Training in Sweden - Feedback and Development

Hakan Schulz (937154)

There is a lot of training and mentoring in progress which is really great. New students start out as ATC and many develop and aspire to higher ratings. We are all here to learn and develop to improve as ATC and mentors.

If you have something you would like to share to help students or mentors to be even better or make suggestions to improve the training in Sweden, please, feel free to post your thoughts here.

Thomas Ljung (1253198)

Nice that so much is going on in the training area! And all the new mentors that is doing a great job!

It is good for the students, to have more than one mentor during the training. We mentors have different knowledge and views about all the items include in the training courses. And two of us can provide a better result for our students, I believe. Also then running a few of the more complicate Sweatbox scenarios, it is great to be two mentors (or maybe two students), one talking on the "radio" and one controlling the aircrafts.
So I encourage to co-operate more in the training.
What I understand, the students have the possibility to run Sweatbox sessions by themself, already as a S1 student?
They should be confident to run the more complicated ones an a S3 student, maybe with some extra trix how to control the planes, like using the Mattias built-in tag family. It might be a good way of training high-intensity scenarios a bit more on their own. It should not exclude mentor assisted simulator trainings, of course.
There have been a discussion about schedule training sessions during an event evening. The concerns is that we get a shortage of staff during the event, and that is understandable.
Another problem is that the on-line sessions does no get enough traffic. We have the Sweatbox sessions in out toolbox, but on-line is on-line, with the differences of skill by the pilots, and everything that only can occur on-line.
I have no specific solution to this, but I highlight the issue.

I wish you all a happy holiday, with or without Vatsim!

Martin Loxbo (811805)

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. 😉)

Martin Loxbo (811805)

When to ask the pilot to set the correct SSR code?

It has come to my attention that some students have been taught that you need to verify the correct SSR code before approving pushback. While it's not technically wrong to ask the pilot to set the correct code if it has not been done when requesting pushback, be aware that some pilots may set the code in preparation for taxi, so it's better to give the pilot a chance to set the correct code. If the correct code has not been set when starting taxiing, you can prompt the pilot to set the correct code.

Also be aware that in the interest of realism, the only airports which have surface movement radar ("ground radar") IRL are ESSA and ESGG. At all other airports, realistically the controller would not see if the correct code is set until the aircraft is airborne and showing up on radar.

Rui Feng (1584282)

Suggestions for the next S1 course launch

I would like to suggest a couple things to add to the S1 moodle course before the next wave comes.

Clarify GND and DEL's responsibility when it comes to VFR traffic. The S1 course does not explicitly say what GND or DEL should do if VFR aircraft request clearence with GND or DEL (which often happens with pilots from other countries unfamiliar with Swedish VFR procedures). I think it would greatly help to add a line explicitly saying "DEL, nor GND, has any responsibility in giving VFR clearences, as they will be cleared by TWR at the holding point.". I know some other S1's who have also had slight difficulties in the beginning when it comes to the duties of GND and VFR traffic.
A thorough CPDLC guide. The introduction to CPDLC felt a bit rushed at the end of the final online training, and there's barely any documentation on it. I've noticed that folks who don't control as often find it a bit confusing with how it all works and what to do with the module. It would be good to have a page in the moodle course that you can refer to.

Martin Loxbo (811805)

Regarding VFR clearances, this is explained in the LOP. I'm not familiar with the details of the current S1 course so I'll leave that one to Håkan to answer.

As a general note, VFR at ESGG is not very common IRL - we probably have more VFR at ESGG on VATSIM than IRL. In this sense it's a bit unfortunate that the airport attracts so much VFR traffic on VATSIM as the procedures are not really designed for it. But as explained in the LOP the normal real life procedure for VFR is for GND to give the clearance before taxi, and if there is a need to clarify or coordinate this is done with TWR before reading the clearance. What makes this is a bit cumbersome on VATSIM is that we can have GND open but the CTR uncontrolled, so how can GND give a relevant clearance in the control zone that it doesn't control?

CPDLC doesn't come into play for GND/TWR; I guess you're referring to DCL (DCL and CPDLC are different systems but the Hoppie service is used for both on VATSIM). I agree we could explain it better, but the problem is it's difficult to train as you need live traffic to train it (unless there is a way to do it that I'm not aware of).

If you (or any other student) have any specific questions, feel free to ask here in the forum or on Discord. If you don't ask, we won't know that you have questions. 😉

Rui Feng (1584282)

Martin Loxbo (811805)

Now that I look back at the old LOP for ESGG (and the new), I do realise that it is quite clear how to deal with VFR from the GND's perspective. However, I think the confusion might come from the (self-created) hierarchy of the sources of information. I think the fact that first page of the old LOP is branded with "2023", combined with the black and white style, makes it feel much older and outdated than it is. Also doesn't have the 8.33MHz frequencies. I think these factors made it seem less important and less reliable than the S1 moodle course, which led to less attention being paid to the LOP.
I think this problem might be solved to an extent with the new, updated, more colorful, LOP for ESGG. I think another way we could further improve on this problem is by more often in the S1 moodle course referring to the LOP, and try creating a habit of searching for information in the LOP's and GOP's, rather than in the moodle course.
In the LOP it also says that the VFR clearance can (and should when possible) be given by GND after coordinating. I think that should also be mentioned in the S1 course, and in that case also include a quick guide on how VFR clearances work and should look like?

Indeed I was referring to DCL. I think it would still be beneficial to have a guide for the DCL module that includes how to get the Hoppie codes, what the different boxes on the DCL module does, how to operate it, etc, just so nothing comes as a suprise when someone does try to use it. Maybe create a YouTube guide? I'd be happy to make one if needed.

Martin Loxbo (811805)

In the old LOP documents they are branded with the year when they were last updated, that's why you see 2023 for example on the LOP ESGG APP - it doesn't mean that the document is old our outdated. The idea is of course to update all documents in due course, but we will have to live with a mix of layouts and information source for the forseeable future.

While the aim is to have moodle courses that are perfectly aligned with other documentation, it's natural that you may find some discrepancies, as it's a monumental task to keep everything synced. It's worth noting that the official source is always GOP, LOP and LoA, unless there is an operational bulletin that includes changes to these procedures.

Specifically for the S1 course, you have to remember that this is designed to introduce someone with potentially zero knowledge of ATC and VATSIM to be able to control up to GND positions. That's why this course goes into a lot of detail, e.g on specific ESGG procedures. As you progress through your ATC training, we expect students to be able to search for the relevant information on their own without being "hand held" by a moodle course. For example, you should always have the latest LOP on hand when controlling, so that you can look up anything you might be unsure of.

Regarding VFR clearances at ESGG specifically, this was a bit unclear in the old LOP. As mentioned before it's not really a common procedure IRL so the actual sequence of giving the clearance will probably be on a case by case basis. Also remember we are talking professional ATCOs compared to possibly fresh S1s on VATSIM. As the S1 course does not include TWR controlling, I'm not sure what the best approach is to VFR clearances in the S1 course. At most airports TWR would give the VFR clearance at the holding point, but in Sweden we don't really have much VFR traffic at airports that have a separate GND frequency. For now I think the documentation is pretty clear that if you are on GND any VFR clearance has to be coordinated with TWR. As an S1 (i.e. not proficient in TWR controlling), if you are alone (no TWR or top down control for the CTR), you would not give a VFR clearance as it's outside of your area of responsibility (and expertise).

DCL is not really a requirement to be able to control, and especially for S1 I personally believe it's more beneficial to get practice in reading clearances via voice. But I agree we could benefit from better documentation on DCL and CPDLC procedures. The DCL setup for ESGG was recently changed - we might need to evaluate that the current setup works as expected before making a guide that could potentially be obsolete quickly (with the current setup, the DCL message should instruct to contact GND - or the controller that covers GND - and there is a risk that the wrong frequency is being sent with the DCL clearance if the controller is not careful to select the correct frequency).

@Hakan Schulz (937154) Håkan, perhaps you have any further comments on the S1 moodle?

Hakan Schulz (937154)

The current version of the S1 moodle course was updated for the 2024 September course. The reason we do not run the S1 course contineously is that it would be almost full time work just to keep it updated. It is detailed since it is aimed at students that might have absolutely zero experience from VATSIM, not even been flying online.

VFR departures
Regarding VFR departures from ESGG I have nothing more to add and agree with Martin's statement:
"If you are on GND any VFR clearance has to be coordinated with TWR. As an S1 (i.e. not proficient in TWR controlling), if you are alone (no TWR or top down control for the CTR), you would not give a VFR clearance as it's outside of your area of responsibility (and expertise)."

I think it is clearly stated in the new ESGG LOP as well:

GND coordinates with TWR before reading VFR clearance.
Clearance and transponder code should be given by GND at the request for startup, if available. If this is not possible, e.g. due to traffic conditions, the clearance is issued latest at the holding point by TWR.

Before the next S1 course is run the S1 moodle course will be updated to be inline with this.

DCL
Learning to read IFR clearances correctly is one of the main objectives for the S1 course. Hopefully in the future someone will have time to write a good and clear guide how to use DCL.

Many excellent guides has been created in Wiki during this year:

EuroScope and GNG package Installation
vATIS
AMAN
AFV
VatIRIS

and naturally a dedicated DCL/CPDLC guide would be placed here. Thus, in the next version of the S1 moodle course some sections would be removed and a reference to the relevant Wiki guide would be provided instead.