ICAO – EUROCONTROL EUROPEAN SEMINAR ON LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY FOR AERONAUTICALCOMMUNICATIONS Brussels, October 2005 ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices Paul Lamy Chief, Flight Safety Section – ICAO

FSS – Oct. 05 ICAO Aviation Language Proficiency requirements l Why The safety concern l How The work of the PRICE Study Group l What The ICAO Language proficiency requirements

FSS – Oct. 05 Aviation Language Proficiency l Why What is the safety concern(s) in international civil aviation for which the ICAO language proficiency requirements might provide an answer?

FSS – Oct. 05 A review of 28,000 safety reports l Over 70% of problems cited involved message exchange. l Communication errors still represent largest category of problems. l However, only 1% of communications are compromised by inaccuracy.

FSS – Oct. 05 The Trail of Wreckage Trident/DC-9 mid-air collision, Zagreb Trident/DC-9 mid-air collision, Zagreb Double B747 runway collision, Tenerife Double B747 runway collision, Tenerife B707 fuel exhaustation, JFK B707 fuel exhaustation, JFK B757 CFIT, Cali B757 CFIT, Cali IL-76/B747 mid-air collision, India IL-76/B747 mid-air collision, India MD83/Shorts 330 runway collision, Paris/CDG MD83/Shorts 330 runway collision, Paris/CDG MD80/Citation runway collision, Milan – 2001 MD80/Citation runway collision, Milan – 2001 Helios Airways – Greece August 2005 (?) Helios Airways – Greece August 2005 (?) … The common element: Communication … The common element: Communication

FSS – Oct. 05 Air-Ground Communications l Has been a safety concern for decades l 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

A Systemic Perspective Operations Design Training Supervision Management Kept under control in normal system conditions… Reason Model Sources: Docs 9683; 9806

A Systemic Perspective (cont.) Design Management Training Supervision Operations …surface in unstable system conditions (with great damaging potential) Sources: Docs 9683; 9806

A Training Perspective A Training Perspective Mismatches at the operational interfaces = breeding grounds for operational errors Mismatches at the operational interfaces = breeding grounds for operational errors L L L S E H SHELL Model Source: Doc 9683

FSS – Oct. 05 An Operational Perspective Threats Threat Management Strategies Error Management Strategies Errors Undesired State Threat and Error Management (TEM) Model Source: Doc 9803

FSS – Oct. 05 Language Proficiency: A Threat Weather Maintenance GroundCrew Ground Crew CabinCrew Cabin Crew Passenger management ATC Terrain Similar call signs Time pressure Heavytraffic Heavy traffic Unfamiliarairports Unfamiliar airports Automationevents Automation events Missedapproaches Missed approaches Flight diversions Systemmalfunctions Source: Doc 9803 Language Proficiency

FSS – Oct. 05 Therefore, as Safety Practitioners… l Language proficiency is NOT a cultural issue NOT a cultural issue NOT a case of cultural imperialism NOT a case of cultural imperialism From a safety management perspectiveFrom a safety management perspective A latent condition with safety damaging potential A latent condition with safety damaging potential From a training management perspective From a training management perspective A technical skill acquired through conventional training A technical skill acquired through conventional training From an operational management perspective From an operational management perspective A threat that increases complexity of aviation operations A threat that increases complexity of aviation operations

FSS – Oct. 05 Managing language proficiency in aviation safety: A risk management exercise Denial: defensive attitude Repair: cosmetic acceptance Reform: tackle the safety concern Aviation Language Proficiency

FSS – Oct. 05 IICAO Aviation Language Proficiency requirements How to tackle the safety concern? l IL-76/B747 mid-air collision, India – Nov l 32nd ICAO Assembly 1998

FSS – Oct. 05 RESOLUTION A-32 by 32nd Assembly of ICAO 1998 “…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”

FSS – Oct. 05 PRICE STUDY GROUP l Proficiency Requirement In Common English Study Group l Comprised aviation and linguistic experts from Argentina, Canada, China, France, Russia, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the United States, EUROCONTROL, IATA, IFATCA, IFALPA and ICAO. l Mandated to Review all aspects of air-ground and ground-ground voice communication Develop requirements concerning English language testing Develop language proficiency requirements

FSS – Oct. 05 The Issues l Existing provisions at the time l Phraseology vs. plain language l English only or English and other languages l Means to assess language proficiency reliably

FSS – Oct. 05 Previous Annex 10 requirements l Phraseologies to be used when specified l Language Language of the ground station Hope of developing a universal radiotelephony speech English should be made available pending the development of such universal radiotelephony speech Use of interpreters

FSS – Oct. 05 Previous ICAO language requirements l For controllers: “… speak the languages designated for use in air traffic control without accent or impediment which could adversely affect communication”; l For pilots: Strangely quiet!

FSS – Oct. 05 Pre-eminent R/T communication problems: l frequency congestion, l poor microphone technique, l ambiguity, l phonetic similarity, l incomplete call-signs, l confused sequence of numbers in messages, l strings of instructions, l truncated phraseologies, l inadequate acknowledgements, l readback errors, l hearback errors.

FSS – Oct. 05 How compliant are pilots and controllers? “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).

FSS – Oct. 05 Standardized Phraseology l … is insufficient to deal with the full range of situations requiring R/T exchange. l … but how to complement standardized phraseologies?

FSS – Oct. 05 English vs. universal speech l 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. l 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.

FSS – Oct. 05 English: Sole universal aviation language? l Would it eradicate all possibility of misapprehension? No! l Would it greatly aid situational awareness? Yes, but it assumes that everyone has proper English proficiency Yes; but it would not make it complete!  Some transmissions are blocked;  Not all aircraft transmit on frequency;  Controllers hand-over blocks of airspace to third parties;  Crews’ workload disallows constant monitoring. An erroneous assumption of situational awareness could be prejudicial to safe operations.

FSS – Oct. 05 PRICE SG conclusions (1) l Phraseologies shall be used whenever possible but … l … there is no practical alternative to the use of plain language for the full range of aeronautical R/T communication, and l 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.

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

FSS – Oct. 05 PRICE SG conclusions (3) l Parity must exist between pilots and controllers in language proficiency requirements; thus l A single minimum standard is the best solution for the entire target group; but.. l.. it does not mean that the test shall be the same l Responsibility shall also be vested in airline operators and ATS providers for ensuring that staff meet proficiency requirements

FSS – Oct. 05 PRICE SG conclusions (4) l 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, l We need and can improve the 1% figure!

FSS – Oct. 05 What l Annex 10 l Annex 1 General concept Review of the provisions Implementation timeline l Annex 6 l Annex 11 l PANS-ATM

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

FSS – Oct. 05 Annex 10 – Volume II l Phraseology and Plain Language Para 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

FSS – Oct. 05 Annex 10 – Volume II l Language(s) to be used Para : 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 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

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

FSS – Oct. 05 Annex 1 l 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 l Licences without language proficiency requirements Flight Dispatcher Aircraft Maintenance Engineer

FSS – Oct. 05 General Principles l Limited to radiotelephony communication l The “Speak and Understand” Standard l Cover all languages used in radio communication l Assessment using a rating scale (level 4) l Progressive implementation 27 Nov March 2008 Rating scale is applied Shall speak and understand

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

FSS – Oct. 05 Language proficiency in Annex 1 l shall demonstrate the ability to speak and understand the language used for radiotelephony communications (Standard ) l after 5 March 2008, the “speak and understand” ability shall be demonstrated to level 4 of the ICAO rating scale (Standard 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) l previous Standard on the use of radiotelephony procedures and phraseology still applies Aeroplane & helicopter pilots (PPL, CPL and ATPL) Air traffic controllers and aeronautical station operators

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

FSS – Oct. 05 Language proficiency in Annex 1 l 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 l Previous Standard on the use of radiotelephony procedures and phraseology still applies for all Flight Navigators Flight navigators

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

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

FSS – Oct. 05 Other Aspects l Some good reasons to start evaluating language proficiency using the ICAO rating scale before 5 March 2008: a) for recruitment purposes b) for benchmarking purposes c) to be prepared for the 5 March 2008 deadline l ICAO will review the progress in the implementation of the Language proficiency Standard in 2006

FSS – Oct. 05 Other Annexes l Annex 6: (Parts I and III) operators shall ensure that flight crew speak and understand the language used for radiotelephony communications l Annex 11: Air traffic service providers shall ensure that air traffic controllers speak and understand the language used for radiotelephony communications l English language shall be used for communications between air traffic control units except when another language is mutually agreed l 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

FSS – Oct. 05 Review by the Commission l The Air Navigation Commission will undertake a review of the implementation of the language proficiency provision in 2006 : Assessment of the level of implementation (actual and planned) Review of the difficulties faced during the implementation Corrective measures if necessary and assistance No significant changes are to be expected in view of the safety concern

FSS – Oct. 05 Audit l 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

FSS – Oct. 05 ICAO – EUROCONTROL EUROPEAN SEMINAR ON LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY FOR AERONAUTICALCOMMUNICATIONS End