srs what? , I don't think your FISO Manual id 'Approved' by the Authority - all the ANO says is that the Manual must be produced if asked for and that any changes requested by the CAA are incorporated.

As for differences to national procedures, if it's anything like the MATS Part 2, one of the main purposes of the FISO Manual will be to permit local differences to be specified.

CAP 410 Part A

CAP 410 Part B

Of course just because CAP 410 permits something doesn't contradict your local rules.

I can't find anything in CAP 410 that suggests whether or not the AFISO is responsible for separation on the runway or not. I suspect not, which makes it rather odd that an AFISO is given the authority to instruct an aircraft to hold position at the holding point.

Why wouldn't a pilot comply with a ground radio request/instruction, regardless of the status and procedural correctness of the communication?

On the grounds of safety would be one answer.

Otherwise out of courtesy why not comply. Other aircraft may well be expecting you to comply, and be planning to manouvre accordingly.

I am pretty sure that most pilots could not quote verbatim the controllers varied regulations as to what they are and are not supposed to say anyway.

However, it is unhelpful if not downright dangerous when a controller/radio operator adds additional stress to what may be a pilot who is already stressed by an error he has made or by a misheard or misunderstood communication.

Ultimately pilots have the inconvienent option of not using an unwelcoming landing place.

If, as has been suggested, FISOs might be given more powers of control - similar to ADC , it is essential that they are all required to retrain by attending and passing an approved course of instruction, folllowed by annual checks, proper emergency training etc.

Unfortunately, this would increase costs to aerodrome operators and have a knock on effect for landing fees etc, but at least a standard would be set and maintained, which doesn't exist at the moment. :rolleyes:

I'm afriad that if you increase the costs and demand set courses you will lose many of the current FISOs. It's all very well for you NATS chaps who get paid to train but many FISOs don't have that option. My dad (FISO) paid for his own training, exams, inspections and pays for his medical - 20 years worth of weekends as a FISO (unpaid - does it for free).

You would certainly lose him and many others who provide a service at relatively small airfields. The service would then revert to un-licensed A/G or nothing.

FISO's do go through regualr checks and training. The FISO Exams consist of questions from PPL Met and Nav papers, there is also an Airlaw and FISO procedures paper to complete.

Local Examiners are no longer able to carry out emergencies during LCE's as the airfield has to have a training plan. This is a scheme of practice emergencies e.t.c. that are monitored by the SFISO throughout the year.