AFIS R/T Clarification please..

[Finals19]

Hi All,

I have recently begun operating from a south east airfield where an AFIS service is provided. Prior to this, I operated primarily from controlled aerodromes with full ATC. Trying to be concientuous, I have studied CAA CAP material with regard to AFIS provision, but am still a bit baffled by usage of certain (non standard?) phraseology.

On my last flight, I was instructed to taxy to the holding point. An aircraft was in the air on base, nearing final. I reported my ground position and was told to "report lining up" (????) CAP 427 (If I recall) confirms this instruction as applicable to an aircraft requesting back track of the active runway...which was not a request I made. I therefore held position and allowed arriving traffic to establish on final and land. I have to admit I was slightly unsure what to do next upon receipt of the above instruction.

I guess my query is this: in a situation as above, do you hold short (if you judge you may not have time to safely depart) or do you line up and wait for the FISO "Take off at your discretion, wind xxx @ xx"? My understanding is that the normal instruction once holding short is either "hold position" or "take off at your discretion, wind blah blah blah"...

Obviously a FISO does not separate arriving traffic from traffic on the ground.

Any clarification on the interpretation of this would be appreciated :ok:

[Jan Olieslagers]

Is it any help to point out that an AFIS can NEVER issue instructions? They are what their name name says, an "information service".
IOW: your query sounds like being "without subject". At a non-controlled aerodrome, everything is done "at pilot's discretion". The radio person is there to assist you, and will pass every information that might me useful to you, in her/his judgement. I've never met or heard any that wasn't very able and very helpful and very correct, and it takes some degree of art to combine all those. But all decisions are up to your very own self, captain!

[Finals19]

Jan - thanks for the reply - your thoughts were originally my own. However, FISO's in the UK can issue instructions to aircraft on the ground. That is what my original question relates to - and the R/T phraseology they use.

CAP 410 (UK CAA) Part B refers:

The Flight Information Service Officer (FISO) provides an information service to
aircraft that are flying or about to fly within the aerodrome traffic zone. Under Rule 35
of the Rules of the Air, FISOs at aerodromes are permitted to issue instructions to: a)
departing aircraft about to move or moving on the apron and manoeuvring area up to
the holding point of the runway to be used for departure; b) arriving aircraft moving
on the manoeuvring area and apron, following the completion of the landing roll; and
c) all other taxying aircraft intending to move or moving on the apron and manoeuvring
area, including the crossing of runways. Elsewhere on the ground and at all times in
the air, information shall be passed.

Now, this suggest that beyond the holding point you are within your right to do whatever you consider safe and expeditious. However, this is not always the case since FISO's here seem to still maintain a degree of "advisory control" into the runway environment; e.g they can instruct you to "hold short" (instruction) or "take off at your discretion". While the last phrase is NOT a clearance, it surely has to be an instruction, just as "hold short" is. Try entering the runway env. and taking off without the "take off at your discretion.." response from the FISO and you risk getting some stern feedback about your actions :=

The whole thing seems rather grey to me.

[dublinpilot]

Is it any help to point out that an AFIS can NEVER issue instructions? They are what their name name says, an "information service".


That's not fully true in the UK.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Finals19, you have obviously studied the matter to more depth than myself. As you may have observed, I am writing from abroad. And though I have repeatedly come upon differences between the UK and the real (ICAO) world, I keep on committing the gross error of considering the UK a normal place.

In my simple world, an R/T operator either has authority or has none. The UK seems to know more nuances, as you say, a rather gray environment. I can only wish you the best, and am again confirmed in my hesitation to ever cross the English channel. There's obviously dangers hidden there, far worse than ten minute's flying without a plan B.

You had better consider my earlier reply non-existant, I think.

[mrmum]

Hi Finals19,

The appropriate reference document is CAP 413, as you correctly say, the phrase "report lining up" would be used to an aircraft requiring (not requesting, subtle difference I know) a backtrack. Were you at a holding point not at the runway threshold, where the FISO may have assumed (incorrectly) that you would require a backtrack? If not, then it's probably just a case of the wrong phraseology for the circumstances being used.

CAP 413 Radiotelephony Manual Chapter 4 Page 20

Aircraft requiring a backtrack:

(Aircraft callsign) report entering the runway.
(Aircraft callsign) report lining up.**
(Aircraft callsign) traffic is (traffic information) report entering the runway and lining up.**

**Note: Pilots will notify the FISO of their intentions.


So, once you find yourself in that situation, where the "wrong" phrase has been used - what do you do? I think you did pretty much the right thing. Being told to "report lining up" by a FISO is not an invitation or instruction to do so immediately. You have to assess whether you have time to depart safely without getting in the way of the next approaching aircraft, then advise the FISO of your intentions; entering or holding.

You are correct in saying that the normal phraseology to an aircraft at the holding point of the active runway, when the FISO expects the aircraft to just enter, line-up and depart My understanding is that the normal instruction once holding short is either "hold position" or "take off at your discretion, wind blah blah blah"... is one of the following;
(Aircraft callsign) hold position.
(Aircraft callsign) take off at your discretion, surface wind (number) degrees (number) knots.
(Aircraft callsign) traffic is (traffic information) take off at your discretion, surface wind (number) degrees (number) knots.

[mrmum]

Finals19, sorry crossed posts with you there, CAP 410 is relevant as well as CAP 413.

[BackPacker]

I haven't been exposed to too much AFIS R/T, but as far as I understand, the AFIS R/T can provide traffic *information* about anything that happens in the circuit and on the runway, and gives *instructions* with regards to anything that happens on the apron and taxiways. The border between the two obviously being the runway hold lines.

So you would have gotten taxi *instructions* to the hold, but from then on it's your discretion; the AFIS controller just requests you to inform him/her when you cross the hold to line up, so that he/she can *inform* the other traffic of your intentions.

Obviously from this point on the normal regulations apply: You are not supposed to cut off any traffic that's established on final.

[soaringhigh650]

I don't understand the point of having AFIS.

Why not have ATC? Failing that just use CTAF?

It's not that hard to self-separate on the ground, as the third dimension is no longer there.

[BillieBob]

I have repeatedly come upon differences between the UK and the real (ICAO) world
Jan - with your clearly immense knowledge of ICAO SARPS and your ever-present readiness to condemn the UK's non-compliance, could you perhaps indicate with which provision of which ICAO Annex you consider that the UK lacks compliance in this case?

[Qwikstop]

Eurocontrol have produced a "Guide to Phraseology (http://www.skybrary.aero/solutions/allclear/Resources/RTFGuide.pdf?utm_source=SKYbrary&utm_campaign=9395641557-SKYbrary_Highlight_4_10_2010&utm_medium=email)" that is very similar to the CAA version, but with a few interesting differences.

"Take off at your discretion" is replaced by "Circuit free for departure". "Pass your message" has also bitten the dust. Is this the way CAP413 might evolve?

[BackPacker]

Why not have ATC? Failing that just use CTAF?

Having learned to fly in the USA, I agree with that sentiment. But for some reason CTAF doesn't seem to work in Europe.

One reason might be the different ownership structure of small airfields. In the US, as I understand, it's the local government or something that lays down the runways and everything, the FAA which inspects and monitors the place, but a number of different FBOs are established who provide various services like fuel. As such, the "owner" of the airfield is not around all day but lets the pilots and the FBOs sort it out amongst themselves. And the FBOs really don't care what happens in the air.

In Europe, most small airfields are privately owned and the owner is also the operator. And that operator wants to exert some measure of control over the field, including the circuit (noise abatement being a much more important issue here). So the operator at a very minimum tries to provide an A/G service. And since a lot of pilots are hesitant to do *anything* without permission of the radio man, even A/G sometimes gets pushed into an ATC-like role, giving startup permissions and so forth.

I have noticed that the simple fact that there's an A/G service on the frequency influences the way pilots behave. With a CTAF service I regularly got into a plain english conversation with the other pilot (also doing circuits) as to where he was, what his intentions were and how we could provide separation amongst ourselves. But with an A/G service that doesn't seem to happen. Everything flows through the A/G man who doesn't have the authority to do anything about it.

[BackPacker]

Eurocontrol have produced a "Guide to Phraseology" that is very similar to the CAA version, but with a few interesting differences.

Cool. Hadn't seen that one before.

Page 27. "F-CD, traffic is yadayada..." "Looking out, F-CD"

Didn't we discuss this lately?

What also strikes me is that in the CTAF situation they're using "Lexingdon Aerodrome" instead of "Lexingdon Traffic". Why would anybody want to talk to an aerodrome? It's not like the field itself is going to talk back to you, is it?

[Whopity]

I don't understand the point of having AFIS.

Why not have ATC? Failing that just use CTAF?Because it costs a lot more money!An aircraft was in the air on base, nearing final. I reported my ground positionWhy? The next call should have been " Callsign HP... Ready for Departure!
... and was told to "report lining up"The FISO is allowed to control all traffic, aircraft and vehicles, up to the holding point. By saying "Report lining up" he is passing the responsibility to the pilot to deceide when to line up as you are at the limit of control of the FISO. Technically, he should have said "(Aircraft callsign) traffic is (traffic information) take off at your
discretion, surface wind (number) degrees (number) knots" CAP413 2.3.2 Table 1. He might then request that you report lining up.

[Qwikstop]

Backpacker.

Yes, it clears up all that argy-bargy about repsonding to traffic information - the responses are "Looking out", "In sight", or "Negative contact".

Also a FISO will say " Runway xx free for landing" instead of "land at your discretion".

I must say this all seems to be more intuitive than the current phraseology, but I don't know if it carries any weight in the UK.

[chevvron]

In the original situation we would say 'traffic is a (type) on base leg, takeoff at your discretion' thus leaving it to the departing pilot to decide if they can enter the runway and commence takeoff before the traffic on base leg makes the decision to go around.
If the departure is then slow in commencing takeoff, the landing aircraft must be given 'quality' information to enable the pilot to decide whether to continue and land or whether to initiate a go - around.
Edit to add: Qwikstop: a FISO in the UK will NOT say 'runway is free for landing' but an A/G operator MAY say 'runway is clear'.

[Qwikstop]

a FISO in the UK will NOT say 'runway is free for landing'


Not according to this recent document (http://www.skybrary.aero/solutions/allclear/Resources/RTFGuide.pdf?utm_source=SKYbrary&utm_campaign=9395641557-SKYbrary_Highlight_4_10_2010&utm_medium=email)!

[englishal]

It is down to decision making. If the FISO has cleared you across the hold and there is something coming, then by all means wait for the landing aircraft to land before lining up. In your situation I'd just wait until the landing aircraft has landed then line up and report lining up. I might tell them something like "after the landing aircraft wilco".

I think the idea of a FISO is silly. I think we should either have ATC or Unicom (with possibly a person in the "tower" giving us weather reports...or not).

[chevvron]

Some countries in Scandanavia use FISOs at airfields with IFR approaches and there was a proposal to use them in Spain too, but what the present situation is there I don't know. There are threads in the ATC forum about the Spanish ATC situation but there's no update on the use of FISOs.
In the UK, FISOs were originally used in the 70s by NATS at the Scottish Highlands and Islands airports where there was only one ATCO established who was also airport manager. The tels guy was usually trained as a FISO just in case the ATCO was unable to attend for any reason. This was long before FISOs were required to take formal exams for a licence, which only started in the 80s.

[Red Four]

"Pass your message" has also bitten the dust.

I really hope that one comes (back) to the UK - it's what most controllers worth their salt used to do anyway (before the RT Police and CAP413 descended) and worked perfectly well.

If you didn't want the pilot to launch into the details, then you told the aircraft free-calling to 'standby' on first call. Otherwise it was implicit in your reply that you were happy for the pilot to proceed with passing his flight details.

[Whopity]

a FISO in the UK will NOT say 'runway is free for landing' As a member of the team that helped develop the current FISO phraseology back in 1997, I concur with this.

[Spitoon]

This was long before FISOs were required to take formal exams for a licence, which only started in the 80s.A bit wide of the mark - I took the exams for a FISO licence in late '75 or early '76 and I think they'd been done this way for several years before. Maybe it's just that NATS people didn't have to do the exams - there were lots of differences between the way that NATS and 'non-State ATS' worked in those days.

Eurocontrol have produced a "Guide to Phraseology" that is very similar to the CAA version, but with a few interesting differences.An interesting document indeed - I've only given it a quick skim through but does anyone know what its status is?

[vee-tail-1]

As a matter of interest, does my Flight Radio-Telephony Operators Licence allow me to operate the airfield radio to let the FISO have a tea break?

[Talkdownman]

does my Flight Radio-Telephony Operators Licence allow me to operate the airfield radio to let the FISO have a tea break?
No.
See CAP427 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP427.PDF) Chap 2 Para 4 for Exemptions.

[The Escapist]

Only recently found this thread, after being pointed to it from another post, so please excuse the 'resurrection' from just under a month ago.

I thought this topic may, if only slightly, benefit from the input of someone who is currently a FISO at a fairly busy Airfield in the UK (Although I don't believe the one mentioned in the opening post).

A couple of points:

I reported my ground position and was told to "report lining up" (????) CAP 427 (If I recall) confirms this instruction as applicable to an aircraft requesting back track of the active runway...which was not a request I made. I therefore held position and allowed arriving traffic to establish on final and land. I have to admit I was slightly unsure what to do next upon receipt of the above instruction.Unofficial Phraseology in this form, at least in my mind, stems from the idea that with a full ATC service within the UK, takeoff/landing clearance if the runway is not given unless the ATCO is satisfied that the runway is clear and available for landing (disregarding the new-ish implementation of land-after at some larger fields). While not comparing an AFIS service to that of full ATC, both share many of the basic foundations.

At my unit, we try to limit the amount of aircraft with 'discretionary advice' to one, ie. A landing aircraft won't usually be told 'Land at your discretion' until the preceding aircraft is either airborne or vacated. With that in mind, and speaking only from personal experience; I would assume that the distance between the landing aircraft and the threshold was such, that the FISO thought the pilot may not be comfortable with starting his takeoff roll, and as a result, gave the pilot the choice between commencing his takeoff within the space, or waiting until the landing aircraft had vacated the runway.

For Example;
"G-AB, Traffic is a Cessna 172 last reported Final, report lining up"
(If the pilot was comfortable with the spacing preceding the landing aircraft)
"Lining up, G-AB"
"G-AB Roger, Takeoff at your discretion, Surface wind XXX/XX"
"Taking off, G-AB"

As opposed to;
"G-AB, Traffic is a Cessna 172 last reported Final, report lining up"
(Pilot isn't comfortable with spacing preceding the landing aircraft)
"Holding Position G-AB" (Or sufficient time has passed at the holding point for the FISO to assume the aircraft is holding position)
"(Landing aircraft), Land your discretion, Surface wind XXX/XX"

So effectively, it's the FISO saying "The Traffic is here, you decide" while trying to ensure that only one aircraft 'has the runway' at any one time. Perhaps a slightly manipulated version of the official RT, however, it can make a large difference to how expeditiously traffic can be moved within the constraints of not being able to issue any direct clearances when on Runways.

I don't understand the point of having AFIS.

Why not have ATC? We cost a lot less, can work longer hours and are much easier to validate/train than ATCO's! The field where I work used to have Full ATC pre SRATCOH, where upon introduction of which we switched to FISO, I would much prefer Full ATC when flying in and out of the field, but such is life!

I think the idea of a FISO is silly. I think we should either have ATC or UnicomEach to his own :}

Hope it helped, although probably didn't!

The Escapist

[flybymike]

(disregarding the new-ish implementation of land-after at some larger fields)

New-ish? I remember land after "clearances" from donkey's years ago.