1 / 18

Verifying ELP compliance: The SAFA perspective

Verifying ELP compliance: The SAFA perspective. Federico GRANDINI SAFA Coordination Officer 24 May 2011. EASA Organisational Structure – A&S Directorate. Content. Regulatory background ICAO Resolution A36-11 SAFA approach (2009) ICAO Resolution A37-10 ICAO State Letter AN 12/44.6-11/1

maxwell-rasmussen
Download Presentation

Verifying ELP compliance: The SAFA perspective

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. Verifying ELP compliance:The SAFA perspective Federico GRANDINI SAFA Coordination Officer 24 May 2011

  2. EASA Organisational Structure – A&S Directorate

  3. Content • Regulatory background • ICAO Resolution A36-11 • SAFA approach (2009) • ICAO Resolution A37-10 • ICAO State Letter AN 12/44.6-11/1 • SAFA results on ELP • Implementation plans filed with ICAO • State of play • SAFA approach (2011)

  4. Regulatory background • With the amendment 164 to the Annex 1, published on 5 March 2003, ICAO has introduced new provisions requiring pilots to comply with language proficiency requirements: • 1.2.9.1 Aeroplane, airship, helicopter and powered-lift pilots and those flight navigators who are required to use the radio telephone aboard an aircraft shall demonstrate the ability to speak and understand the language used for radiotelephony communications. • 1.2.9.4 As of 5 March 2008, aeroplane, airship, helicopter and powered-lift pilots, air traffic controllers and aeronautical station operators shall demonstrate the ability to speak and understand the language used for radiotelephony communications to the level specified in the language proficiency requirements in Appendix 1.

  5. Regulatory background • These standards are also reinforced by a standard in the Annex 6, Part 1: • 3.1.8 Operators shall ensure that flight crew members demonstrate the ability to speak and understand the language used for radiotelephony communications as specified in Annex 1. • In addition to the above mentioned standards, the Annex 1 requires that the endorsement of the language proficiency appears in the licence: • 5.1.1.2 The following details shall appear on the licence: XIII) Remarks, i.e. special endorsements relating to limitations and endorsements for privileges, including from 5 March 2008 an endorsement of language proficiency, and other information required in pursuance to Article 39 of the Chicago Convention. • Similar requirements introduced in Europe with JAR-FCL 1, Amendment 7 and JAR-FCL 2 (Amendment 6) and are also included in the EASA Opinion which is the basis of the future Part-FCL

  6. ICAO Resolution A36-11 • During the 36th ICAO Assembly (September 2007), recognising “that the Contracting States encounter considerable difficulties in implementing the language proficiency requirements”, the Assembly adopted the Resolution A36-11 urging the Contracting States to: • accept pilots who do not yet meet the ICAO language requirements, for a period not exceeding 3 years after the applicability date of 5th of March 2008, provided that the licence issuing state has made its implementation plan available to all other Contracting States; • those Contacting States which cannot meet the language proficiency requirements are required to develop implementation plans and publish them on the ICAO website. Resolution A36-11 should not be considered as an amendment to Annex 1

  7. SAFA approach (2009) • ESSG-6 meeting (Brussels, 9-10 March 2009): • pilots’ compliance with the ELP requirements shall be verified during SAFA inspections; • non-compliances to be categorised taking due account of the ICAO Resolution A36-11 and whether the Licensing State complied with the relevant obligation to file with ICAO an implementation plan; • approach was agreed and subsequently included in the EASA SAFA Guidance Material on Ramp Inspections.

  8. SAFA approach (2009) • Until 5 March 2011 • No endorsement (or endorsement with a lower level) of the required English language proficiency (but corrective action plan filed by the licensing state to ICAO) should be categorised as a category 1 finding. • No endorsement (or endorsement with a lower level) of the required English language proficiency (and no corrective action plan filed by the licensing state to ICAO) should be categorised as a category 2 finding. • After 5 March 2011 • A licence not meeting the ICAO language proficiency requirements (either not endorsed or endorsed with a lower level) should be categorised as a category 3 finding

  9. ICAO Resolution A37-10 • Since several states indicated they were still facing difficulties in complying with ELP requirements by 5 March 2011, a new ICAO Resolution (A37-10) was adopted, superseding the previous Resolution A36-11. With this new Resolution (clauses 7, 8 and 9) the ICAO Assembly: • Urges Contracting States not yet fully compliant on 5 March 2011 to continue to provide ICAO with regularly updated implementation plans including progress achieved in meeting their timelines for full compliance; • Urges Contracting States after 5 March 2011 to take a flexible approach towards States that do not yet meet the Language Proficiency Requirements, yet are making progress as evidenced in their implementation plans. Decisions concerning operations should be made on a non-discriminatory basis and not be made for the purpose of gaining economic advantage; • Directs the Council to monitor the status of implementation of the Language Proficiency Requirements and take necessary actions to advance safety and maintain the regularity of international civil aviation;

  10. ICAO State Letter AN 12/44.6-11/1 • Sent on 21 January 2011 by the ICAO Secretariat • Drawing attention on the Resolution A37-10 • Providing additional information on clauses 7-9. • Inter alia, ICAO states for clause 8 “If you are a State reviewing the plans of other States, the resolution urges you to make operational decisions that do not discriminate or create unfair economic advantages”

  11. SAFA results on ELP • A review of SAFA inspections carried out between 1 January 2010 and 31 January 2011 (13 months) indicated the following results: • the item A20 (Flight Crew Licence) was inspected 11,719 times (out of a total number of inspections of 12,375); • in 5.8% of the cases the inspections identified findings concerning the language proficiency of the pilots (no ELP endorsement or endorsement with level lower than required); • in certain cases it was identified that, although pilots have the ELP endorsed in their licence with the required level, the communication between inspectors and crew was very difficult, raising doubts about the effectiveness of the ELP examination; • The percentage of ELP related findings is significantly higher for certain states, some of which having an important volume of operations to Europe (even with a ratio higher than 40%); • the monthly incidence of ELP findings did not indicate a gradual decrease of such findings likely to be expected when approaching the original cut-off date of 5 March 2011

  12. Implementation plans filed with ICAO • A review of the implementation plans filed with ICAO by the contracting states (status as of 31 January 2011) shows the following: • 70 states notified ICAO about their full compliance with the ELP requirements – 27 of those states are SAFA Participating states; • 77 states and territories have filed implementation plans covering the period 2008-2010 – including 9 SAFA states; • 16 states filed an implementation plan for 2011 – including 5 SAFA states; • 32 states and territories have not notified ICAO of their status of compliance with ELP requirements (no information at all).

  13. State of play • Almost 8 years after the introduction of the requirements and after a 3 years moratorium introduced by the ICAO Assembly in 2007, compliance with the ELP is not yet fully achieved as acknowledged in the Assembly Resolution A37-10 and as observed by means of SAFA inspections. • The Assembly Resolution A37-10 urges the contacting states to take a flexible approach towards States not fully compliant but which are making progress in implementing the ELP requirements. Moreover, the Assembly is urging the contracting states to take operational decisions on a non-discriminatory basis and not for the purpose of gaining economic advantage

  14. SAFA approach (2011) • The Air Safety Committee, during its last meeting which took place from 5 to 7 April 2011, endorsed EASA’s proposal for a new categorisation of non-compliances with ICAO English Language Proficiency (ELP) requirements for pilots • ref. recital (8) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EC) No 390/2011 of 19 April 2011 • EASA’s proposal detailed in a Working Paper presented at the 12th ESSG meeting in Lisbon, 2-3 March 2011, and endorsed by the Steering Group • Purpose is to guarantee full compliance with ELP standards without further delay

  15. SAFA approach (2011) • Practical consequences: • a category 3 finding should be raised in case of no ELP compliance (no or expired ELP endorsement, or having an with a level lower than the minimum required level 4) and where the licensing state has not filed an action plan with ICAO for 2011, or has notified full compliance without effectively respecting this requirement; • a category 2 finding should be raised in case of no ELP compliance but where the licensing state has filed an action plan with ICAO for 2011 to bring itself to compliance; • a general remark (category G) should be recorded where formal ELP compliance can be attested even though actual communication during the ramp inspection process is very difficult because of the clear lack of English command of the pilots

  16. SAFA approach (2011) • General principles of EASA’s proposal: • SAFA participating states are invited to continue to inspect pilots’ compliance with the required ELP requirements; • SAFA participating states are invited to establish functional links with their Air Navigation Service Providers with the aim of identifying unsafe situations which may have occurred due to insufficient command of the English Language, and to report without delay such situation by inserting a Standard Report in the EASA Centralised SAFA database; • A cut-off date should be agreed and established after which all ELP findings (no endorsement or endorsement with a lower level) should be categorised as a major (cat. 3) finding. • SAFA participating states are invited to ensure that their own SAFA inspectors also possess a good command of the English Language, and as far as practicable this could be attested by demonstrating their proficiency at the same level as the one required for pilots (Level 4).

  17. EASA – SAFA Contacts • SAFA Coordination: • Mr Eduard Ciofu – Section manager SAFA Coordination • Mr Jeroen Jansen –SAFA Coordination Officer • Mr Federico Grandini –SAFA Coordination Officer e-mail: safa@easa.europa.eu www.easa.eu

  18. Thank you for your attention

More Related