ICAO Aviation Language Proficiency Requirements – The Background Captain Daniel Maurino Flight Safety and Human Factors, ICAO ASPA/ICAO CAR/SAM Regional Seminar on Safety Management Systems (SMS) Mexico City, 14 to 16 March 2005 1 1

Resolution A32-16 (1998) “…Council & Commission… strengthen provisions... obligating Contracting States to take 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”

Air-Ground Communications A long standing safety concern Conventional wisdom – Two pillars standardized phraseology development of R/T speech based on simplified English Moderate success

Pillar #1 – Standardized Phraseology Insufficient to deal with the full range of situations requiring R/T exchange

Pillar # 2 – R/T Based Upon Simplified English Annex 1, pre-1998 ATCO’s: “… speak the languages designated for use in air traffic control without accent or impediment which could adversely affect communication” Pilots: nothing

Air-Ground Communications Revisited A32-16 – The need for a fresh view Development of Standards strengthening the use of standard phraseology clarifying usage of English in aviation operations establishing language proficiency requirements The Price SG

Linguistic Research, circa 1998 Natural languages are most effective form of speech Natural language is the only form of communication sufficiently reliable comprehensive adaptable for international aviation operations

PRICE Study Group – Premises Make Standards acceptable to the target group(s)? Allocate responsibility to airline operators and air navigation service providers? Optimize interface between Standards and input from commercial training & testing providers? Frame Standards that can be easily integrated into State regulatory frame works?

PRICE SG conclusions (1) Standardized phraseology – First line of defence Plain language – Second line of defence [for the full range of aeronautical R/T communication] Exchange of critical operational information requires understanding of the fundamentals of linguistics appreciation of the susceptibility of language to misapprehension commitment to standards of discipline and care

PRICE SG conclusions (2) Universal availability of one means of radiotelephony communication – important for safety and efficiency Lack of a language common to flight crew and ground stations – safety concern Need to retain the language used by stations on the ground

PRICE SG conclusions (3) Similar proficiency requirements for pilots and controllers A single minimum standard for the entire target group Airline operators/ATS providers responsible for ensuring target group proficiency requirements

PRICE SG conclusions (4) Heavy impact of the Standards in the aviation “Do-able” if extensive guidance material education & awareness programs worldwide staff support activities by operators increased compliance with ICAO standardized phraseology commitment

Clarifying Usage of “Aviation” English No silver bullet for all R/T communication problems blocked transmissions not all aircraft on frequency controllers hand-over blocks of airspace to third parties crews workload disallows constant monitoring Enhances management of the immediate operational context If everyone is English-proficient Over blowing the potential of English – boomerang effect

“Aviation” English Does not belong to a particular culture A tool for controllers & pilots [as a matter of convenience] Has no special inherent qualities Most accessible of all second languages can be successfully integrated into training programs in common English

Language proficiency requirements Annex 1 – Personnel Licensing Annex 6 – Operation of Aircraft Annex 10 – Aeronautical Communications Annex 11 – Air Traffic Services 7

Annex 1 Personnel Licensing Demonstrate the ability to speak and understand the language used for radiotelephony communications The Rating Scale and Holistic Descriptors The “speak and understand” ability shall be demonstrated to level 4 of the ICAO rating scale

Annex 1 Implementation Notes Language proficiency requirements apply to pilots engaged in international flights Recurrent testing shall be required for those below level 6 every 3 years for level 4 every 6 years for level 5 Grandfather clause for licences issued before 5 March 2004 5 March 2008

Annex 1 Other Aspects Manual on the Implementation of ICAO Language Proficiency Requirements (Doc 9835) Review of progress in the implementation of the Language proficiency Standards in 2006 Consequences of non-compliance with the language proficiency Standards

Annex 6 – Operation of Aircraft, Parts I and III Operators shall ensure that flight crews speak and understand the language used for radiotelephony communications Standards related to Language proficiency in Annexe 6 and 11 are more limited in scope but are nevertheless important

Annex 10 Aeronautical Telecommunications Plain language shall be used only when standardized phraseology cannot serve an intended transmission Communications shall be conducted in the language normally used by the station on the ground or in the English language English shall be available, on request from any aircraft station, at all airports and routes used by international air services Standards related to Language proficiency in Annexe 6 and 11 are more limited in scope but are nevertheless important

Annex 11 Air Traffic Services Air traffic service providers shall ensure that air traffic controllers speak and understand the language used for radiotelephony communications English shall be used for communications between air traffic control units except when another language is mutually agreed Standards related to Language proficiency in Annexe 6 and 11 are more limited in scope but are nevertheless important

ICAO Audits The ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme Language proficiency Standards in Annexes 1, 6, 10 and 11 starting in 2005

Language Proficiency: 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 … The common element: English language proficiency Source: ADREP

From an SMS Perspective: A Hazard Passenger management ATC Cabin Crew Terrain Weather Similar call signs Maintenance Time pressure Ground Crew Flight diversions Slide will appear with the cockpit and title only. ONE MOUSE CLICK will start the animation and automatically show many of the LOSA observer threats. This is a good opportunity to compare the list that the class developed with those that were specifically looked for on the observations. Heavy traffic System malfunctions Unfamiliar airports Automation events Missed approaches