As a general observation, we have a lot of new mentors for the S1 and S2 level. While this is of course welcome, many mentors don't have much experience themselves. As an inexperienced mentor, it's especially important to stay humble and realise that you are also still learning. Don't assume that something has to be done in a certain way unless you can back it up. And don't be afraid to tell students if you don't know or are not sure about something; just let them know you will check and get back with the answer. Consult the available documentation or ask more experienced members for clarification! My "door" is always open if you have any questions. 🙂
Since I want to keep myself informed on how the training is conducted in Sweden, I read most if not all training reports. Sometimes I will contact a mentor directly in case I find something that I think needs to be raised (for example if it's clear that a mentor has misunderstood a procedure and is teaching something that's not correct).
Now that we have this thread, I'll post less urgent issues/observations here:
- As already discussed on Discord, there seems to be some confusion on the procedure in case of a go-around (specifically at ESGG, but the procedure is more or less the same at most airports). To be clear, the procedure is for the pilot to follow the standard missed approach procedure unless otherwise instructed. If the missed approach occurs after the aircraft is in contact with TWR, TWR coordinates with the relevant APP sector to alert them of the missed approach and give APP a chance to give revised missed approach instructions if needed. However, there is no need for TWR to ask APP how they want the missed approach - it should be following the standard procedure unless APP asks for anything else.
- It was mentioned to me that some controllers commonly have VFR traffic on a downwind opposite to IFR traffic on final. While this can be tricky on VATSIM since we can't really simulate visual separation realistically, remember that you need to have either visual separation or radar separation (as our CTRs are class C we always need separation between VFR and IFR traffic, whereas VFR traffic only needs traffic information regarding other VFR traffic, except in darkness when VFR-VFR are also separated). Visual separation means that you can see both aircraft from the tower, or that you have established that the pilot can see the relevant traffic. In the situation where you have approaching IFR and VFR traffic at the same time you have a few different options:
- Clear the VFR traffic initially to a holding (e.g. HOLDING EAST). When in the holding, ask the VFR traffic if they have the IFR traffic on final in sight. If they do, you can clear the VFR traffic for approach as number 2, instructing them to follow the IFR traffic.
- Clear the VFR traffic to join downwind but to hold on downwind in the vicinity of the airport, e.g. abeam the tower or abeam the threshold. In this position you can see both aircraft from the tower and thus you can apply visual separation between the VFR and IFR traffic. Just be careful with pilots on VATSIM who may not hold correctly on downwind - they must of course make turns away from the runway and account for any crosswind so they don't blow closer to the runway.
- If you are not able to apply visual separation due to cloud base/visibility, you will need radar separation, i.e. minimum 3 NM between the aircraft as observed by radar. This usually means that you cannot clear the VFR aircraft closer to the airport than a VFR holding. Some VFR holdings are closer than 3 NM from the airport; in this case they are usually deemed separated from traffic on approach and climbout (so called geographical separation).
- I have noticed a lot of controllers are saying "for traffic information or higher contact..." ("för trafikinfo eller högre kontakta..."). While it's not exactly wrong, it sounds a bit odd in most situations. It may be useful to inform traffic about which frequency to contact if they should request a higher level e.g. if they have a flight plan stating a higher level, but there is no need to say this routinely whenever an aircraft leaves the CTR. Normally there is no need to talk about any specific frequency at this point as the aircraft is in uncontrolled airspace, so "frequency change approved" is sufficient. If you want to inform the pilot of the next available frequency it's enough to say "for further traffic information you may contact...".
- Reading some training reports I see several mentors claiming that certain phraseology is right or wrong. Remember that there is no standard phraseology for a lot of things, and there may be several ways to say the same thing. As an example it's common to say "[ATIS] information X valid" but you can say that it's "correct" or "current" as well, as long as it gets the message across. On the other hand, if teaching phraseology that exists in the TS regulations (https://www.transportstyrelsen.se/TSFS/TSFS%202019_36k.pdf), make sure you are teaching what's in the book and not what you think is correct or that somebody told you. 🙂
That's it for now. Over and out! (Don't say that on the frequency. 😉)
