1 / 46

ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices Paul Lamy Chief, Flight Safety Section – ICAO

ICAO – EUROCONTROL EUROPEAN SEMINAR ON LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY FOR AERONAUTICALCOMMUNICATIONS Brussels, 27-28 October 2005. ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices Paul Lamy Chief, Flight Safety Section – ICAO. ICAO Aviation Language Proficiency requirements. Why The safety concern How

lerato
Download Presentation

ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices Paul Lamy Chief, Flight Safety Section – ICAO

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ICAO – EUROCONTROLEUROPEAN SEMINAR ON LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY FOR AERONAUTICALCOMMUNICATIONS Brussels, 27-28 October 2005 ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices Paul Lamy Chief, Flight Safety Section– ICAO

  2. ICAO Aviation Language Proficiency requirements • Why • The safety concern • How • The work of the PRICE Study Group • What • The ICAO Language proficiency requirements

  3. Aviation Language Proficiency • Why • What is the safety concern(s) in international civil aviation for which the ICAO language proficiency requirements might provide ananswer?

  4. 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. A review of 28,000 safety reports

  5. 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

  6. Air-Ground Communications • Has been a safety concern for decades • 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

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

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

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

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

  11. Language Proficiency: A Threat Passenger management Language Proficiency ATC Terrain CabinCrew Weather Similarcallsigns Maintenance Timepressure GroundCrew Flightdiversions Heavytraffic System malfunctions Unfamiliarairports Automationevents Missedapproaches Source: Doc 9803

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

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

  14. IICAO Aviation Language Proficiency requirements How to tackle the safety concern? • IL-76/B747 mid-air collision, India – Nov. 1996 • 32nd ICAO Assembly 1998

  15. 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”

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

  17. The Issues • Existing provisions at the time • Phraseology vs. plain language • English only or English and other languages • Means to assess language proficiency reliably

  18. Previous Annex 10 requirements • Phraseologies to be used when specified • 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

  19. Previous ICAO language requirements • 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!

  20. 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. Pre-eminent R/T communication problems:

  21. “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). How compliant are pilots and controllers?

  22. Standardized Phraseology • … is insufficient to deal with the full range of situations requiring R/T exchange. • … but how to complement standardized phraseologies?

  23. English vs. universal speech • 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.

  24. English: Sole universal aviation language? • Would it eradicate all possibility of misapprehension? • No! • 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.

  25. PRICE SG 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.

  26. PRICE SG 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.

  27. PRICE SG 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; but .. • .. it does not mean that the test shall be the same • Responsibility shall also be vested in airline operators and ATS providers for ensuring that staff meet proficiency requirements

  28. PRICE SG 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!

  29. What • Annex 10 • Annex 1 • General concept • Review of the provisions • Implementation timeline • Annex 6 • Annex 11 • PANS-ATM

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

  31. 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

  32. 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

  33. 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

  34. Annex 1 • 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

  35. Shall speak and understand Rating scale is applied General Principles • 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 27 Nov. 2003 5 March 2008

  36. 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

  37. Language proficiency in Annex 1 Aeroplane & helicopter pilots (PPL, CPL and ATPL) Air traffic controllers and aeronautical station operators • 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

  38. 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

  39. 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

  40. 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

  41. Other Aspects • 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)

  42. Other Aspects • 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

  43. Other Annexes • 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

  44. Review by the Commission • 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

  45. 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

  46. ICAO – EUROCONTROLEUROPEAN SEMINAR ON LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY FOR AERONAUTICALCOMMUNICATIONS End

More Related