Currently we are in the process of updating all our LOP documents. The PDF documents are being replaced by wiki pages.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the new LOP format. Do you find it easy to find the required information? Is the layout easy to understand? Have you spotted any errors or inconsistencies? Feel free to post any comments here or reach out to me privately.

Jag tycker det funkar betydligt mycket bättre att ha allt som en Wiki, samlat och enkelt att hitta specifika delar när man söker.

Enkelt att hänvisa till Wikin när man mentorerar elever också!

5 months later

A draft version of the new LOP for ESGG TWR is available here.

As this is the first LOP that new students get familiar with, we appreciate feedback from all controllers from S1 to C1 and above. 🙂

  1. Can you easily find the information you need?
  2. Is the layout/organisation of the document good?
  3. Are there any local procedures that need explaining that you think are missing from the LOP? (Note that general procedures that apply everywhere are described in GOP - which is also due for a major update.)
  4. Anything that is difficult to understand which may need further explaining or different wording?
  5. Any other feedback on this or other LOP documents?

Your feedback is extremely helpful, both for improving the ESGG LOP and for the work ahead in migrating the procedures for ESSA from the old LPM to the new LOP format.

The update is very good and much appreciated. As a new S1, I would like to emphasize that consistency between the training course / LOP / GOP is important when learning everything for the first time. Here are my comments:

  • Regarding the layout, since the LOP does not have any images of the airport layout, I would suggest linking the appendix earlier in the document. Alternatively, adding diagrams of the taxi routes and apron entry taxiways in the LOP itself.
  • I would suggest moving the LVP section further down so that standard procedures come before non-standard procedures.
  • A local procedure that could be included is that de-icing is performed on stand.
  • One suggestion to help new controllers is to link other relevant documents from within the LOP. For example, the DCL section could link the datalink guide.
  • Something I reacted to is the part that says "An aircraft leaving the runway is deemed to have vacated the runway when it has crossed the dashed line on the SMR display." I suggest adding the requirement that the aircraft is in motion. If for whatever reason they stop short of TWY Y, my understanding is that the runway is technically not free.
  • A minor improvement might be to mention that VatIRIS can be used to obtain not only the aircraft category, but also the aircraft wingspan.
  • A wishlist item is that the LOP could mention the positions that cover ESGG top-down and the frequencies for these. It's not that important since you can figure it out based on who is online and simply asking, but it would give a better overview of the position structure.

Great job!

    Many thanks for the feedback Morris! I've already made a few changes based on your comments.

    As a general comment, we don't want LOP to be too much of a training manual. We expect controllers to "know the job" and not "learn the job" from reading the LOP. LOP simply contains local deviations or procedures that differ from General Operating Procedures (GOP). Currently our GOP documents are quite old however, and we are working on updating these as well. If we also had a comprehensive training manual explaining various techniques, terminology etc that would be even better, but it's beyond the scope of what we can do at this time (ideally this is something I would like to see centralised within SCA or even VATEUD - it makes little sense for each FIR to make this kind of documenation all on our own).

    Morris Schussler (1384321) Regarding the layout, since the LOP does not have any images of the airport layout, I would suggest linking the appendix earlier in the document. Alternatively, adding diagrams of the taxi routes and apron entry taxiways in the LOP itself.

    Adding such diagrams would basically be a copy/paste of the AIP, which we expect all controllers to be familiar with. Although I agree it would lighten up the document, it would be too much work to add this to all LOP (we have to consider commonality and not have a "special" LOP just for ESGG).

    Morris Schussler (1384321) A wishlist item is that the LOP could mention the positions that cover ESGG top-down and the frequencies for these. It's not that important since you can figure it out based on who is online and simply asking, but it would give a better overview of the position structure.

    The sector ownership is both complex and dynamic, and the best way to keep up with who is covering top down is to be effective in coordination, i.e. if a controller logs on he will verbally coordinate with any affected positions. You can also see adjacent frequencies in TopSky/ES - this is dynamic based on which positions are online so it should normally be accurate.

        I think the new LOP looks great! It clarifies many of the issues which have been discussed on Discord (who approves startup, when the runway is considered vacated, reading of initial altitude, etc.)

        I've understood that in real life, since the AD controller often is unaware of which exact frequency the aircraft is on (DEL/GND/TWR), it is common that departing aircraft are instructed with the takeoff clearance to contact GG APP when airborne. Of course, we don't really have this problem on VATSIM, but would it perhaps be possible to have this as standard procedure in the LOP when e.g. only TWR is online and not GND/DEL - just for the sake of realism?

        Great job overall, I learned quite a few things reading it 🙂

          Ansgar Oedman (1438661) I've understood that in real life, since the AD controller often is unaware of which exact frequency the aircraft is on (DEL/GND/TWR), it is common that departing aircraft are instructed with the takeoff clearance to contact GG APP when airborne. Of course, we don't really have this problem on VATSIM, but would it perhaps be possible to have this as standard procedure in the LOP when e.g. only TWR is online and not GND/DEL - just for the sake of realism?

          It's not quite like that. The official procedure IRL is to transfer communication after takeoff, just like described in the LOP. It is used to be a few years ago that there was an "automatic" frequency change mentioned in the charts; perhaps some of the older controllers (IRL) are still used to this and prefer "when airborne contact...".

          There is also the issue of frequency protection or designated operational coverage, i.e. the airspace where a certain frequency is approved for use. For example, the ESGG GND frequency 121.905 is shared with ENGM GND. If an aircraft departs ESGG on 121.905 and transmits on this frequency after reaching some altitude, it's possible that this aircraft could be heard on the ground at ENGM. IRL, pilots will normally call on the DEL or GND frequency first (as per the charts) and if DEL/GND/TWR are not split the pilot would continue on that frequency unless the controller instructs the pilot to "contact me on tower frequency...". (Another way to make sure pilots are on the correct frequency would be to include in the ATIS for example "Ground is open, Delivery is closed..." / "For clearance contact Tower..." which is common in some countries, but I have never heard this in Sweden.)

          There is nothing to stop you from using "when airborne contact Approach..." at ESGG as long as you know what you're doing. It's even realistic in the sense that sometimes happens IRL, but it's not the normal procedure. 🙂