ifatca training courses 2018 · 6.2 the airport is considered dangerous, as it features a difficult...

IFATCA

Training

Courses

2018 COMPETENCY-BASED TRAINING AND ASSESSMENT

Student Guide

International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers’ Associations

(IFATCA)

Printed and published by:

International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers' Associations

The IFATCA Office

360 St. Jacques, Suite 2002

Montreal (Quebec) H2Y 1P5

Canada

Phone: +1 514 866 7040

Fax: +1 514 866 7612

E-mail: [email protected]

DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this document reflect the most up-to-date data available at time

of the last amendment. Although every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, neither the International

Federation of Air Traffic Controllers’ Associations (IFATCA), nor their Members or Officers or

representatives, shall be responsible for loss or damage caused by errors, omissions, misprints or

misinterpretation of the contents hereof. Furthermore, IFATCA expressly disclaims all and any liability to

any person whether a purchaser of this publication or not, in respect of anything done or omitted, by any

such person in reliance on the contents of this publication.

COPYRIGHT: The materials herein are copyright IFATCA. No part of this document may be reproduced,

recast, reformatted or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including

photocopying or any information storage and retrieval system, without the prior written permission from

IFATCA.

COMPETENCY-BASED TRAINING AND ASSESSMENT | 2018 3

Document Control Details

DOCUMENT OWNER Liaison Officer to ICAO ANC [email protected]

MASTER COPY HOLDER Office Manager [email protected]

Updates and corrections for this manual should be provided to the document owner.

Document Change Summary

Version Date Changes

1 25 June 2018 Initial Version

2 18 November 2018 Modification of the Syllabus

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20


Table of Contents

Document Control Details ............................................................................................................... 3

Document Change Summary .......................................................................................................... 3

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 4

1. Workshop Syllabus ................................................................................................................ 6

2. Module 1 - Introduction ........................................................................................................ 8

WELCOME! ................................................................................................................................................ 8

HOW TO USE THIS STUDENT GUIDE .......................................................................................................... 8

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 8

3. Module 3 – Case Study .......................................................................................................... 9

IS TODAY’S ATC TRAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF A JUST CULTURE?........................................................ 9

QUESTIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 11

4. Module 4 – The ICAO ATCO Competency Framework ......................................................... 12

5. Module 6 – OB, Conditions and Standards .......................................................................... 16

6. Module 8 – Training Specification ....................................................................................... 17

TRAINING SPECIFICATION – TEMPLATE (see Doc 10056, Appendix A to Chapter 2) ............................... 17

TEAM AERODROME: COURCHEVEL ALTIPORT (FRANCE) ........................................................................ 20

TEAM APPROACH: SANTOS DUMONT AIRPORT (BRAZIL) ....................................................................... 22

TEAM AREA: HONG KONG ACC (HONG KONG) ....................................................................................... 24

7. Module 9 – Adapted Competency Framework .................................................................... 26

TEAM AERODROME: COORDINATION + SEPARATION AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION .............................. 26

TEAM APPROACH: COORDINATION + PROBLEM SOLVING AND DECISION MAKING .............................. 26

TEAM AREA: COORDINATION + WORKLOAD MANAGEMENT ................................................................. 26

8. Module 11 – The Evidence Guide ........................................................................................ 30

TEAM AERODROME: SITUATION AWARENESS ........................................................................................ 30


TEAM APPROACH: TRAFFIC AND CAPACITY MANAGEMENT ................................................................... 31

TEAM AREA: COMMUNICATION .............................................................................................................. 32

9. Module 13 – Debriefing (Case Study) .................................................................................. 33

TEAM AERODROME – COURCHEVEL ALTIPORT (FRANCE) ...................................................................... 33

TEAM APPROACH – SANTOS DUMONT AIRPORT (BRAZIL)...................................................................... 34

TEAM AREA – HONG KONG ACC (HONG KONG) ...................................................................................... 35

10. Module 16 – Your take away items ................................................................................. 37

TEAM AERODROME: Training climate vs instructor(s) ............................................................................ 37

TEAM APPROACH: Relation between trainee’s success and instructor’s methods ................................ 37

TEAM AREA: Required standard perceived not to be consistent for all trainees .................................... 37

11. Course evaluation ............................................................................................................ 38

COURSE ORGANIZATION AND CONTENT ................................................................................................. 38

INSTRUCTORS AND PRESENTATIONS ...................................................................................................... 38

OVERALL EXPERIENCE .............................................................................................................................. 39

A FEW LAST QUESTIONS .......................................................................................................................... 39


1. Workshop Syllabus

No. Title of the Module Objectives Time Duration

1 Introduction and housekeeping Welcome and introductions 09:00 00:30

Overview of the schedule

TRAINAIR Plus courses

Housekeeping items

Group photo

2 History of competency-based approach Status before/after 2016 09:30 00:30

Status in November 2020

Future for other professions

COFFEE 10:00 00:30

3 Why competency-based T&A? Different approaches 10:30 00:30

Advantages of CBT

Disadvantages of CBT

What the course is about

What the course is not about

The ADDIE model

Exercise 1: case study

4 The ICAO documents Annex 1, Doc 9868 & 10056 11:00 00:30

Exercise 2: ICAO documents + framework

5 CBT: The basics The ICAO framework 11:30 00:30

The Competencies

Performance Criteria

LUNCH 12:00 01:00

6 Developing performance criteria Observable Behaviours 13:00 00:45

Conditions and Standards

Exercise 3: OB, conditions and standards

7 The workflows ADDIE applied to the workflows 13:45 00:30

Overview of the workflows

Workflows 1, 2.1 and 2.2, 3

Workflows 4 and 5

A systemic approach

8 Analyse: training needs Workflow 1 14:15 01:00

Input, process, output

Example

Exercise 4: develop a training specification

COFFEE 15:15 00:30

9 Design: adapting the framework Workflow 2.1 15:45 01:15


Example

Exercise 5: develop a framework

END OF DAY 1 17:00


No. Title of the Module Objectives Time Duration

10 Milestones, ICS and FCS Principles of competency-based assessment 09:00 00:30

Assessment methods

Milestones

ICS & ICS

11 The evidence guide Adapting the conditions 09:30 01:15

Stating the degree of achievement

Example

Exercise 6: develop an evidence guide

COFFEE 10:45 00:30

12 Design: training and assessment plans Workflow 2.2 11:15 00:45


Example

LUNCH 12:00 01:00

13 Instructors and Assessors Formative assessments 13:00 01:00

Summative assessments

Role of the instructor

Role of the assessor

The debriefing

Example

Exercise 7: that was a difficult shift!

14X Develop: training and assessment materials Workflow 3 14:00 00:30


Example

15X Implement and evaluate Workflow 4 14:30 00:30

Workflow 5

Chapters 4-7 of Doc 10056

COFFEE 15:00 00:30

16 Your take away items Review of the course 15:30 01:00

Items to take home

Next steps

How to get involved

Where to get help

Closing remarks

Exercise 8: what do I take home?

END OF DAY 2 16:30


2. Module 1 - Introduction

WELCOME!

Welcome to this IFATCA Competency-based training workshop. We hope you will enjoy the

presentations and exercises! The objective of this workshop is to provide guidance on the

provisions of the PANS-TRG and Doc 10056, and to support you and your organization in the

successful implementation of competency-based training and assessment for ATCOs, as

recommended by ICAO.

HOW TO USE THIS STUDENT GUIDE

2.1 This manual has been designed to provide you with the necessary tools, templates, tables and

scenarios used during the practical exercises of this workshop. The manual also contains the

schedule and a variety of useful information related to CBTA. The PowerPoint presentations

used during the workshop will also accompany this manual.

REFERENCES

2.2 Besides this manual and the presentations, you will also need to refer to the following ICAO

documents in order to get familiar with the competency-based approach:

2.2.1 ICAO. (2011). Annex 1 – Personnel licensing, Chapter 4. Licences and Ratings for Personnel

other than Flight Crew Members. 11th Edition. Montréal, Canada: International Civil Aviation

Organization.

2.2.2 ICAO. (2016). Doc 9868 – Procedures for Air Navigation Services, Training (PANS-TRG), Part IV.

Training and Assessment for Air Traffic Management (ATM) Personnel. 2nd Edition. Montréal,

Canada: International Civil Aviation Organization.

2.2.3 ICAO. (2017). Doc 10056 - Manual on Air Traffic Controller Competency-based Training and

Assessment. 1st Edition. Montréal, Canada: International Civil Aviation Organization.

2.2.4 Maria Lundahl. (June 2009). Is Today’s ATC Training Representative Of A Just Culture? A

qualitative Study Of The Training At A European ATC Training Facility. Lund, Sweden: Lund

University.


3. Module 3 – Case Study

IS TODAY’S ATC TRAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF A JUST CULTURE?

3.1 I came to the training facility as a short-term instructor, for a period of only two weeks. This

phase, of apparently normally four weeks, had been rearranged into two weeks with

instructors and one week of self-practice in the simulator, without instructors. What the plans

were for the fourth and last week of this, the consolidation phase, I don’t know.

3.2 On the morning of my arrival, which was on the Monday of week one, I was introduced to

“my” students and got a brief presentation of the training procedures at the facility. After

lunch we were given an overview of the status of each student in the course. One of my

students, the Course Supervisors told me, had not been doing so well in the previous phase.

But that, they thought, was probably due to the student being nervous when working with the

previous instructor. I was presented with an Action Plan for this student, containing a number

of issues in need of improvement, but there was no information or instruction as to anything

special being expected of me.

3.3 We were also informed that the students would normally not be allowed to continue to the

next phase if they hadn’t reached all the objectives. My student had had a couple of issues

where the objectives hadn’t been met, but so had apparently a lot of other students and

because so many students had not reached the objectives they had decided to let all the

students continue into this phase. I don’t know why they had taken this decision, and to be

quite honest I thought the discussion was rather strange. But maybe they just felt that the

students had not been given sufficient training in that phase and that they wanted to give all

students a chance in the next phase.

3.4 After a short meeting with the students, where we could introduce ourselves to each other,

we went to the simulator to do two runs in the afternoon.

3.5 During the first four days I had a total of 6 of simulator sessions with this student, in which the

student performed ok, but no more. On one occasion there was a situation where safety was

compromised but as the other students too had had such situations, I wasn’t too worried. On

the Friday however, the student had a really good session which I praised him/her a lot for. As

I remember we had rather a positive debriefing where we talked about potential areas for

improvement. I didn’t focus on safety as such as I hadn’t experienced any major problems with

that. All in all, the student and I had a rather normal, quite functional instructor-student co-

operation. I am quite certain that this was also the student’s perception.

3.6 When we came back the next week, the first session the student had was ok, but again, no

more than that. After lunch on the Monday one of the other instructors approached me and

asked if we should change students. The Course Supervisors as well as the other instructors

all seemed to think that it would be a good idea to see each other’s students at this stage in

the training, but also that the students would benefit from sitting with other instructors. I

agreed to this and had one of my colleagues’ students that run. After the session my student

approached me, asking why we had changed students. I explained why, but when the student

still expressed concern for the time it was his/her turn I promised we would work together, I

had after all been informed about the student’s nervousness and problems with the previous

instructor and felt that maybe the student needed stability more than anything else. In the

brief meeting we had that day with the Course Supervisors it however became clear to me

that I was in fact expected to change students, it wasn’t my choice to decide. I opposed on

behalf of my student but was simply told, by the Course Supervisors as well as by the other


instructors, that “this far into training, about to start working in real traffic, they have to be

able to cope with working with many different instructors, all the time”. I gave in.

3.7 It was about this time I began to realise that the worries the Course Supervisors and some of

the other instructors had for my student were greater than I felt I had been informed of. I had

apparently not interpreted the message from the Course Supervisors the way it had been

intended, and I had not understood the severity of their concerns for my student’s ability. I

was told that they had in fact meant that my student was more or less not allowed to make

ANY mistakes at all during the two weeks I was going to work with him/her. And certainly,

none where safety was an issue.

3.8 The two sessions that I had had with my student that day were ok to good. The day after

however the student had the first couple of sessions with the other instructors and the

performance fell to an alarmingly low level. In just a couple of sessions the student made

several severe mistakes, also ones compromising safety. This was discussed in that day’s

meeting and I asked one of my colleagues, one I have great confidence in, if he would sit with

my student. We agreed that the two of us would change groups all together the next day; he

would sit with all of my students and I would sit with his. The other four groups did the same.

3.9 Also, in those two sessions my student performed really badly; one session being terrible, the

next one only slightly better. During those sessions, one of the Course Supervisors sat at one

of the other positions, watching my student, something that was, maybe not unusual but at

least not everyday practise. The course supervisor agreed to the criticism of the first run but

was in fact harsher than the instructor on the performance in the second session. This

frustrated me, as well as my colleague; we felt that due to his/her “history” my student was

assessed according to a much tougher standard than the other students, not being allowed to

make mistakes that, somehow, could be disregarded when it came to the other students. It

didn’t seem quite fair.

3.10 After the daily meeting it was decided that we would sit with our usual students the next

morning. The afternoon was planned for the writing of reports, something I had made clear I

was not going to do on my own as I had apparently not experienced the same as the other

instructors.

3.11 When I came to the facility the next morning it soon became obvious to me that they had

already decided to dismiss my student from further training. When we had finished the

morning runs one of the Course Supervisors came to me and said that I did not need to write

any report at all since they were going to write a Course Supervisor report and therefore did

not need mine.

3.12 By now I felt really bad. I felt I had cheated on my student; I had apparently misinterpreted

the information I had received on his/her status, being overly optimistic in my weekly

summary the first week. I felt I had let my student down as I had promised we would work

together but had given in to my colleagues. Added to this, I also felt questioned as instructor;

it was a bit strange that I didn’t see those mistakes, or that the student didn’t make them with

me. And of course; since I was asked not to file any report; were my sessions, and the words I

would describe them in, worth nothing?

3.13 But, being so upset about the fact that my student was going to be dismissed I just didn’t have

the strength to object on the report writing.”1

1 Maria Lundahl. (June 2009). Is Today’s ATC Training Representative Of A Just Culture? A qualitative Study Of The Training At A European

ATC Training Facility. Lund, Sweden: Lund University.


QUESTIONS

3.14 After reading this scenario, what seems unusual, strange, out of order to you? What doesn’t

sound like good training practices?

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

3.15 Further down the scenario, the Course Supervisor mentioned: “this far into training, about

to start working in real traffic, they (the trainees) have to be able to cope with working with

many different instructors, all the time” What do you think of this statement?

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

3.16 During the second week, the OJTI mentioned the following: “I was told that they had in fact

meant that its student was more or less not allowed to make ANY mistakes at all during the

two weeks he/she was going to work with him/her”. How would you react if you were the

OJTI? How would you react if you were the trainee?

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

3.17 During one particular session, the Course Supervisor sat at a position to watch the trainee’s

performance. According to the instructor, “due to his/her history, my student was assessed

according to a much tougher standard than the other students, not being allowed to make

mistakes that, somehow, could be disregarded when it came to the other students.” What

would you have done if you were the OJTI? What do you think of the Course Supervisor

behaviour?

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

3.18 In the end, the trainee was dismissed. What could have been done differently to prevent

the dismissal from happening?

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________


4. Module 4 – The ICAO ATCO Competency

Framework

PC No. Observable Behaviour

SITUATION AWARENESS

Comprehend the current operational situation and anticipate future events

PC1.1 Monitors air traffic in own area of responsibility and nearby airspace

PC1.2 Monitors the meteorological conditions that impact on own area of responsibility and

nearby airspace

PC1.3 Monitors the status of the ATC systems and equipment

PC1.4 Monitors the operational circumstances in nearby sectors to anticipate impact on own

situation

PC1.5 Acquires information from available surveillance and flight data systems,

meteorological data, electronic data displays and any other means available

PC1.6 Integrates information acquired from monitoring and scanning into the overall picture

PC1.7 Analyses the actual situation based on information acquired from monitoring and

scanning

PC1.8 Interprets the situation based on the analysis

PC1.9 Predicts the future operational situation

PC1.10 Identifies potentially hazardous situations (e.g. amount of separation with other

aircraft, objects, airspace and ground, consequences of adverse weather, navigational

deviations and capacity overload)

PC1.11 Verifies that information is accurate and assumptions are correct

PC1.12 Uses available tools to monitor, scan, comprehend and predict operational situations

TRAFFIC AND CAPACITY MANAGEMENT

Ensure a safe, orderly and efficient traffic flow and provide essential information on

environment and potentially hazardous situations

PC2.1 Manages arriving, departing and/or enroute traffic using prescribed procedures

PC2.2 Takes aircraft performance into account when issuing clearances and instructions

PC2.3 Uses a variety of techniques to effectively manage the traffic (e.g. speed control,

vectoring, traffic sequencing, assigning climb/descent rate)

PC2.4 Increases safety margins when deemed necessary

PC2.5 Takes action when appropriate to ensure that demand does not exceed sector capacity

PC2.6 Maintains focus despite varying traffic levels

PC2.7 Reacts appropriately to situations that have the potential to become unsafe

PC2.8 Issues clearances and instructions to the flight crew that result in an efficient traffic

flow

PC2.9 Issues appropriate clearances and instructions

PC2.10 Issues clearances and instructions in a timely manner

PC2.11 Uses available tools to reduce delays and optimize flight profiles

PC2.12 Provides flight information and status of facilities in a timely manner

PC2.13 Issues hazard and safety alerts to the flight crews when necessary

PC2.14 Issues traffic proximity information to flight crews in a relevant, accurate and timely

manner

PC2.15 Issues weather information to flight crews when necessary


SEPARATION AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Manage potential traffic conflicts and maintain separation

PC3.1 Identifies traffic conflicts

PC3.2 Selects the most appropriate separation method

PC3.3 Applies appropriate air traffic separation and spacing

PC3.4 Issues clearances and instructions that ensure separation is maintained

PC3.5 Issues clearances and instructions that take into account aircraft performance, terrain

obstacles, airspace constraints and weather

PC3.6 Issues clearance and instructions that resolve traffic conflicts

PC3.7 Resolves conflicts through coordination with adjacent sectors or units

PC3.8 Monitors the execution of separation actions

PC3.9 Adjusts control actions, when necessary, to maintain separation

COMMUNICATION

Communicate effectively in all operational situations

PC4.1 Selects communication mode that takes into account the requirements of the situation,

including speed, accuracy and level of detail of the communication

PC4.2 Speaks clearly, accurately and concisely

PC4.3 Uses appropriate vocabulary and expressions to convey clear messages

PC4.4 Uses standard radiotelephony phraseology, when prescribed

PC4.5 Adjusts speech techniques to suit the situation

PC4.6 Demonstrates active listening by asking relevant questions and providing feedback

PC4.7 Verifies accuracy of read backs and corrects as necessary

PC4.8 Uses plain language when standardized phraseology does not exist or the situation

warrants it

PC4.9 Where applicable, uses eye contact, body movements and gestures that are consistent

with verbal messages and the environment

PC4.10 Writes or inputs messages according to protocol or in a clear and concise manner where

protocol does not exist

PC4.11 Communicates relevant concerns and intentions

COORDINATION

Manage coordination between personnel in operational positions and with other affected

stakeholders

PC5.1 Coordinates with personnel in other operational positions and other stakeholders, in a

timely manner

PC5.2 Selects coordination method based on circumstances, including urgency of

coordination, status of facilities and prescribed procedures

PC5.3 Coordinates the movement, control and transfer of control for flights using the

prescribed coordination procedures

PC5.4 Coordinates changes of status of operational facilities such as equipment, systems and

functions

PC5.5 Coordinates changes of status of airspace and aerodrome resources

PC5.6 Uses clear and concise terminology for verbal coordination

PC5.7 Uses standard ATS message formats and protocol for non-verbal coordination

PC5.8 Uses clear and concise non-standard coordination methods when required

PC5.9 Conducts effective briefings during position handover


MANAGEMENT OF NON-ROUTINE SITUATIONS

Detect and respond to emergency and unusual situations related to aircraft operations and

manage degraded modes of ATS operation

PC6.1 Recognizes, from the information available, the possibility of an emergency or unusual

situation developing

PC6.2 Determines the nature of the emergency

PC6.3 Prioritizes actions based on the urgency of the situation

PC6.4 Decides upon the most appropriate type of assistance that can be given

PC6.5 Follows prescribed procedures for communication and coordination of urgent

situations

PC6.6 Provides assistance and takes action, when necessary, to ensure safety of aircraft in

area of responsibility

PC6.7 Detects that ATS systems and/or equipment have degraded

PC6.8 Assesses the impact of a degraded mode of operation

PC6.9 Follows prescribed procedures for managing, coordinating and communicating a

degraded mode of operation

PC6.10 Creates solutions when no procedure exists for responding to non-routine situations

PROBLEM SOLVING AND DECISION MAKING

Find and implement solutions for identified hazards and associated risks

PC7.1 Takes into account the existing rules and operating procedures when determining

possible solutions to a problem

PC7.2 Implements an appropriate solution to a problem

PC7.3 Determines the situations that have the highest priority

PC7.4 Organizes tasks in accordance with an appropriate order of priorities

PC7.5 Applies an appropriate mitigation strategy for the hazards identified

PC7.6 Perseveres in working through problems without impacting safety

PC7.7 Considers timeliness in decision making

SELF-MANAGEMENT AND CONTINUOUS DEVELOPMENT

Demonstrate personal attributes that improve performance and maintain an active involvement

in self-learning and self-development

PC8.1 Takes responsibility for own performance, detecting and resolving own errors

PC8.2 Improves performance through self-evaluation of the effectiveness of actions

PC8.3 Seeks and accepts feedback to improve performance

PC8.4 Maintains self-control and performs adequately in adverse situations

PC8.5 Changes behaviour and responds as needed to deal with the demands of the changing

situation

PC8.6 Maintains, through personal initiative, awareness of developments and changes in

aviation

PC8.7 Participates in learning activities (e.g. team meetings, briefings and training sessions

WORKLOAD MANAGEMENT

Use available resources to prioritize and perform tasks in an efficient and timely manner

PC9.1 Manages tasks effectively in response to current and future workload

PC9.2 Manages interruptions and distractions effectively

PC9.3 Determines if and when support is necessary based on workload

PC9.4 Asks for help, when necessary

PC9.5 Delegates tasks when necessary to reduce workload

PC9.6 Accepts assistance, when necessary

PC9.7 Adjusts the pace of work according to workload

PC9.8 Selects appropriate tools, equipment and resources to support the efficient

achievement of tasks

PC9.9 Uses the automated capabilities of ATS equipment to improve efficiency


TEAMWORK

Operate as a team member

PC10.1 Provides both positive and negative feedback constructively

PC10.2 Accepts both positive and negative feedback objectively

PC10.3 Shows respect and tolerance for other people

PC10.4 Carries out actions and duties in a manner that fosters a team environment

PC10.5 Manages interpersonal conflicts to maintain an effective team environment

PC10.6 Uses negotiating and problem-solving techniques to help resolve unavoidable conflict

when encountered

PC10.7 Raises relevant concerns in an appropriate manner

PC10.8 Anticipates and responds appropriately to the needs of others

PC10.9 Shares experiences with the aim of continuous improvement


5. Module 6 – OB, Conditions and Standards

5.1 Observable behaviours:

• ______________________________

• ______________________________

• ______________________________

• ______________________________

• ______________________________

• ______________________________

• ______________________________

• ______________________________

• ______________________________

5.2 Conditions:

• ______________________________

• ______________________________

• ______________________________

• ______________________________

• ______________________________

• ______________________________

• ______________________________

• ______________________________

• ______________________________

5.3 Standards:

• ______________________________

• ______________________________

• ______________________________

• ______________________________

• ______________________________

• ______________________________

• ______________________________

• ______________________________

• ______________________________


6. Module 8 – Training Specification

TRAINING SPECIFICATION – TEMPLATE (see Doc 10056, Appendix A to Chapter 2)

Purpose

What is the purpose of the training?

State the phase(s) of training.

What qualification, if any, will the

trainee achieve on successful

completion of the training?

Tasks

Describe the tasks associated with

the purpose of the training.


Operational requirements

Which procedures will be applied?

Describe the operational (or

simulated) environment required to

successfully achieve the purpose of

the training.

Describe the nature of the traffic

necessary to achieve the training

outcome.

Which non-routine situations are

necessary for successful completion

of the training?

Describe the working position

configuration.

Technical requirements

List any specific operational (or

simulated operation) systems and/or

equipment that are necessary to

achieve the training outcome.

Regulatory requirements

Which rules and regulations are

applicable?

Are there any regulatory

requirements that will affect the

following aspects of the training:

• Duration

• Content

• Assessment procedures

• Course approval

• Any other?


Organizational requirements

Describe any organizational

requirements that may impactthe

training?

Other requirements

Other constraints?

Simulation requirements

List the simulation requirements that

are necessary to achieve the training

outcome, if any.


TEAM AERODROME: COURCHEVEL ALTIPORT (FRANCE)

ICAO: LFLJ

Runway: 04/22 - 537 m (1,762 ft)

6.1 The airport of Courchevel serves a ski resort in the French Alps. There is only one very short

runway with a climb gradient of 18.6%. There is no go-around procedure, due to the

surrounding mountainous terrain. The airport is primarily used by small fixed-wing aircraft and

helicopters. There is no instrument approach procedure or lighting aids, thus making any

landing in fog or low clouds unsafe and almost impossible.

6.2 The airport is considered dangerous, as it features a difficult approach, an upslope runway and

ski runs in the adjacent area. “Most Extreme Airports” ranks it as the 7th most extreme airport

in the world.

6.3 For a few years now, Courchevel tower has been routinely understaffed, but lately, the

situation became unbearable. To reach the desired staffing level and to cater for the expected

retirements (two within the next three years), the tower would need six new air traffic

controllers, ideally within the next two to three years. For this reason, the manager of the

tower requested from the national training institute that they assign ten trainees to the tower,

five this year and another five the following year, considering the historic checkout rate of

60%. The trainees will have completed the initial aerodrome training and are expected to be

ready to start the unit training right away.

6.4 The manager asked you to help by filling a form called “training specification” that is

apparently required by the training designers and developers to design a competency

framework that will then be used to create a training plan and an assessment plan for this

specific group of trainees. The manager never used that form before and is not familiar with

the competency-based approach either. That’s why you have been asked to help.

6.5 The manager provided you with a certain number of documents, namely the Manual of ATS

of Courchevel (Doc 1045B), National Aviation Regulation (Doc FAR2018-07) and, as a

reference, ICAO Annexes 10 Vol II and 11 and Doc 4444 (PANS-ATM).


6.6 You were also given a list of tasks that the training supervisor of the tower made for you,

highlighting the main duties of the controllers in Courchevel, which has a control zone of 5

NM (diameter), class D airspace. The list included the following:

• separate aircraft and vehicles operating on the manoeuvring area

• separate aircraft in the circuit, and from arriving and departing aircraft

• issue clearances for departing aircraft and ensure correct readbacks

• manage inbound and outbound Visual Flight Rules (VFR) aircraft

• integrate VFR arrivals into the aerodrome traffic circuit

• integrate VFR departures within the traffic flow

• issue flight and aerodrome information

• issue traffic information

• coordinate the traffic with approach control and relevant airport services

6.7 The manager also mentioned that the training will include a minimum of 80 hours in the

simulator prior to commencing the OJT, followed by three phases of 120 hours of OJT. During

both the simulated and live training, the trainee will need to be familiarized with handling of

a mix of light traffic comprising VFR light aircraft, both airplanes and helicopters, military

helicopters and medical evacuation flights. The trainee will be expected to handle a maximum

of five aircraft at the same time with a maximum of one conflict to solve at any given time

while in the simulator. Once in live environment, these values become ten aircraft at the same

time and two conflicts simultaneously.

6.8 While in the simulator, initial exercises will concentrate on departures only or arrivals only,

typically in the beginning to master some basics techniques. Further down the road,

integrated exercises will add overflights. As Courchevel doesn’t allow multiple circuits and/or

touch-and-go exercises, these won’t be practiced.

6.9 Also, as per national requirements, trainees will have to be competent on both air and ground

positions, they will have to undergo emergency and non-routine situations training (namely

missed approaches, runway incursions, aborted take-off and blocked taxiway), and obviously

they will have to be competent with the equipment, namely the flight data display, flight data

processing system, situation display (there is a feed of a nearby SSR radar available in the

tower to monitor departures and arrivals).

6.10 Furthermore, national regulation requires that a minimum of 40 hours in the simulator and

240 hours of OJT be completed before practical summative assessments be conducted. For

final assessments, a representative of the CAA has to be present for at least 50% of the

assessment sessions.

6.11 Finally, the trainees will have to undergo an examination required by the CAA for runway

inspections, as this task occasionally falls under the responsibility of the tower controller when

airport authorities are not able to provide the service.


TEAM APPROACH: SANTOS DUMONT AIRPORT (BRAZIL)

ICAO: SBRJ

Runways: 02R/20L, 02L/20R

Traffic: 9 247 000 passengers/year

6.12 Santos Dumont Airport is the second major airport serving Rio de Janeiro, in Brazil. It is named

after the Brazilian aviation pioneer Alberto Santos Dumont (1873–1932). Santos Dumont is

very limited in terms of operations: it has slot restrictions operating with a maximum of 19

operations/hour, being one of the five airports with such restrictions in Brazil.

6.13 The airport is a hub for Avianca Brazil, Azul Brazilian Airlines, Gol Airlines, LATAM Brazil and

Passaredo Linhas Aéreas and serves more than eighteen destinations in Brazil, such as: Belo

Horizonte, Brasília, Florianópolis and São Paulo–Guarulhos.

6.14 For a few years now, Santos Dumont approach has been routinely understaffed, but lately,

the situation became unbearable. To reach the desired staffing level and to cater for the

expected retirements (four within the next three years), the approach unit would need six

new air traffic controllers, ideally within the next two to three years. For this reason, the

manager of the approach unit requested from the national training institute that they assign

ten trainees to the approach, five this year and another five the following year, considering

the historic checkout rate of 60%. The trainees will come from the ACC, which is somewhat

overstaffed at the moment (meaning that they will already have an ATC licence). They will

have completed the initial approach training and are expected to be ready to start the unit

training right away.




specific group of trainees coming from the ACC. The manager never used that form before and

is not familiar with the competency-based approach either. That’s why you have been asked

to help.


of Santos Dumont Approach Unit (Doc 1047SD), National Aviation Regulation (Doc BAR2018-

06) and, as a reference, ICAO Annexes 10 Vol II and 11 and Doc 4444 (PANS-ATM).


6.17 You were also given a list of tasks that the training supervisor of the approach made for you,

highlighting the main duties of the controllers in Santos Dumont, which has a diameter of

60 NM, class C airspace, and extending up to FL160. The list included the following:

• separate aircraft operating within the TCU

• sequence arrivals on both configurations (runways 02 or 20)

• vector departures towards the neighbouring ACC sectors

• coordinate the runway in use with the tower

• issue IFR clearances and ensure correct readbacks

• manage inbound and outbound IFR aircraft

• issue inbound and outbound VFR clearances to aircraft

• coordinate VFR flights with the tower and with the ACC, when appropriate

• integrate VFR departures within the IFR traffic flow

• issue flight and aerodrome information


• coordinate the traffic with the tower, the ACC and other services, as appropriate


simulator prior to commencing the OJT, followed by four phases of 200 hours of OJT. During


a mix of light traffic comprising VFR light aircraft, both airplanes and helicopters, military

helicopters, medium turbo-props and light, medium and heavy jets. The trainee will be

expected to handle a maximum of 10 aircraft at the same time with a maximum of three

conflict to solve at any given time while in the simulator. Once in live environment, these

values become 20 aircraft at the same time and four conflicts simultaneously.

6.19 While in the simulator, initial exercises will concentrate on departures only or arrivals only,

typically in the beginning to master some basics techniques. Further down the road,

integrated exercises will add overflights, helicopters and VFR traffic. As Santos Dumont

doesn’t allow multiple circuits and/or touch-and-go exercises, these won’t be practiced.

6.20 Also, as per national requirements, trainees will have to be competent on both tactical and

planner (also called radar and data) positions, they will have to undergo emergency and non-

routine situations training (namely missed approaches, overshoots and instructed go-arounds,

engine fires, communication failures, engine failures, etc.), and obviously they will have to be

competent with the equipment, namely the flight data display, flight data processing system,

situation display (there is surveillance (SSR radar) available at the approach, with dual

channels in case of a failure on one of the channels).





6.22 Finally, the trainees will have to undergo an examination required by the CAA for basic flow

management, as this task occasionally falls under the responsibility of the approach controller

when shift managers from the ACC are not able to provide the service.


TEAM AREA: HONG KONG ACC (HONG KONG)

ICAO: VHHK

Serving: Hong Kong FIR and Chek Lap Kok Int’l Airport (VHHH)

Traffic: 9 247 000 passengers/year

6.23 Hong Kong ACC is one of two key Area Control Centres in the Pearl River Delta and is operating

under the Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department. The ACC provides en route and terminal

control services to aircraft in the Hong Kong FIR. It covers the area over waters off Hong Kong

to the south, southeast and southwest. This does not include the airspace and immediate

waters off the mainland China and Macau (this airspace is under Guangzhou FIR authority).

6.24 Hong Kong ACC also handles flights in and out of Macau International Airport; the ACC has

borders with Sanya FIR (ZJSA), Guangzhou FIR (ZGZU), Shanghai FIR (ZSHA), Taipei FIR (RCAA)

and Manila FIR (RPHI).

6.25 For a few years now, Hong Kong ACC has been routinely understaffed, but lately, the situation

became unbearable. To reach the desired staffing level and to cater for the expected

retirements (five within the next three years), the Cheung Chau Specialty (which is in fact a

group of six sectors on which all ATCOs working the specialty are qualified) would need six

new air traffic controllers, ideally within the next two to three years. For this reason, the

manager of the ACC requested from the national training institute that they assign ten trainees

to Cheung Chau, five this year and another five the following year, considering the historic

checkout rate of 60%. The trainees will have completed the initial area control training and

are expected to be ready to start the unit training right away.




specific group of trainees coming to the ACC. The manager never used that form before and

is not familiar with the competency-based approach either. That’s why you have been asked

to help.


of Hong Kong FIR (Doc 1049HK), National Aviation Regulation (Doc HAR2018-02) and, as a

reference, ICAO Annexes 10 Vol II and 11 and Doc 4444 (PANS-ATM).

6.28 You were also given a list of tasks that the training supervisor of Cheung Chau made for you,

highlighting the main duties of the controllers in this specific specialty of the ACC, which has


an airspace of roughly 200 NM by 180 NM, comprising Class A, B and E airspace, extending

from FL160 to FL600. The list included the following:

• separate aircraft operating within the group of sectors

• pre-sequence arrivals for Chek Lap Kok (VHHH) and Macau (VMMC)

• issue IFR clearances and ensure correct readbacks

• manage inbound and outbound IFR aircraft


• issue weather information and provide weather deviations when appropriate

• issue turbulence and icing information and take appropriate actions

• coordinate the traffic with both Chek Lap Kok and Macau approach units, Sanya FIR,

Guangzhou FIR, Shanghai FIR, Taipei FIR and Manila FIR

• monitor traffic using PSR, SSR and ADS-B surveillance

• communicate with aircraft using VHF, Satvoice and CPDLC when possible

• monitor route conformance using ADS-C when possible


simulator prior to commencing the OJT, followed by four phases of 150 hours of OJT. During


a mix of medium and heavy traffic IFR aircraft, both turboprops and jets, as well as military

traffic, typically fighter jets. The trainee will be expected to handle a maximum of 15 aircraft

at the same time with a maximum of two conflict to solve at any given time while in the

simulator. Once in live environment, these values become 25 aircraft at the same time and

three conflicts simultaneously.

6.30 While in the simulator, initial exercises will concentrate on handling one sector only, to master

the specific of each sector. Further down the road, integrated exercises will comprise groups

of two and three sectors, and eventually all six sectors. VFR are not authorized above FL130

without special authorization, these won’t be practiced.

6.31 Also, as per national requirements, trainees will have to be competent on both tactical and

planner (also called radar and data) positions, they will have to undergo emergency and non-

routine situations training (namely engine fires, communication failures, engine failures, rapid

depressurizations, etc.), and obviously they will have to be competent with the equipment,

namely the flight data display, flight data processing system, situation display (PSR, SSR and

ADS-B), CPDLC and ADS-C.





6.33 Finally, the trainees will have to undergo an examination and a simulator session required by

the CAA for basic procedural separation and control, in case of a partial or total surveillance

failure.


7. Module 9 – Adapted Competency Framework

TEAM AERODROME: COORDINATION + SEPARATION AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

TEAM APPROACH: COORDINATION + PROBLEM SOLVING AND DECISION MAKING

TEAM AREA: COORDINATION + WORKLOAD MANAGEMENT

7.1 ALL: Coordination (ICAO competency framework)

• PC5.1: Coordinates with personnel in other operational positions and other stakeholders, in a

timely manner

• PC5.2: Selects coordination method based on circumstances, including urgency of

coordination, status of facilities and prescribed procedures

• PC5.3: Coordinates the movement, control and transfer of control for flights using the

prescribed coordination procedures

• PC5.4: Coordinates changes of status of operational facilities such as equipment, systems and

functions

• PC5.5: Coordinates changes of status of airspace and aerodrome resources

• PC5.6: Uses clear and concise terminology for verbal coordination

• PC5.7: Uses standard A TS message formats and protocol for non-verbal coordination

• PC5.8: Uses clear and concise non-standard coordination methods when required

• PC5.9: Conducts effective briefings during position handover

7.2 ALL: Coordination (adapted competency framework)

PC5.1

PC5.2

PC5.3

PC5.4

PC5.5

PC5.6

PC5.7

PC5.8

PC5.9


7.3 AERODROME: Separation and conflict resolution (ICAO competency framework)

• PC3.1: Identifies traffic conflicts

• PC3.2: Selects the most appropriate separation method

• PC3.3: Applies appropriate air traffic separation and spacing

• PC3.4: Issues clearances and instructions that ensure separation is maintained

• PC3.5: Issues clearances and instructions that take into account aircraft performance, terrain

obstacles, airspace constraints and weather

• PC3.6: Issues clearance and instructions that resolve traffic conflicts

• PC3.7: Resolves conflicts through coordination with adjacent sectors or units

• PC3.8: Monitors the execution of separation actions

• PC3.9: Adjusts control actions, when necessary, to maintain separation

7.4 AERODROME: Separation and conflict resolution (adapted competency framework)

PC3.1

PC3.2

PC3.3

PC3.4

PC3.5

PC3.6

PC3.7

PC3.8

PC3.9


7.5 APPROACH: Problem solving and decision making (ICAO competency framework)

• PC7.1: Takes into account the existing rules and operating procedures when determining

possible solutions to a problem

• PC7.2: Implements an appropriate solution to a problem

• PC7.3: Determines the situations that have the highest priority

• PC7.4: Organizes tasks in accordance with an appropriate order of priorities

• PC7.5: Applies an appropriate mitigation strategy for the hazards identified

• PC7.6: Perseveres in working through problems without impacting safety

• PC7.7: Considers timeliness in decision making

7.6 APPROACH: Problem solving and decision making (adapted competency framework)

PC7.1

PC7.2

PC7.3

PC7.4

PC7.5

PC7.6

PC7.7


7.7 AREA: Workload management (ICAO competency framework)

• PC9.1: Manages tasks effectively in response to current and future workload

• PC9.2: Manages interruptions and distractions effectively

• PC9.3: Determines if and when support is necessary based on workload

• PC9.4: Asks for help, when necessary

• PC9.5: Delegates tasks when necessary to reduce workload

• PC9.6: Accepts assistance, when necessary

• PC9.7: Adjusts the pace of work according to workload

• PC9.8: Selects appropriate tools, equipment and resources to support the efficient

achievement of tasks

• PC9.9: Uses the automated capabilities of A TS equipment to improve efficiency

7.8 AREA: Workload management (adapted competency framework)

PC9.1

PC9.2

PC9.3

PC9.4

PC9.5

PC9.6

PC9.7

PC9.8

PC9.9


8. Module 11 – The Evidence Guide

TEAM AERODROME: SITUATION AWARENESS

OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOUR ICS1 ICS2 FCS

1.8 - Interprets the situation

based on the analysis (of the

actual situation)

1.9 - Predicts the future

operational situation

1.10 - Identifies potentially

hazardous situations (e.g.

amount of separation with

other aircraft, objects,

airspace and ground,

consequences of adverse

weather, navigational

deviations and capacity

overload)

1.11 - Verifies that

information is accurate and

assumptions are correct

1.12 - Uses available tools to

monitor, scan, comprehend

and predict operational

situations


TEAM APPROACH: TRAFFIC AND CAPACITY MANAGEMENT


2.1 - Manages arriving,

departing and/or enroute

traffic using prescribed

procedures

2.2 - Takes aircraft

performance into account

when issuing clearances and

instructions

2.3 - Uses a variety of

techniques to effectively

manage the traffic (e.g. speed

control, vectoring, traffic

sequencing, assigning

climb/descent rate)

2.6 - Maintains focus despite

varying traffic levels

2.7 - Reacts appropriately to

situations that have the

potential to become unsafe


TEAM AREA: COMMUNICATION


4.2 - Speaks clearly, accurately

and concisely

4.3 - Uses appropriate

vocabulary and expressions to

convey clear messages

4.4 - Uses standard

radiotelephony phraseology,

when prescribed

4.6 - Demonstrates active

listening by asking relevant

questions and providing

feedback

4.8 - Uses plain language

when standardized

phraseology does not exist or

the situation warrants it


9. Module 13 – Debriefing (Case Study)

TEAM AERODROME – COURCHEVEL ALTIPORT (FRANCE)

9.1 Peter has been training at Courchevel for a while now and has progressed rather normally,

with some highs and lows, which is always normal in any training. After six months

approximately, his instructor recommended to the training supervisor that he undergo final

assessment. On a very snowy day of February, Peter showed up at the tower for what was the

third day of six days of final assessment.

9.2 The morning started rather easily with only a few flurries and little traffic. Peter managed to

keep the traffic moving without any problem throughout the first half of the day, but after

lunch, it started to snow more heavily and the visibility was reduced significantly in the control

zone. The breaking action was reported poor by several pilots, increasing the runway

occupancy time and forcing Peter to prioritize his tasks more carefully.

9.3 Peter’s phraseology has always been almost perfect, even during busy periods. However, that

day, he started to speak faster, which made it difficult for pilots to understand and forced him

to repeat clearances and correct readbacks several times.

9.4 Around 2 PM, the traffic was so heavy that it was almost impossible for Peter to allow the

snowplows to get out on the runway to clear it. Aircraft were still able to land, but soon or

later, he’d have to call approach and tell them to stop arrivals to allow for snow removal.

9.5 At one point, there was a departure aircraft holding short of the runway putting pressure on

Peter to get a clearance. Peter cleared the pilot to take off and gave him a rate of climb

restriction of 1 500’/minute or more to clear an arrival traffic. The pilot came back saying he

was too heavy to make the restriction. Peter correctly issued a new clearance without a rate

of climb restriction with an alternative heading to keep the departure clear of the arrival.

9.6 Immediately after, the snowplows operator called the tower to request clearance to enter the

runway. Peter told him to hold short because there was a traffic on final. Once the traffic

landed, Peter cleared the snowplows on the runway, without looking down at his flight

progress strips. After a few seconds, he realized that there was another aircraft on final –

although far enough that it wouldn’t be necessary to instruct it to go around. He called back

the snowplows operator and asked him to vacate the runway and hold for another five

minutes. The operator readback and said it was not a problem, that they would hold.

9.7 At the end of the afternoon, the flight planning assistant offered Peter to go out and take care

of the runway inspection for him. Peter gladly accepted. While the assistant was out, a certain

number of flight plans came through. Peter decided he was too busy to take care of them and

that it was not his job to do it anyway. When the assistant came back, he made a sarcastic

comment regarding the pile of strips waiting in the printer. Peter snapped back that he was

too busy and that he didn’t even have time to look at the printer.

9.8 The assessor highlighted this printer situation during the debrief and pointed out that Peter

could have at least checked the strips to make sure the was nothing urgent – like a medical

evacuation flight, for example – in the pile of flight plans. Peter replied that with the day he

had, he preferred to play safe and chose to concentrate on traffic instead of checking the

incoming strips.


TEAM APPROACH – SANTOS DUMONT AIRPORT (BRAZIL)

9.9 Duncan has been training at Santos Dumont for a while now and has progressed rather

normally, with some highs and lows, which is always normal in any training. After twelve

months approximately, his instructor recommended to the training supervisor that he

undergo final assessment. On a very stormy day of June, Duncan showed up at the approach

for what was the fourth day of six days of final assessment.

9.10 Overall, Duncan’s performance was acceptable, but his strategic planning was not as good as

it could have been: on a few occasions, he had to change the order of his sequence for runway

20L, which caused a certain lost of efficiency on the approach. On top of that, he had to

coordinate these changes with the tower, which increased even more his workload.

9.11 Duncan’s phraseology has always been almost perfect, even during busy periods. However,

that day, he started to speak faster, which made it difficult for pilots to understand and forced

him to repeat clearances and correct readbacks several times.

9.12 Regarding departures, out of 18 aircraft that took off from runway 20R during the session,

only three were climbed without levelling off. The others had to level off for a significant

amount of time to cross traffic, and most of the time, Duncan could have vectored them to

avoid this unnecessary step climb. During the debriefing, the assessor asked him why he didn’t

vector some of the aircraft to accelerate their climb, he said that he was too busy with his

sequence of arrivals to take care of the departures.

9.13 Speaking of arrivals, throughout the day, Duncan demonstrated a very good understanding of

the performances of the aircraft under his control. Unfortunately, that did not prevent him

from misjudging a certain number of arrivals in the sequence. He had to increase the speed of

some of the aircraft to reduce it only a few minutes later… Some pilots seemed very unhappy

to be told to accelerate and then to slow down only five minutes later. But eventually, he

made it work.

9.14 At some point Duncan seemed completely overwhelmed, his workload was clearly exceeded

his capacity. The assessor tried to prompt him to ask for help from his planner by dropping a

few hints, but Duncan didn’t do anything. During the debriefing, the assessor pointed out that

some help was available – in fact, his planner proposed to initiate some coordination for him.

But Duncan never even replied to him… When asked what happened, Duncan said that it was

the exact same thing: he was too busy with his sequence.

9.15 Towards the end of the shift, the tactical and planner positions were combined and Duncan

was working alone. Before leaving, his planner told him that the two following arrivals would

be on a heading towards the north to accommodate two medical evacuation flights departing

shortly. He added that once clear of these two departures, the arrivals could be vectored again

towards the localizer and that all this was coordinated with the tower and the area. Duncan

said thanks and continued to work.

9.16 But a few minutes later, the two arrivals checked in and Duncan started to vector them

towards the localizer. At the same moment, the two medical evacuation flights took off and

checked in, requesting direct and a higher level. Duncan was confused as to why this was

happening, and questioned the tower controller, who repeated exactly what his planner told

him five minutes ago. Duncan had to turn the arrivals again to keep them away from the

departures, which clearly didn’t make the two pilots happy…


TEAM AREA – HONG KONG ACC (HONG KONG)

9.17 Tatiana has been training at Hong Kong ACC for a while now and has progressed rather

normally, with some highs and lows, which is always normal in any training. After twelve

months approximately, her instructor recommended to the training supervisor that she

undergo final assessment. On a very stormy day of August, Tatiana showed up at the sector

for what was the second day of six days of final assessment.

9.18 Overall, Tatiana’s performance was acceptable, but her strategic planning was not as good as

it could have been: on a few occasions, she was not able to hand off the aircraft to the next

sector at the altitude required in the letter of agreement. On top of that, she had to coordinate

all these changes and figure out a way to keep the outbound traffic clear of the inbound traffic.

Clearly, a lot of time spent on the hotline for nothing, not exactly what we could call an

efficient way of doing things.

9.19 Tatiana’s phraseology however was always spot on, exactly how it is written in ICAO

documents. That being said, she was talking way too fast and some of the aircraft had to ask

her to say again quite a few times, which consumed the only few seconds she had left to think

about her plan.

9.20 During the whole shift, there were scattered thunderstorms all over the sector which created

quite a lot of deviation requests from pilots. Tatiana approved all weather avoidance requests

and cleared the pilots to an appropriate waypoint on their route once clear of weather. There

was a restriction in effect requesting her to provide 30 miles in train to the next sector,

regardless of altitude, at waypoint IGGOR. Every time she thought she had her plan figured

out, someone called with a deviation request, so it was really difficult for her to try and create

that mileage.

9.21 At some point, a Boeing 777 at Mach 0.84 reported clear of weather. Tatiana approved direct

IGGOR, even though the traffic was following an Airbus 321 at Mach 0.78 and there was only

33 miles between the two. Even though she saw what was happening, it appeared to the

assessor that she was not sure about what to do with this situation. Tatiana was reluctant to

vector the 777 again since the aircraft had already been deviating for a while now. The planner

suggested to give a 360° to the 321 and to coordinate it with the next sector, then she wouldn’t

have to worry about this situation anymore. Tatiana agreed, but another aircraft requested a

deviation and she forgot to coordinate the new plan with the next sector.

9.22 Later, during the afternoon, the weather moved to the east. There was no more room to

create any mileage for the next sector, so the planner negotiated a complex solution involving

both the previous and the following sectors: all traffic will be handed off to Tatiana 15 miles

apart, and Tatiana will lock the traffic on heading 300 after deviation and initiate the hand off

to the following sector, which will give direct to the aircraft once the required mileage is

achieved. The planner clearly explained that plan to Tatiana.

9.23 Tatiana tried to keep the existing mileage through the deviation area, but because she was

reluctant to use speed control, the mileage eroded and some aircraft were not only handed

off with less than 15 miles, but also not on the appropriate heading because of her reluctance

to vector them. Tatiana seemed to hesitate a lot on what to do, even though she clearly saw

that it was not going to work as planned.

9.24 The rest of the traffic was given heading 300 so late that the next sector had to vector its own

traffic to avoid those coming from Tatiana’s sector, which obviously was not very efficient and

didn’t make him very happy…


9.25 List of symptoms to identify from the scenario:

• _____________________________________________________________________

• _____________________________________________________________________

• _____________________________________________________________________

• _____________________________________________________________________

• _____________________________________________________________________

• _____________________________________________________________________

• _____________________________________________________________________

• _____________________________________________________________________

• _____________________________________________________________________

• _____________________________________________________________________

• _____________________________________________________________________

• _____________________________________________________________________

9.26 The trainee needs to focus and work on the following competencies, more than any others.

The following list of observable behaviours affected should be prioritized:

• _____________________________________________________________________

• _____________________________________________________________________

• _____________________________________________________________________

• _____________________________________________________________________

9.27 The following observable behaviours could also be highlighted, but are not a major concern.

They are more a consequence of what is listed above:

• _____________________________________________________________________

• _____________________________________________________________________

• _____________________________________________________________________

• _____________________________________________________________________

• _____________________________________________________________________

• _____________________________________________________________________

• _____________________________________________________________________

• _____________________________________________________________________

• _____________________________________________________________________


10. Module 16 – Your take away items

TEAM AERODROME: Training climate vs instructor(s)

10.1 Imagine a climate in which the trainees feel they have to prove their skills, they are assessed

rather than taught and they are expected to solve training situations in the manner the specific

instructor prefers. How can CBTA help?

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

TEAM APPROACH: Relation between trainee’s success and instructor’s methods

10.2 “I was under a lot of pressure and the instructor kept demanding more and more, not giving

any leading words to solve the conflict. Just like digging the hole deeper for me instead of

helping me getting up”. How can CBTA help?

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

TEAM AREA: Required standard perceived not to be consistent for all trainees

10.3 Trainees seem concerned with the differing standards and mentioned, on a number of

occasions, the importance of “agreeing on something”, “something that is the institute’s way

of doing it”. How can CBTA help?

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________


11. Course evaluation

My level of knowledge of CBTA before starting the workshop: ________________________

My background (ATCO, manager, regulator, etc.): ___________________________

My group (TWR/APP/ACC): _____________________________

COURSE ORGANIZATION AND CONTENT

Strongly

agree Agree

Neither

agree or

disagree

Disagree Strongly

disagree

The workshop material was well

organized and sequenced.

The objectives were clear.

The contents were illustrated with

many examples.

The workshop student guide was clear

and well written.

The workshop content was at a level

appropriate for my needs.

The workshop met my learning

objectives.

The workshop increased my interest

on the subject.

I will be able to use what I have

learned on this workshop.

INSTRUCTORS AND PRESENTATIONS

Strongly

agree Agree

Neither

agree or

disagree

Disagree Strongly

disagree

The instructor displayed good subject

knowledge.

The instructor was well prepared.

The instructor’s explanations were

clear.

The instructor was effective in

communicating the content of the

workshop.


The instructor provided adequate

opportunity for questions, feedback

and discussions.

Students were encouraged to ask

questions.

The instructor showed genuine

concern for the students.

The instructor was enthusiastic about

the workshop.

Students were encouraged to share

their ideas and experience.

OVERALL EXPERIENCE

Strongly

agree Agree

Neither

agree or

disagree

Disagree Strongly

disagree

This workshop was overall excellent.

The instructors were overall excellent.

I would recommend this workshop to

other ATCOs.

A FEW LAST QUESTIONS

Please comment on the strengths of the workshop and the way it was conducted:

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

Please comment on the weaknesses of the workshop and the way it was conducted:

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

Any other suggestions you may have to improve the workshop:

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

ifatca training courses 2018 · 6.2 the airport is considered dangerous, as it features a difficult...

Documents