2. MEETING ICAO LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS
Adrian ENRIGHT
EUROCONTROL
ELPAC Project Leader
Adrian Enright: British, air traffic controller. Trained in UK, worked in UK, Brussels and Maastricht. Held ratings in tower, approach, approach radar, area, area radar and GCA. Formerly an ATC instructor with Eurocontrol in Luxembourg, now responsible for the development of English language proficiency tests PELA and ELPAC). Member of ICAO PRICE Study group. Was Chairman of IFATCA SCV and RVP for Europe, representing Luxembourg ( ).

3. 28000 FLIGHTS PER DAY
The complexity of European airspace demands effective communication between pilot and controller
Putting our European airspace into perspective States, complex airspace, congested areas and nearly 40 different languages.
The case for English as a common language (for international air services) in Europe is strong.

4. Language is as much a tool for the controller as is radar …
The point to be made here is that language is both emotive and political BUT it should be seen in the context of another tool the controller has to master, like radar, like sequencing, like (you name it).
You give the controller the tools to do the job.
You provide training to use the tools correctly.
You assess competency to ensure that proficiency in the use and application of the tool is up to standard.

5. *English Language Proficiency for Aeronautical Communication
ELPAC*
An English language proficiency test for operational air traffic controllers that meets the ICAO Standards for aeronautical communication
TFG 21 (June 2004) and then HRT 22 (Sept 2004) instructed Eurocontrol to start development of a test to meet ICAO language proficiency requirements. By the end of November 2004 the basic test design had been agreed. TFG 22 (January 2005) re-confirmed the commitment of States to the development of ELPAC = English Language Proficiency for Aeronautical Communication.
*English Language Proficiency for Aeronautical Communication

6. ELPAC TEST STRUCTURE Two test papers:
Paper 1 – Listening Comprehension
Paper 2 – Oral Interaction*
Assessment at ICAO levels 4 & 5
*Versions for tower, approach and en route controllers
Important to note that the test structure proposes two separate papers.
Test versions will need to address the individual and particular environment of Tower, Approach and En route controllers.
A pass will be required in each paper – not a combined score.
Why two test papers?
To get a clear assessment of listening skills
* To assess proficiency of the overall performance through a structured interaction (comprehension, speaking, listening, negotiating, moving easily between phraseology and plain language).
The test must be of sufficient duration to get an adequate sample of performance.

7. PAPER 1 – LISTENING COMPREHENSION
Internet based – paperless test
High level of security
Assessing key listening skills
Items based on authentic pilot & controller messages
Duration +/- 30 minutes
The concept here is that Paper 1 Listening is done over the internet Most likely 80% of the paper can be marked by the computer but because of the nature of some responses (more than a single piece of information is requested) human marking will be needed.
Test design will grade test items such that a correct response will indicate a performance at level 4 or level 5. This is important for ANSPs. If their controllers are assessed at Level 5 then re-testing is only required every 6 years.
All test items will come from original pilot/controller communications but edited and be re-recorded for clarity, and to preserve anonymity.
Sufficient time is needed for accurate assessment of performance.

8. With acknowledgements to Martin Germans
The controller must respond appropriately to pilot messages
It usually takes a few minutes to get this one. Don’t expect laughs from the non-ATC people.
With acknowledgements to Martin Germans

9. PAPER 2 – ORAL INTERACTION
Simulated pilot/controller communication
3 Phases (non-visual & visual)
Assessment of language proficiency:
Routine & non-routine situations
Switching between structured phrases (RTF) and plain English
Negotiating an unexpected situation
Duration about 20 minutes
This is an oral interaction in three parts. In Part 1 (non-visual) the examiner (interlocutor) plays the role of a pilot with a developing unusual situation. The candidate plays controller. In Part 2 the examiner acts as the supervisor to whom the candidate explains what happened in Part 1 (this will be a face-to-face/visual communication).
Phase 3 will, with the aid of visual cues e.g. photograph or chart, explore in more depth the test-takers command of plain English.
Ii is important to emphasize the language element. This is not a test of ATC procedures and there are no separation problems.

10. ELPAC STAKEHOLDERS IFATCA Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs)
Regulators (NSAs, JAA, EASA)
IFATCA
IFALPA
European Commission
ICAEA
ICAO
Controller unions
A list of possible stakeholders – there may be others.
Very important to keep these people informed of development and encourage their participation to stakeholder meetings.
IFATCA = controller participation
IFALPA = pilot participation
ICAEA (International Civil Aviation English Association) = language teacher participation

11. ELPAC – TEST DEVELOPMENT
Core team of ATC & English language experts from:
Spain, Germany, France, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czech Republic and Eurocontrol
Test design consultant from UK
Trialling of prototype November 2005
Software development by ENOVATE
The aim is to create a Core Development Team (6-8 people) who will act as the contact point with their colleagues back home.
There a number of tasks to be done over the duration of the project which will be co-ordinated nationally by the member of the Core Development Team.
ANSPs in the core development are: DFS Germany, France (ENAC and DSNA), Hungary (Hungarocontrol), ATSA Bulgaria, AENA Spain, ANS Czech Republic and Maastricht UAC.
ENOVATE from Bergen working in close co-operation with MultlMedia of the University of Bergen. BITE platform: Bergen Interactive Test of English

12. ELPAC DEVELOPMENT 2005 Definition of test requirements
Design test format
Develop pilot version of test
Analyse pilot test

13. ELPAC DEVELOPMENT 2006 1st major trialling March
External validation of test
Sample tests
2nd major trialling

14. ELPAC DEVELOPMENT 2007 Refinement of test
Production of guidance and support materials
July: ELPAC available for implementation

15. WHO DOES WHAT? Eurocontrol - will develop a test (ELPAC)
ANSPs – will be responsible for training and test administration
NSAs – will ensure compliance with ICAO and EC requirements
? – will be responsible for further development

16. BENEFITS OF A TEST ANSPs fulfill requirements of Annex 11
Regulators comply with Annex 1
Improved controller confidence
Contribution to aviation safety
ELPAC is a test to meet ICAO language proficiency requirements – it may not be the only one. But in Europe we can make a united approach to testing.

17. Will proficiency in English help to save lives?
A simple difference between HELP and HELF. But if you cannot make the connection then go back to school!

18. HOW CAN YOU HELP? Assist in trialling of the test
Advise on optimum process for test administration
Provide valuable feedback during the project
Help us develop the test that meets your needs
Trying to get as many as possible involved to a greater or lesser degree. Important to keep everyone informed of progress and get co-operation.

19. ELPAC English Language Proficiency for Aeronautical Communication
A test for air traffic controllers in
English Language Proficiency for Aeronautical Communication

20. Thank you for your attention
Any questions?