MichaLSA wrote:
I suggest in this forum we no longer refer to special Muppets Show Effects called ‘Flugleiter’ …The Dutch and Austrians also have their pendant to the German “Flugleiter”. In the Netherlands, this person is called “Havenmeester”. The callsign is however just “Radio”. The Austrians call their Flugleiter “Flugplatzbetriebsleiter”, and use the non-standard callsign “Aerodrome” (or in German “Flugplatz”). Together with Germany, all these countries have in common, that you need someone on the ground, in order to allow movements. The Netherlands even don’t have exceptions to this rule, like some sites in Germany or Austria have (“Fliegen ohne Flugleiter” aka flying at unattended aerodromes).
It would look as odd from outside Germany as it is, ok, shows Germans can be silly and funny ;-).
The only place in the US that I know has something like AFIS, A/G or whatever is KAVX, Catalina Island. There is a little tower and the guy(s) up there will provide wind and sometimes traffic info. In no way, shape or form are they pompous or think of themselves as ATC. They also collect your landing fees (KAVX is one of the few places here with a landing fee). Given the rather unique and occasionally challenging location of KAVX, the wind info is appreciated despite the place having an ASOS.
boscomantico wrote:
Airfields with IFR procedures and RMzs are now designated as AFIS (this started 2 or 3 years ago). Callsign “Information”. All other uncontrolled aerodromes only have a Flugleitung (callsign “Info”).
I suspect that 99% of pilots wouldn’t differentiate between call-sign “Information” and call-sign “Info”…. so if it is important then chances are 50:50 they’d use the wrong call-sign.
For IFR+RMZ airfields, it’s definetly AFIS all the times (“IFR man or IFR dude”), for VFR airfields, I would not have caught “info” versus “information” without digging into AiP or airport breifings, good to know !
@172driver, other than collecting landing fees (the only place I’ve had to do that in the US) Catalina operates just like an old time US Unicom station, as they operated before AWOS/ASOS existed. The protocol was/is that you either requested airport info on CTAF (I’m not sure that name existed then) or got it without request as a result of making an inbound call. My joke above about the FBO owner’s 12 year old daughter is actually grounded in fact, a lot of times people trained their kids to operate Unicom and that was fun.
172driver wrote:
The only place in the US that I know has something like AFIS, A/G or whatever is KAVX, Catalina Island. There is a little tower and the guy(s) up there will provide wind and sometimes traffic info. In no way, shape or form are they pompous or think of themselves as ATC. They also collect your landing fees (KAVX is one of the few places here with a landing fee). Given the rather unique and occasionally challenging location of KAVX, the wind info is appreciated despite the place having an ASOS.
I’ve flown into KAVX and it was certainly not AFIS. But it was a very nice place.
AFIS is being considered for introduction at our home base Son Bonet in Mallorca (LESB). THis is to request advise from the forum collective wiseness as to how to handle the situation.
To provide some context: the airfield is currently owned and operated by AENA, the large airport operator. It is manned by at least five people (two firemen, two security, one ops manager for statistical purposes and fee collection) permanently during operational hours and they refuse to allow operations unless it is fully manned.
It is thus rather costly and most requests for investments (extended operating hours or apron refurbishment, for example) are refused on the basis of lack of budget. No wonder.
It currently operates about 15000 movements per year with mandatory FPL for all operations for security reasons.
Radio comms are on a pure A/A basis, although the airfield is just outside the LEPA ATZ controlled by LEPA TWR, so in theory LEPA TWR could apply some of their services at LESB. For more context, though, LEPA operates almost 30000 flights/mo in summer (LGW is <20k).
My personal experience with A/A at LESB has been good in general with perhaps three minor air traffic incidents with my direct involvement in about 2000 operations over 20 years.
There was one fatal accident due to a mid-air collision in Mallorca a few years back but that was unrelated to LESB airfield traffic.
My personal experience with ATC at GA airports has been mixed: in Spain (mostly limited to LECU and LELL) it does provide an additional safety layer, but due to cultural reasons, a big part of the safety concern is centered on the service provider (ie ensuring that if there is an issue, the blame does not fall on the provider) and a bit less on the safety and fluidity of flight operations.
Outside Spain, my experience has been much better.
My personal experience with AFIS has been mixed:
Outside Spain it has been very positive in general, but, except for Gap (LFNA) limited to very low traffic environments. In all cases very positive.
In Spain, however, again the same concern as ATC: safety concern is centered on the service provider and you can expect significant delays in case there is any concern.
For example, in the case of a high-traffic scenario, it is easier for the FISO to report that the traffic circuit is full and inform that entry into the circuit is not advised and proceed to a VRP outside the circuit, than to try and accommodate them in the circuit by extending or otherwise. THis could drive a pile of conflicting aircraft to a certain VRP in the wait, causing a bigger safety concern, but outside of the FISO’s area of responsibility. Not my imagination, already happening with LEBA AFIS and LECU+LELL ATC.
I understand the case for AFIS is being suggested by the ATCO’s at LEPA. AFIS would of course further exacerbate the budgetary constraints at LESB and make it more difficult to implement any other safety measures.
My impression, based on the local cultural restrictions and experience related above, is that airfield capacity at peak will be reduced, and overall mid-air safety risk will be increased by higher traffic concentrations outside the circuit at peak times. That is however a difficult case to defend.
Maybe I am being overly pessimistic? Any ideas/suggestions/alternate views?
To have the whole picture, one of our other requests is the implementation of instrument approaches to LESB, in order that there is no requirement to cancel IFR before landing, or get an IFR clearance in the air after take-off. How far would this conflict with a requirement to NOT have AFIS? I know IFR commingles successfully with A/A circuit traffic in the US but I have not seen it in Europe.
Well, even if I don’t know about any accidents either, there must have been dozens of cases in the last few years where some at least a somewhat “dicy” traffic situation ensued after some foreign pilot flew in, spoke English only on the radio and encountered some “local” traffic which only spoke Spanish. For these cases, an AFIS that speaks both Spanish and English) would be a good solution (although Silvaire and others will detest it).
It is true that in many cases, the “local” aircraft at LESB do already speak some English and when they hear a foreign aircraft approaching, switch to English to give the foreign pilot some situational awareness. So it does not always lead to conflicts. But sometimes I guess it does.
It is also true that some pilots (Germans in particular, definitely the biggest share of foreign pilots operating there) will come and expect a Flugleiter anyway, desparately calling on the traffic frequency several times, awaiting a reply. These pilots would welcome an AFIU at the field. 
But it would definitely cost more money. Nowadays, AFISOs demand salaries similar (if slightly lower) than TWR controllers. Please you need several of them. Whatever that would do to landing fees or opening times is pure speculation.
The vicinity of LEPA is definitely a point; an AFIS at LESB could at least in preventing aircraft from straying into LEPA airspace.
Before the ATIS was installed at our airport, I operated the FBO. We were certified to provide pilots with the altimeter setting and which runway was preferred by the winds. We did not use terminology such as the active runway, but would report if we were aware of traffic in the pattern, which runway they were using.
We had two altimeters (ICW 43 Appendix E) on a shake table and we set them to the field elevation which was marked on each altimeter with the shaker running. The altimeter setting was read from the Kollsman windows.
boscomantico wrote:
traffic situation ensued after some foreign pilot flew in, spoke English only on the radio and encountered some “local” traffic which only spoke Spanish
This has progressively evolved into a currently 95% English-only on LESB A/A . The nearby fatal event, although unrelated to any language barriers or to LESB, accelerated the spontaneous process.
