I have just read through the UK CAA Airprox publication that came through the mail the other day. There were a couple of incidents each at Goodwood and Wellesbourne where there was a Flight Informaton Safety Officer on duty. It seems to me had there been no ground radio the respective pilots would have made a much better job of self announcing their intentions, as well as just talking directly to each other....but when a Fiso is involved there is a reluctance to say anything other than standard (sparse) position reports....in my opinion I would much rather fly into these places with no ground radio
I think there is a tendency for some pilots to assume the FISO will offer entry instructions ( as borne out by the fact that at least one of the pilots was "requesting" certain actions)....
I tend to agree. I think it creates a pseudo-ATC environment which can lead people to be less careful about managing their own separation.
I've never managed to figure out what a FISO is supposed to be good for.
Most of the rest of the world doesn't have them....you either have an ATC tower or nothing....I tend to just make announcements and directly address other traffic as necessary, using plain language, even with an FISO or A/G operator, but no one else seems to do that....is that a cultural thing, or am I breaching some form of etiquette?
I agree especially when traffic density elevates. These are not my words but I fully agree with them.
For instance under afis, you call downwind, they say roger - report final, and then you say 'report final G***' thats three calls to announce you are downwind! Add to that every idiot passing within 50 miles giving their life story and asking for basic service (and failing to realise that AFIS will only ever say 'we are active and qnh is' ) and on a busy day at Sywell we can fly several training circuits without having any gaps in the useless radio noise to get a position report in.
Unicom works so much better - one position call each for downwind and final - rather than three each. Thins out the chatter so that those flying might just be able to work out if they have missed seeing someone else, and I feel it clearly places the responsibility to the pilot rather than fooling yourself that there is someone 'controlling' when of course under AFIS or AG this isn't what they do. Many pilots sadly don't realise and don't look out like they should..
Its a classic case of a system that only works well below a traffic density where you don't really need it, and when its busy breaks down entirely. And cost serious money to staff which we pay for in landing fees
Agree.
In a FISO enviroment, I certainly tend to feel that I can't address other traffic directly to enquire about or communicate intentions - which when you arrive somewhere with one or two others in the circuit is a useful thing to do, for risk of offending some toytown air traffic controller.
A/G is fine. Useful to get the runway in use and QNH, as well as which local has complained most about noise this morning, and they don't tend to mind air-to-air communication as long as it is kept brief.
I'm not sure what a FISO adds. For me it should be tower, A/G or nothing.
In the UK I believe you are required under Rule 45 to establish two way radio communication when entering an ATZ, amongst other operating procedures relevant to flying in an ATZ.
Ideally transmission should only be once to get local info (QNH, runway, caution items) and then inter traffic transmissions on deadside/crosswind, downwind and final - with a QSY when leaving the ATZ. A/G would normally acknowledge the call on final with a wind report.
Where there is a busy flying school A/G would acknowledge inter traffic calls, and provide endless radio check and airfield information after start up exchanges - I suspect many of these are not productive as they cut into essential inter traffic calls.
I've never managed to figure out what a FISO is supposed to be good for.
Only for operations on the ground. At fairly busy'ish GA airfields like Duxford, UK, they are a little bit helpful, but not much. I think it would be easier to just have A/G and full ATC.
I agree, if an airfield has A/G or Safetycom, pilots in the vicinity, or inbound, are likely to offer better position reports (even if they are just blind transmissions), than if there is a FIS.
The problem is that you would first have to overhaul UK PPL training, where most students are taught to call up every station enroute and read out your inside leg measurement, or your bra size if applicable.
This is usually completely pointless but the population of active pilots is actually very stagnant (probably well over 90% give up almost immediately they get a PPL) so decades of "training" are almost impossible to get rid of.
One way to get rid of bad training is to fly a lot, but the UK average is thought to be 20-30hrs/year and that isn't enough especially if you do it all in the local area.
Another way is to read EuroGA, so spread the word 
Could this be another UK-specific issue? Over here, class G fields generally have a hand-held radio loitering either at the bar, or at the "Stammtisch", and people follow what happens with half an ear. If anything special pops up, an answer might come, but there is none to routine calls. I think the same applies to Germany.
For example, when I flew into EBKH yesterday, I announced my arrival while still outside the circuit, and "will report beginning of downwind 07" which was dryly answered by a double click of some PTT. I reported base then final then "clear of the runway", never getting any kind of reaction - neither was there any need or requirement.
I agree though, that ground operators who would be controllers can be a nuisance. Over all the years, I only once ran into the phenomenon, at EBKT Kortrijk-Wevelgem (a field that would really like to be an airport).
