Peter wrote:
From that you could subtract the cost of the present FIS services, which are staffed by FISOs and who – to comply with ICAO rules on ATC and ATC union rules – are required to pretend they can’t see a radar screen…
You keep saying that. I can possibly believe the union part, but please show me an ICAO rule that prevents FISOs from using radar to provide traffic information? It stands to reason that they could not provide what the UK calls a “deconfliction service”, but that’s not something FISOs are expected to do in other countries.
I doubt a FISO could provide radar traffic information without being qualified to do so (and probably rightly) if for no other reason than of the legal consequences were there an accident.
ATC need to have a “radar qualification” to be allowed to see radar. I am told this is per ICAO. I am also told that in France all ATCOs have this radar qualification.
FISOs apparently cannot have a radar qualification.
I am sure the answers to these things are very well known, but whether anyone in the business will comment is another matter 
The unions get very unhappy if the privileges of members are eroded by the use of lower paid staff. This issue (one form of “union busting”) is absolutely standard everywhere where you can get away with it. “Wars” have been fought over this, in every field of human employment
Peter wrote:
ATC need to have a “radar qualification” to be allowed to see radar.
My understanding is that the radar qualifications is required for being allowed to use radar for ATC purposes. FISOs don’t control aircraft so for them the radar qualification would be irrelevant. It may be the case that “union rules” in the UK say that FISOs are not allowed to see radar without a radar qualification, but I don’t believe there is any such ICAO rule. In fact, I’ve browsed Annex 1 (Personel Licensing) and Annex 11 (Air Traffic Services) without finding any such restriction on FISOs.
I know that many years ago when Swedish towers were being equipped with radar feeds and not all ATC staff were yet radar qualified, tower ATCOs were allowed to use the radar for situational awareness, but they were not allowed to vector traffic or apply radar separation.
tower ATCOs were allowed to use the radar for situational awareness, but they were not allowed to vector traffic or apply radar separation.
Yes; this is what London Info does. They see screens but they are not allowed to reveal that in the radio comms. Even if they see something serious (e.g. you are about to bust airspace) they are not allowed to reveal it; they have to hand you over to a radar unit which then tells you “officially”. They seem to be allowed to say “remain OCAS” firmly.
There must be an awfully fine line between the Swedish “situational awareness” and the person revealing they can see you
UK airport towers are AFAIK never equipped with screens unless providing a radar service. The data feed comes from NATS who charge heavily for it. It may be that any UK tower, even AFIS, could install such a screen, but actually I am damn sure the CAA would never allow it. If there is no formal rule, they would implement it simply by not allowing the airfield to operate. The airports normally do it with a laptop showing FR24 
Airborne_Again wrote:
FISOs don’t control aircraft so for them the radar qualification would be irrelevant.
As soon as you use the radar feed for any useful purpose you ARE controlling aircraft, even to the extent that you are about to bust CAS so turn away. If your turn away resulted in hitting another aircraft, the FISO who had used radar information in this way would be liable. Anyone, doing anything with a radar feed that they are not qualified to do would be of serious consequence. I suspect even if any information were provided on the basis of FR24 information this would fall into a similar category – I can just see the barrister asking, and so on what basis did you conclude FR24 was accurate and complete in real time. i think FR24 could only be useful in terms of providing the tower with some extra situational awareness, the problem is well meaning FISO straying into territory to which they are not entitled, and even the fundamental condrumn of seeing two aircraft about to collide on FR24 but knowing that they should issuing an avoidance instruction. Its fraught with legal issues I suspect, not that I am sure these could not be overcome with a new vocabulary and legislation.
Peter wrote:
UK airport towers are AFAIK never equipped with screens unless providing a radar service.
This is not correct. I know of several which have a “traffic monitor” from NATS radars.
Peter wrote:
The airports normally do it with a laptop showing FR24
Also, quite a few AFISOs use FR24 to back up their view of the sky.
Quite a few trials with ADSB going on with AFISOs at the moment as well.
Just get rid of FISOs.
A/G operators are very useful for a QNH and wind/runway if no-one else is on frequency.
Tower provides control, that’s straightforward.
Aerodrome FISOs are just an obstacle to safe and expeditious use of the runway and taxi ways.
