as in typical IFR weather the man in the Biggin tower is doing very little and would be better utilised controlling a procedural approach. This annual billing corresponds with the type of accounting practice seen elsewhere within UK ATC e.g. NATS reportedly want £100k p.a. for a radar feed (which costs them nothing to deliver). So if Biggin wanted to, they could become AFIS or even A/G radio
What are you basing that on, IFR weather (especialy LVPS) can the most complex time to work in the tower, especialy when we lose our ability to enact reduced seperation in the vicinity of the aerodrome.
Exactly, hence why a new category/qualification would need to be created, though that shouldn't be an issue for competent FISOs. It wouldn't necessarily be controlling (OCAS!), but issuing slot times for approaches.
We have this already, its a function of the approach procedural rating, its provided by approach controllers.
You wouldn't save any money by giving FISO's this added responsibility because that would make them Approach controllers and then they would quite reasonably want approach controller salaries.
Maybe we could even move on and do it the US way, trusting each other to remain in the hold until the aircraft ahead has reached a certain point on the procedure!
I dont think the US way would work here, we dont have the vast tracts of airspace required for it.
I'll use EGKB as an example as its the one I know.
The DME arc into Biggin passes through london citys controlled airspace, so if an approach is to be carried out coordination is required with City radar, toss into the mix the limited vertical height available for the hold and you require a couple of air traffic controllers to enable the coordination required.
Granted there are some aerodromes where it would work, but having a piecemeal system is going to confuse an already complicated system.