Language proficiency requirements workshop – St Language proficiency requirements workshop – St. Petersburg, Russian Federation, 24-26 May 2011 Report of the ECAC AD-HOC Working Group on English language proficiency

Context : the ICAO requirements Annexes: The ICAO provisions in respect of LP are contained in Annex 1, Annex 6 and Annex 11 Waivers are addressed through Articles 39 and 40 of the Chicago Convention licences which does not satisfy in full must be endorsed accordingly ICAO resolutions: ICAO Resolution A36-11 adopted in 2007, decided a transition period (2008-2011) by which it urged States that could not comply by 5 march 2008 to develop and publish “Language proficiency implementation plans” ICAO Resolution A37-10 adopted in 2010 superseded ICAO Resolution A36-11, decided to allow a flexible approach to those States mercredi 28 novembre 2018

Background 5 March 2011 end of the so-called “transition period” Resolution 37/10 seemed to contemplate the possibility of continuing non-compliance with ICAO requirements indefinitely … Among ECAC States, concern was expressed during the Directors general meeting in 7 December 2010 about Resolution 37/10 Directors general charged an “ad hoc” group to explore a common approach by ECAC states to cases of non- compliance by Third-countries The ad-hoc group met on 2 February 2011 under the chairmanship of Mr Karim Bekkouche, France The ad-hoc group was composed of representatives from ECAC States with the support of ICAO and EASA mercredi 28 novembre 2018

The WG constraints The WG was conscious from the outset it should no intrude into aspects covered with the international rules and the EU legislation Between the ICAO requirements and the European requirements set up by the European Commission, the « room for maneuver » of the WG group was close : The ICAO LP requirements set up a set of criteria “Associated practises” to be used among Contracting States The European requirements set up procedures for conducting ramp inspections on aircraft including LP aspects mercredi 28 novembre 2018

European constraints : SAFA inspections EU regulations addresses the pilots which fly on aircraft registered within the EU community The foreign aircraft are submitted to SAFA RAMP INSPECTIONS PROCEDURES SAFA inspectors might be very reluctant to detain an aircraft simply for reason of the pilots poor English, nevertheless … mercredi 28 novembre 2018

SAFA inspections … The European Commission and EASA has decided to reinforce the SAFA policy in this matter Decision of the EU Air Safety Committee April 2011 on the proposition of the European SAFA Steering Group (ESSG/12): Cat 2 (significant) finding if the licence is not ICAO- compliant and the States has filed an Implementation Plan (instead of Cat 1 previously) Cat 3 (Major) if the licence is not ICAO-compliant and the states has not has filed an Implementation Plan Plan (instead of Cat 2 previously) Cat G (General Remarks) of the licence has the necessary endorsement but the pilots in practise unable to communicate properly in English mercredi 28 novembre 2018

Generality on Flexibility The WG considered that : the flexibility shall be based on ACTUAL COMPLIANCE AS OPPOSED of CLAIMED COMPLIANCE Statements of compliance, on their own, are of limited value It means that the compliance should be established on SAFA ramp inspections and USOAP audits In the absence of information about the effort of a State to achieve compliance, there should be NO QUESTION OF ANY FLEXIBILITY mercredi 28 novembre 2018

Criteria for granting Flexibility The WG had particular regard to the ICAO “Associated practises” concerning Contracting States that are not compliant The WG considers that before to grant any flexibility, a State should verify that 9 conditions are realised : The Implementation Plan should be updated with progress report every 6 months Evidence of its notification of non-compliance to ICAO is provided Evidence of its publication in AIPs of differences mercredi 28 novembre 2018

Period of Flexibility The WG considered the question of the period of flexibility The WG reached no conclusion on agreeing amongst themselves of a common deadline The period of flexibility should be specifically stated at the outset between the State granting flexibility and the State for which the flexibility is allowed The WG saw more interest in triggering withdrawal of flexibility in case of non compliance mercredi 28 novembre 2018

Conclusions The WG considered: WG attaches importance to English LP WG considers it is therefore regrettable that the Resolution 37/10 has undermined the efforts of the aviation community to 5 march 2011 as the last possible date for achieving compliance WG recognises it is necessary to allow a certain flexibility provided that flexibility be strictly restricted within the frame of 9 criteria In the absence of adequate information, no flexibility should be granted The period of flexibility should be specifically stated at the outset between the state granting flexibility and the state for which the flexibility is allowed mercredi 28 novembre 2018

Thank you very much for your attention End Thank you very much for your attention mercredi 28 novembre 2018