ICAO Language Proficiency Requirements Jan. 00 ICAO Regional Seminar and Workshop on Aviation Language Proficiency Baku, Azerbaijan – 7-9 December 2005 ICAO Language Proficiency Requirements Nicole Barrette-Sabourin Training Officer Aviation Training Policy and Standards Unit, Flight Safety Section – ICAO It is a pleasure for me to be in Baku today. I am a training officer in the Flight Safety Section of ICAO. One of my tasks is to deal with issues related to language proficiency requirements. My objective today is to present to you the language proficiency requirements within the context of ICAO.

Plan of the presentation Jan. 00 Plan of the presentation Who What Why How Conclusions FLS – Dec. 05

Jan. 00 Who? Perhaps before we even talk of why language proficiency requirements were established, allow me to introduce ICAO. December 1944 by the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention) Part of the UN System but independent Membership: 189 States Dominica: 774 km2 70,000 Vatican .5km2 900 Liechtenstein 160km2 32,000 Tuvalu 26km2 11,000 Total 961 114000

To promote cooperation between nations and people ICAO’s objectives Jan. 00 To promote cooperation between nations and people To agree on certain principles and arrangements in order that international civil aviation may be developed in a safe and orderly manner and that international air services may be established on the basis of equality of opportunity and operated soundly and economically These are the objectives of the Organization as stated in the preamble of the Chicago Convention “whereas it is desirable to avoid friction and to promote that cooperation between nations and peoples upon which the peace of the world depends” “The undersigned governments having agreed on certain principles and arrangements in order that international civil aviation may be developed in a safe and orderly manner and that international air transport services may be established on the basis of equality of opportunity and operated soundly and economically” ICAO plays a limited role in the Air Transport field, mostly focused on facilitation. The Organization plays an essential role in the Air Navigation field: Personnel, Operations, Maintenance, Airport, Communication, Air Traffic Management, Meteorology, Aeronautical Information, Accident Investigation. The Organization also plays an important role in Security. FLS – Dec. 05

Air Navigation Commission Jan. 00 ICAO Structure Contracting States Assembly Secretariat Council Assembly All Contracting States meet every 3 years Defines policy through Assembly Resolutions Adopts the budget and elects the Council Adopts amendments to the Convention which have to be ratified subsequently by States Council 36 Members Permanent and resident; President Adopts Standards and Recommended practices Air Navigation Commission 15 Commissioners (soon to be 19) appointed by the Council Each Commissioner acts in his/her personal capacity Oversee the technical work of the Organization Duties are defined by the Convention (article 57) Other Council Committees Air Transport, Technical Co-operation, Unlawful Interference and Finance Members of the Committees are members of the Council Duties are defined by the Council SARPS: 18 Annexes, 3 (4) PANS and many manuals Coordination of international air navigation activities: Regional Planning Implementation: Technical Cooperation and Audit Programme Who handles all of this? The ICAO Secretariat headed by a Secretary General who is elected by the Council for three years. There are 500 staff members at ICAO Headquarters in Montreal, 100 of which work in the Air Navigation Bureau. There are also 7 regional offices with 200 staff. Air Navigation Commission FLS – Dec. 05

What?

Development of ICAO Standards Jan. 00 Development of ICAO Standards Convention on International Civil Aviation (Article 37): “Each Contracting State undertakes to collaborate in securing the highest practicable degree of uniformity in regulations, standards, procedures and organization in relation to aircraft, personnel, airways and auxiliary services in all matters in which such uniformity will facilitate and improve air navigation.” Now that I’ve briefly explained who ICAO is, I would like to describe WHAT we do. Here is what article 37 of the convention says: READ. Article 37 goes on to list a number of areas in which standards should be established such as: a) Communication systems and air navigation aids, including ground marking; b) Characteristics of airports and landing areas; c) Rules of the air and air traffic control practices; d) Licensing of operating and mechanical personnel; Airworthiness of aircraft; f) Registration and identification of aircraft; g) Collection and exchange of meteorological information; h) Log books; i) Aeronautical maps and charts; j) Customs and immigration procedures; k) Aircraft in distress and investigation of accidents; and such other matters concerned with the safety, regularity, and efficiency of air navigation.....” FLS – Dec. 05

Making an ICAO Standard Jan. 00 Making an ICAO Standard Origin of Proposal Development Phase Review Phase International standardization is essential for the safe and efficient operation of aircraft on a worldwide basis. Standardization must apply to airworthiness, flight operations and the many facilities and services required in support of aircraft operations throughout the world.   Were it not for uniform rules and procedures, worldwide civil aircraft operations would be at best impracticable and at worst unsafe. The safety of aircraft flying anywhere in the world is the principal concern of the International Civil Aviation Organization. This slide illustrates (poorly!) the process of making a standard in ICAO. There are four main phases involved: a proposal is originated, then developed, reviewed and finally adopted and published. Adoption/ Publication Phase FLS – Dec. 05

Origin of Proposal CONTRACTING STATES ASSEMBLY COUNCIL Jan. 00 Origin of Proposal CONTRACTING STATES ASSEMBLY COUNCIL International Organizations SECRETARIAT ANC Meetings Panels & Committees A proposal for the initiation of a specific technical study can originate from Contracting States, the Council, the Air Navigation Commission, the Secretariat, or from international organizations. Proposal for Action FLS – Dec. 05

ANC Preliminary Review Jan. 00 Development Phase Proposal for Action ANC ANC Panel SECRETARIAT Divisional Meeting AN Study Group Technical Proposal Development Phase The ANC can refer an issue to an ANC panel or a Council Technical Committee. The ANC can also refer the issue to the Secretariat for further study with the assistance of an air navigation study group ANC Preliminary Review FLS – Dec. 05

ANC Preliminary Review Jan. 00 Review Phase ANC Preliminary Review Contracting States International Organizations SECRETARIAT Once the technical proposal is developed: The ANC carries out a preliminary review The preliminary review considers controversial issues as identified by the Secretariat or the ANC which require further examination before the recommendations are circulated to States for comments. The original recommendations with any alternative proposals developed by the Air Navigation Commission are submitted to Contracting States and selected international organizations for comment. The comments of States and international organizations are analysed by the Secretariat and a working paper detailing the comments and the Secretariat proposals for action is prepared.   Secretariat Analysis ANC Final Review FLS – Dec. 05

Adoption/Publication Phase Jan. 00 Adoption/Publication Phase ANC Final Review Annex Amendment ANC Recommends Adoption Date Council Adopts (Usually March) Green Edition 4 Months Disapprove Effective Date States (Amendment becomes Effective if not disapproved by majority of States) During this last phase of the process: The Commission undertakes the final review of the recommendations and establishes the final texts of the proposed amendments to SARPs, PANS and associated attachments. The amendments to Annexes recommended by the Commission are presented to the Council for adoption.   The Council reviews the proposals of the Air Navigation Commission and adopts the amendment to the Annex if two thirds of the members are in favour. Within two weeks of the adoption of an Annex amendment by the Council, an interim edition of the amendment, referred to as the “Green Edition”, is dispatched to States with a covering explanatory letter. The covering letter also gives the various dates associated with the introduction of the amendment. In the case of Standards and Recommended Practices, States have an opportunity to register disapproval. A Disapproval Date is established, by which States must notify Council of any disapproval. Notification of Differences SECRETARIAT 4 Months Blue Edition Supplement Applicability Date Applicability Date FLS – Dec. 05 (Usually November)

Approximately 2 years FLS – Dec. 05 Jan. 00 Attachments to Annexes, although they are developed in the same manner as Standards and Recommended Practices, are approved by Council rather than adopted.   Regional Supplementary Procedures, because of their regional application, do not have the same line of development as the previously mentioned amendments, but must be approved by Council also. Manuals (such as the Manual on the implementation of ICAO Language Proficiency Requirements) and circulars are published under authority of the Secretary General in accordance with principles and policies approved by Council.   Audio-visual Aids based upon ICAO Standards are produced by the Organization as an aid to implementation. I will speak later of a training aid for language proficiency requirements presently under development. Typically there is a lapse of two years between the ANC preliminary review and the applicability date of an amendment to a SARP. FLS – Dec. 05

LPR Chronology 1998: A32-16 2000-2001: PRICE SG Jan. 00 LPR Chronology 1998: A32-16 2000-2001: PRICE SG 2001-2003: Review and Expand In the case of language proficiency requirements, the proposal originated from the Contracting States through Assembly Resolution A32-16. In 1998 the ICAO Assembly requested the ANC, through the Council to consider this task with a high degree of priority and strengthen ICAO language provisions. In 2000, the Proficiency Requirements in Common English Study Group (PRICESG) convened for the first time. It was established to assist ICAO in advancing the task established by the ANC on language competency. The PRICE SG met through 2000 and 2001 and presented recommendations in 2001. During the following Assembly (A33), Contracting States requested that the language proficiency that were being developed should not be limited to English. In March 2003 the amendments to Annexes 1, 6, 10, 11 and the PANS ATM were adopted by the Council and they became effective in July 2003. These provisions are becoming progressively applicable. They will be applicable in March 2008. The reason for this extended time for the applicability date is to provide for “grandfather” rights for existing licence holders (Article 42 of the Convention) for flight crew. The language proficiency requirements modify existing requirements for ATC and aeronautical station operators but introduce new requirements for flight crew. In the case of new requirements, article 42 of the convention applies, whereby a five year grace period for people holding a licence issued until one year after the adoption of the amendment would apply. Therefore flight crews who had a licence issued before 5 march 2004 benefit from a five year grace period. But from 5 March 2008 on, the requirements apply universally. 5 March 2003: Adopted 14 July 2003: Effective 5 March 2008: Applicable FLS – Dec. 05

Applicability of ICAO Standards Jan. 00 Applicability of ICAO Standards International Aviation Notification of differences Implications of the notion of sovereignty International Aviation only with some exceptions (Security and Dangerous Goods) and practical considerations Standards must be complied with or a notification of differences must be made Implications of the notion of sovereignty. States are sovereign up to their borders. While a State may notify a difference, it cannot force compliance with their national standards for personnel of other States. For example, if a State establishes that their language proficiency should be at Operational Level 5, it cannot request non national pilots to have operational level 5. If however, national personnel do not meet operational level 4, they cannot fly or control international flights. FLS – Dec. 05

Enforcement of ICAO Standards Jan. 00 Enforcement of ICAO Standards System is based of mutual trust between States ICAO Safety Oversight Audit Programme System is based of mutual trust between States ICAO conducts a Safety Oversight Audit Programme during which it takes measure of the degree of a State’s compliance with International Standards. FLS – Dec. 05

Jan. 00 Why? Now that you know about the standards that ICAO established, let’s talk about why ICAO established language proficiency requirements. First, let’s describe the problem, the safety concern that initiated the language proficiency requirements and then talk about the deliberations of the PRICE SG and their conclusions.

The Trail of Wreckage Trident/DC-9 mid-air collision, Zagreb -1976 Jan. 00 The Trail of Wreckage Trident/DC-9 mid-air collision, Zagreb -1976 Double B747 runway collision, Tenerife - 1977 B707 fuel exhaustation, JFK - 1990 B757 CFIT, Cali - 1995 IL-76/B747 mid-air collision, India - 1996 MD83/Shorts 330 runway collision, Paris/CDG -2000 MD80/Citation runway collision, Milan – 2001 Helios Airways – Greece August 2005 (?) … The common element: Communication What is the safety concern(s) in international civil aviation for which the ICAO language proficiency requirements might provide an answer? We have here list of accidents that all involve a common element: communication FLS – Dec. 05

Air-Ground Communications Jan. 00 Air-Ground Communications Action up to the 90s Standardized Phraseologies Hope of development of a radiotelephony speech based on a simplified English Realization that it was not sufficient Development of new Standards Clarify the use of the English Language Strengthen the use of standards phraseologies Establish language proficiency requirements TALK to slide FLS – Dec. 05

A Systemic Perspective Jan. 00 A Systemic Perspective Design Reason Model Management Training Supervision We can consider the problem from different perspectives: a systemic or safety management perspective, a training perspective, and an operational perspective. From a safety management perspective and using the Reason model. This model states that accidents in complex technological systems such as aviation are the product of the conjunction of a number of factors. Each factor is necessary but not sufficient to break through the system’s defence. So in normal conditions, the factors are captured and defences are maintained. Operations Kept under control in normal system conditions… FLS – Dec. 05 Sources: Docs 9683; 9806

A Systemic Perspective (cont.) Jan. 00 A Systemic Perspective (cont.) Design Management Training Supervision …surface in unstable system conditions However, there may be latent failures, failures waiting to happen. These latent failures originate from decisions or actions, the consequences of which may remain dormant for a long time. Latent failures become evident when they are triggered by an active failure, a technical problem or adverse system conditions, breaking through system defences. Latent failures are present in the system well before an accident Latent failures are most likely bred by decision-makers, regulators and other people far removed in time and space from the event. Those at the human – machine interface, the operational personnel, are the inheritors in the system. So they bear the consequence of, for example, poor design, conflicting goals, defective organizations, bad management decisions. Operations FLS – Dec. 05 Sources: Docs 9683; 9806

A Training Perspective Jan. 00 H L S L E SHELL Model L The SHELL model is useful for understanding human factors and how training fits into the picture. S: software H: Hardware E: environment L; Liveware (that’s us human beings) You can see that Liveware is at the centre of the model. That is the most critical as well as the most flexible component of the system. Yet we present considerable variations in performance and we have limitations. You’ll notice that the edges of the blocks are not straight and simple. For a system to work well, each component should dovetail as much as possible with the other in order to avoid stress and eventual breakdown. You’ll notice a liveware-liveware interface: interface between people. Language proficiency impacts how well the interface between people occurs. If there is a mismatch, then operational errors may occur with the predictable consequences. The purpose of training is to ensure the best interface between the different components of the system. Mismatches at the operational interfaces = breeding grounds for operational errors Source: Doc 9683 FLS – Dec. 05

An Operational Perspective Jan. 00 An Operational Perspective Threats Threat Management Strategies Errors Threat and Error Management (TEM) Model Error Management Strategies Threat and error management (TEM) is a model developed based on industry experience. The description provided here uses flight crew examples, but it is now being applied to air traffic control. It focuses on the interaction between people and the operational context (i.e., organizational, regulatory and environmental factors) within which they work. The basic notion of the model is that threats and errors are part of everyday aviation operations and that they must be managed by flight crews, since both threats and errors carry the potential to generate undesired aircraft states. Threats are events that occur beyond the influence of the flight crew and that increase operational complexity. For example dealing with adverse meteorological conditions, airports surrounded by high mountains, congested airspace, aircraft malfunctions, errors committed by air traffic controllers, flight attendants or maintenance workers, and so forth. Some are anticipated, others are unpredictable. To maintain safety, these threats have to be managed. To manage them, threats have to be detected and countermeasures applied. Errors are actions or inactions by the flight crew that lead to deviations from organizational or flight crew intentions or expectations. Unmanaged and/or mismanaged errors frequently lead to undesired aircraft states. Regardless of the type of error, an error’s effect on safety depends on whether the flight crew detects and responds to the error before it leads to an undesired aircraft state and to a potential unsafe outcome. This is why one of the objectives of TEM is to understand how errors are detected and responded to rather than solely focusing on the cause of the error. Errors that are managed do not lead to undesired aircraft states, do not reduce margins of safety. Undesired aircraft states are flight crew-induced aircraft position or speed deviations, misapplication of flight controls, or incorrect systems configuration, associated with a reduction in margins of safety. Undesired aircraft states that result from ineffective threat and/or error management may lead to compromising situations and reduce margins of safety in flight operations. Often considered at the cusp of becoming an incident or accident, undesired aircraft states must be managed by flight crews. Source: Doc 9803 FLS – Dec. 05 Undesired State

Language Proficiency: A Threat Jan. 00 Language Proficiency: A Threat Passenger management Language Proficiency ATC Cabin Crew Terrain Weather Similar call signs Maintenance Time pressure Ground Crew Flight diversions Heavy traffic System malfunctions Unfamiliar airports Automation events Missed approaches FLS – Dec. 05 Source: Doc 9803

Therefore, as Safety Practitioners Language Proficiency is: Jan. 00 Therefore, as Safety Practitioners Language Proficiency is: From a safety management perspective A latent condition with safety damaging potential From a training management perspective A technical skill acquired through training From an operational management perspective A threat that increases complexity of aviation operations READ the slide. Add that Language proficiency is NOT a cultural issue or a case of cultural imperialism. FLS – Dec. 05

A risk management exercise Jan. 00 A risk management exercise Denial: defensive attitude Repair: cosmetic acceptance Reform: tackle the safety concern Language proficiency is a safety concern. How do we manage language proficiency in aviation safety? How do we manage the risk? If we deny the concern, we adopt a defensive attitude, which will become more and more untanable as accidents are added to the list we outlined before. We can repair, patch things up. This might helpful in the short term but will not address the systemic issues that we’ve identified before. We can reform the system and tackle the safety concern. How do we tackle the safety concern? In November 1996 there was the IL-76/B747 mid-air collision, India. This triggered a resolution during the 32nd Assembly made in 1998. FLS – Dec. 05

Jan. 00 A32-16 “…steps to ensure that air traffic controllers and flight crews involved in flight operations in airspace where the use of the English language is required, are proficient in conducting and comprehending radiotelephony communications in the English language” The Assembly urged the Council to direct the ANC to consider the matter with a high level of priority and complete the task of strengthening the relevant provisions of Annex 1 and Annex 10 with a view to obligating Contracting States to take …. FLS – Dec. 05

Jan. 00 PRICESG Mandated to Review all aspects of air-ground and ground-ground voice communication Develop requirements concerning English language testing Develop language proficiency requirements The Proficiency Requirement in Common English Study Group (PRICE SG) comprised aviation and linguistic experts from Argentina, Canada, China, France, Russia, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the United States, EUROCONTROL, IATA, IFATCA, IFALPA and ICAO. READ FLS – Dec. 05

A review of 28,000 safety reports Jan. 00 A review of 28,000 safety reports Over 70% of problems cited involved message exchange. Communication errors still represent largest category of problems. However, only 1% of communications are compromised by inaccuracy. The Group then proceeded to determine the extent of the problem/issues they were addressing. The Study Group reviewed a large number of safety report and found that communication errors represented the largest category of problems (70%) and that a very small percentage of communications were affected by inaccuracy. FLS – Dec. 05

R/T communication problems Jan. 00 R/T communication problems frequency congestion, poor microphone technique, ambiguity, phonetic similarity, incomplete call-signs, confused sequence of numbers in messages, strings of instructions, truncated phraseologies, inadequate acknowledgements, readback errors, hearback errors. They found that these were the preeminent communication problems and confirmed the finding of Wiener and Nagel that “In spite of the efforts made to achieve compliance with agreed international standard procedures, violations are commonplace. It is probably the case that the gap between theory and practice is wider in communication procedures than in any other facet of aviation” (Wiener and Nagel, 1988). FLS – Dec. 05

The Issues Existing provisions at the time Jan. 00 The Issues Existing provisions at the time Phraseology vs. plain language English vs. Universal Speech Means to assess language proficiency reliably Here are some of the issues that the PRICE SG considered. Reconsider the existing provisions and how they could be enhanced and improved The balance and interrelation between phraseology and plain language The use of English And how to determine as reliably as possible language proficiency in the aviation context. Not and easy task! FLS – Dec. 05

Previous ICAO language requirements Jan. 00 For controllers: “… speak the languages designated for use in air traffic control without accent or impediment which could adversely affect communication” For pilots: Strangely quiet! Previous ICAO language requirements stated for controllers that they speak the languages designated for use in air traffic control without accent or impediment which could adversely affect communication. For pilots – quiet! FLS – Dec. 05

Standardized Phraseology Jan. 00 Standardized Phraseology … is insufficient to deal with the full range of situations requiring R/T exchange. … but how to complement standardized phraseologies? The other issue to be considered by the PRICESG was concerning the use of phraseology. Phraseology is insufficient to deal with the range of situations that require radiotelephony exchanges. So how do we complement standardized phraseologies? FLS – Dec. 05

English vs. Universal Speech Jan. 00 English vs. Universal Speech Research states Effectiveness of natural languages, and Plain language as medium for international aviation operations. English for aviation .. does not belong to a culture; is a tool has no special inherent qualities; is the most accessible of all second languages. More recent research established that…. There is no more effective form of speech than natural languages, and Plain language is the only medium of communication sufficiently reliable, comprehensive and adaptable for international aviation operations. English for aviation .. does not belong to a culture; is a tool, used by controllers & pilots as a matter of convenience; has no special inherent qualities; is the most accessible of all second languages Is English then the Sole universal aviation language? Would it remove all possibility of misunderstanding? No! Would it greatly aid situational awareness? YES BUT: Yes, but it assumes that everyone has equivalent English proficiency Yes; but it would not make it complete! It cannot address issues such as: Some transmissions are blocked; Not all aircraft transmit on frequency; Controllers hand-over blocks of airspace to third parties; Crews’ workload disallows constant monitoring. So, English proficiency should be seen as PART of a solution FLS – Dec. 05

Aviation-Specific English Jan. 00 Aviation-Specific English can be successfully integrated into training programs in common English; provisions should relate to the common use of English. Iterating formulaic language by rote does NOT meet all requirements! The last issue concerns the means of assessing language proficiency reliably. To do so it should rely and use the best practices of training and testing programs in English and should integrate aviation specific English. The requirements should address the use of common or plain language With the understanding that formulaic language (phraseology) does not cover all requirements. FLS – Dec. 05

Some PRICESG Questions Jan. 00 Some PRICESG Questions Acceptance by pilot & controller communities Allocation of responsibilities to airline operators and air navigation service providers Interface with input from commercial training & testing providers integration into State regulatory regimes How can provisions be made most acceptable to pilot & controller communities? Can provisions be reinforced by allocating some responsibility to airline operators and air navigation service providers? How can the provisions best interface with input from commercial training & testing providers? How can the provisions be best framed to integrate into State regulatory regimes? FLS – Dec. 05

PRICESG Conclusions (1) Jan. 00 PRICESG Conclusions (1) Phraseologies shall be used whenever possible but … … there is no practical alternative to the use of plain language for the full range of aeronautical R/T communication, and The use of plain language in the exchange of critical operational information requires: an understanding of the fundamentals of linguistics, an appreciation of the susceptibility of language to misapprehension, and a commitment to the highest standards of discipline and care. READ Slide FLS – Dec. 05

PRICESG Conclusions (2) The universal availability of at least one medium of radiotelephony communication is important for safety and efficiency in international air navigation; The lack of a language common to the aircrew and the ground station could lead to an accident; There is a need to retain the language used by the station on the ground. FLS – Dec. 05

PRICESG Conclusions (3) Parity must exist between pilots and controllers in language proficiency requirements; thus A single minimum standard is the best solution for the entire target group; Responsibility shall also be vested in airline operators and ATS providers for ensuring that staff meet proficiency requirements FLS – Dec. 05

PRICESG Conclusions (4) Jan. 00 PRICESG Conclusions (4) The new provisions will impact heavily the aviation community but with: Extensive guidance material, Education & awareness programs worldwide, Staff support activities by operators, Increased compliance with ICAO standardized phraseology, and Highest standards of discipline, We need and can improve the 1% figure! 1% refers to accidents FLS – Dec. 05

Jan. 00 How?

Language Proficiency Requirements Jan. 00 Annex 10 Annex 1 General concept Review of the provisions Implementation timeline Annex 6 Annex 11 PANS-ATM In this part of the presentation we will review in more detail how language proficiency requirements are outlined in the Annexes FLS – Dec. 05

Annex 10 – Volume II Chapter 5 addresses voice communications in the aeronautical communication service linking ground stations and aircraft. FLS – Dec. 05

Annex 10 – Volume II Phraseology and Plain Language Jan. 00 Annex 10 – Volume II Phraseology and Plain Language Para 5.1.1.1- ICAO phraseology shall be used in all situations for which it has been specified. Only when standardized phraseology cannot serve an intended transmission, plain language shall be used Paragraph 5.1.1 states that in all communications, the highest standard of discipline shall be observed at all times.” Pilots and controllers are a risk to safety if they are careless and disregard fundamental technique. Then Paragraph 5.1.1.1 states. READ This paragraph reinforces the need for adhering to standardized phraseology in all circumstances that require it. FLS – Dec. 05

Annex 10 – Volume II Language(s) to be used Jan. 00 Annex 10 – Volume II Language(s) to be used Para 5.2.1.2.1: The air-ground radiotelephony communications shall be conducted in the language normally used by the station on the ground or in the English language Para 5.2.1.2.2 The English language shall be available, on request from any aircraft station, at all stations on the ground serving designated airports and routes used by international air services “5.1.1 In all communications, the highest standard of discipline shall be observed at all times.” Pilots and controllers are a risk to safety if they are careless and disregard fundamental technique. Para 5.2.1.2.1 Was a recommendation FLS – Dec. 05

Annex 10 – Volume II Provisions no longer in force Jan. 00 Annex 10 – Volume II Provisions no longer in force Interpreters are no longer authorized The Attachment on the development of Radiotelephony speech for international aviation has been withdrawn FLS – Dec. 05

Annex 1 – Previous requirements Air Traffic Controllers and Aeronautical Station Operators shall “speak language(s) nationally designated for use without accent or impediment” Use of radiotelephony procedures and phraseology Aeroplane & Helicopter Pilots - Flight Engineers and Flight Navigators Free balloon and glider pilots No requirements FLS – Dec. 05

Annex 1 Licences with language proficiency requirements Jan. 00 Licences with language proficiency requirements Aeroplane and helicopter pilots Glider and free balloon pilots Flight Engineers and Flight Navigators Air Traffic Controllers Aeronautical Station Operators Licences without language proficiency requirements Flight Dispatcher Aircraft Maintenance Engineer There are now Language Proficiency requirements for the following licences in Annex 1. FLS – Dec. 05

General Principles Limited to radiotelephony communication Jan. 00 Limited to radiotelephony communication The “Speak and Understand” Standard Cover all languages used in radio communication Assessment using a rating scale (level 4) Progressive implementation Shall speak and understand The LPR address only radiotelephony communication They focus on “speak and understand”. Writing and grammar are not part of the equation. They cover all languages in radio communication They establish a rating scale for assessment. They are progressively implemented Since November 2003, the licenses for which LPR apply need to demonstrate “speak and understand” abilities. From 5 March 2008, the licenses for which LPR apply will need to demonstrate “speak and understand” abilities” in compliance with the rating scale Operational Level 4. Rating scale is applied 27 Nov. 2003 5 March 2008 FLS – Dec. 05

Annex 1 Aeroplane & Helicopter Pilots (PPL, CPL and ATPL) Air Traffic Controllers and Aeronautical Station Operators Free balloon and glider pilots Flight Engineers Flight Navigators FLS – Dec. 05

Language proficiency in Annex 1 Jan. 00 Aeroplane & helicopter pilots (PPL, CPL and ATPL) Air traffic controllers and aeronautical station operators Language proficiency in Annex 1 Shall demonstrate the ability to speak and understand the language used for radiotelephony communications (Standard 1.2.9.1) After 5 March 2008, the “speak and understand” ability shall be demonstrated to level 4 of the ICAO rating scale (Standard 1.2.9.4 and Appendix) recurrent testing will be required for those below level 6 (recommendation: every 3 years for level 4 and every 6 years for level 5) Previous Standard on the use of radiotelephony procedures and phraseology still applies FLS – Dec. 05

Language proficiency in Annex 1 Jan. 00 Free balloon and glider pilots Flight engineers Language proficiency in Annex 1 should demonstrate the ability to speak and understand the language used for radiotelephony communications. Previous Standard on the use of radiotelephony procedures and phraseology still applies for flight engineers FLS – Dec. 05

Language proficiency in Annex 1 Jan. 00 Language proficiency in Annex 1 Flight navigators If required to use a radio telephone on-board, flight navigator shall demonstrate the ability to speak and understand the language used for radiotelephony communications Previous Standard on the use of radiotelephony procedures and phraseology still applies for all Flight Navigators FLS – Dec. 05

Other Annexes Annex 6: (Parts I and III) Role of operators Jan. 00 Annex 6: (Parts I and III) Role of operators Annex 11: Role of Air traffic service providers English used between air traffic control units except when another language is mutually agreed PANS-ATM: ATS and other ground personnel will be expected to use plain language to the level specified in the ICAO language proficiency requirements contained in Annex 1 Standards related to Language proficiency in Annexe 6 and 11 are more limited in scope but are nevertheless important Annex 6: (Parts I and III) operators shall ensure that flight crew speak and understand the language used for radiotelephony communications Annex 11: Air traffic service providers shall ensure that air traffic controllers speak and understand the language used for radiotelephony communications English language shall be used for communications between air traffic control units except when another language is mutually agreed PANS-ATM: ATS and other ground personnel will be expected to use plain language to the level specified in the ICAO language proficiency requirements contained in Annex 1 FLS – Dec. 05

Jan. 00 Implementation notes Standard 1.2.9.1 will apply only on 5 March 2008 for aeroplane and helicopter pilot who have a licence issued before 5 March 2004 No “grandfather” clause for Air Traffic Controllers and Aeronautical Station Operators Language proficiency requirements applies to pilots who are engaged in international flights and ATCO/ASO providing services to international flights Pilots shall demonstrate proficiency in at least one of the language(s) offered in the airspace that is used ATCO/ASO shall demonstrate proficiency for each of the language(s) offered in the airspace in which they are providing service FLS – Dec. 05

Other Aspects (1) Jan. 00 The Rating Scale and Holistic Descriptors are contained in the Appendix and the Attachment to Annex 1 Consequences of non-compliance with the language proficiency Standards For pilots For Air Traffic Controllers and aeronautical Station Operators Guidance on the implementation of the Standards has been published in the Manual on the Implementation of ICAO Language Proficiency Requirements (Doc 9835) FLS – Dec. 05

Other Aspects (2) Jan. 00 Some good reasons to start evaluating language proficiency using the ICAO rating scale before 5 March 2008: for recruitment purposes for benchmarking purposes to be prepared for the 5 March 2008 deadline ICAO will review the progress in the implementation of the Language proficiency Standard in 2006 While the formal evaluation of language proficiency is only required as of 5 March 2008, there are good reasons to start formal evaluation of language proficiency much earlier: for recruitment purposes: It is likely that most air traffic service providers and airlines will want their new recruit to meet the language proficiency requirements as a prerequisite for recruitment; for benchmarking purposes: The establishment of the training programme required to bring existing staff to the appropriate level would require an accurate assessment of the level of language proficiency of existing staff; and to be prepared for the 5 March 2008 deadline. FLS – Dec. 05

Jan. 00 ANC Review in June 2006 The Air Navigation Commission will undertake a review of the implementation of the language proficiency requirements in June 2006: Assessment of the level of implementation (actual and planned) Review of the difficulties faced during the implementation Corrective measures if necessary and assistance FLS – Dec. 05

Implementation Survey Distributed through ICAO Regional Offices Results to be collected by March 2006 Presented to ANC in June 2006 FLS – Dec. 05

Audit The ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme The comprehensive audit programme starting in 2005 will cover all the language proficiency Standards of Annexes 1, 6, 10 and 11 Compliance Checklists: the State will have to identify the level of implementation of each provision contained in ICAO Annexes before the Audit. The ICAO auditor will validate the information submitted prior to the on-site audit During the actual audit, the auditor will assess the steps States have taken to address the new language requirements using a standard protocol FLS – Dec. 05

Training Aid Examples of extended speech samples Rating rationale Jan. 00 Training Aid Examples of extended speech samples Rating rationale Hyperlinks to sound files Available at the end of the year This training has been developed by the PRICE Linguistic sub-group. Over 70 speech samples gathered and evaluated by the group in a meeting in September this year. This training aid has been designed to provide the aviation industry and language testing and training providers with: - Examples of extended speech samples at different levels of the ICAO rating scale and from different regions of the world rated by an international team of operational and linguistic experts (4); - Detailed analyses and scoring of these samples with a rationale for the scoring of each of the six ICAO rating skills (Pronunciation, Structure, Vocabulary, Fluency, Comprehension, Interactions); - Short individual examples of these skills at each level (3.2); - An interactive version of the ICAO rating scale with hyperlinks to speech samples (3.3); - A reminder of the operational rating principles specific to the implementation of the scale (3.1); - Considerations about the design and content of appropriate certifying aviation English testing processes (5); - Recommendations about the profiles, the qualifications and the training of aviation English raters and examiners (6); - Clarification of certain points in Document 9835 (Appendix B); - Useful reference information (Appendices A and C to F). FLS – Dec. 05

FLS – Dec. 05

Recap ICAO and the process it uses to make standards The safety concern underlying the language proficiency requirements The PRICE SG its deliberations and conclusions A description of the language proficiency requirements Implementation of the language proficiency requirements FLS – Dec. 05

ICAO Regional Seminar and Workshop on Aviation Language Proficiency Jan. 00 ICAO Regional Seminar and Workshop on Aviation Language Proficiency Thank you!