, and then only in passing.
bookworm, you say
Actually, the CAA realised some time ago that they didn't really know exactly what a "Flight Information Service" means, hence many hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on a review of air traffic services outside controlled airspace. ;-)
Now I'm not going to argue with your fundamental premise but I think the biggest problem that the CAA has made in this latest review - and that you seem to have fallen for - is that FIS equates to outside CAS. I'll explain why in a moment.
Gertrude, following our earlier you offer
"London Information, G-ABCD, request danger area activity information for delta 207"
"G-ABCD, delta 207 is cold"
"G-ABCD thank you and good day"
Then you go back to talking to nobody (possibly with London Information tuned in and the volume turned down, if you like). No flight information service established.
When we talk about all these services I think we need to start with the international definitive documents which essentially are ICAO Annex 11, Circular 211 and PANS-ATM (admittedly with bits of one or two others thrown in). In ICAO the concept of having to request a level of service doesn't really exist because there is no choice - the level of service is determined by the circumstances and, primarily, that comes down to the airspace class. In controlled airspace an ATC service (which includes FIS and ALR) is provided, outside controlled airspace FIS and ALR are provided in the relevant FIR. The concept of an aerodrome FIS has not been incorporated into the Standards and Reccomended Practices (yet?) and is covered by the Circular I mentioned - but it is very much an information service...no instructions at all. Just information and ALR.
So the starting point is that a FIS (and ALR) is provided everywhere in an FIR - not just outside controlled airspace like the CAA seems to suggest these days. Inside controlled airspace you also get ATC. At some aerodromes you can get an aerodrome FIS.
And then in the UK we start to deviate from these international standards - we do ATC outside controlled airspace, we allow aerodrome FIS to issue instructions in some circumstances, we create strange beasts like AGCS. And then because the international rules don't work so well any more we need to invent other services like RIS and RAS (or at least to modify the ICAO services that they are based on...which can create further problems down the line), and because there are so many options we have to get pilots to ask for the service that they want, which the controller then has to agree to provide.
But the CAA also talks about the 'duty of care' that controllers, particularly, have so that even if the pilot didn't ask for a service the controller may still be expected to do something in he or she thinks it's going to prevent an accident or somesuch.
And still pilots will call up a controller and ask for some information that the international rules clearly call flight information which forms part of the FIS - be given that info - and claim that they have not received a FIS.
And come next March lots of stuff changes and we are going to have to call an ATC service a FIS if it is provided outside controlled airspace!
Messy is not the word.
OK, rant over.