110 likes | 117 Views
L anguage proficiency requirements workshop – St. Petersburg, Russian Federation, 24-26 May 2011. Report of the ECAC AD-HOC Working Group on English language proficiency. Context : the ICAO requirements. Annexes:
E N D
Language proficiency requirements workshop – St. Petersburg, Russian Federation, 24-26 May 2011 Report of the ECAC AD-HOC Working Group on English language proficiency
Context : the ICAO requirements • Annexes: • The ICAO provisions in respect of LP are contained in Annex 1, Annex 6 and Annex 11 • Waivers are addressed through Articles 39 and 40 of the Chicago Convention • licences which does not satisfy in full must be endorsed accordingly • ICAO resolutions: • ICAO Resolution A36-11 adopted in 2007, decided a transition period (2008-2011) by which it urged States that could not comply by 5 march 2008 to develop and publish “Language proficiency implementation plans” • ICAO Resolution A37-10 adopted in 2010 superseded ICAO Resolution A36-11, decided to allow a flexible approach to those States
Background • 5 March 2011 end of the so-called “transition period” • Resolution 37/10 seemed to contemplate the possibility of continuing non-compliance with ICAO requirements indefinitely … • Among ECAC States, concern was expressed during the Directors general meeting in 7 December 2010 about Resolution 37/10 • Directors general charged an “ad hoc” group to explore a common approach by ECAC states to cases of non-compliance by Third-countries • The ad-hoc group met on 2 February 2011 under the chairmanship of Mr Karim Bekkouche, France • The ad-hoc group was composed of representatives from ECAC States with the support of ICAO and EASA
The WG constraints • The WG was conscious from the outset it should no intrude into aspects covered with the international rules and the EU legislation • Between the ICAO requirements and the European requirements set up by the European Commission, the « room for maneuver » of the WG group was close : • The ICAO LP requirements set up a set of criteria “Associated practises” to be used among Contracting States • The European requirements set up procedures for conducting ramp inspections on aircraft including LP aspects
European constraints : SAFA inspections • EU regulations addresses the pilots which fly on aircraft registered within the EU community • The foreign aircraft are submitted to SAFA RAMP INSPECTIONS PROCEDURES • SAFA inspectors might be very reluctant to detain an aircraft simply for reason of the pilots poor English, nevertheless …
SAFA inspections • … The European Commission and EASA has decided to reinforce the SAFA policy in this matter • Decision of the EU Air Safety Committee April 2011 on the proposition of the European SAFA Steering Group (ESSG/12): • Cat 2 (significant) finding if the licence is not ICAO-compliant and the States has filed an Implementation Plan (instead of Cat 1 previously) • Cat 3 (Major) if the licence is not ICAO-compliant and the states has not has filed an Implementation Plan Plan (instead of Cat 2 previously) • Cat G (General Remarks) of the licence has the necessary endorsement but the pilots in practise unable to communicate properly in English
Generality on Flexibility • The WG considered that : • the flexibility shall be based on ACTUAL COMPLIANCE AS OPPOSED of CLAIMED COMPLIANCE • Statements of compliance, on their own, are of limited value • It means that the compliance should be established on SAFA ramp inspections and USOAP audits • In the absence of information about the effort of a State to achieve compliance, there should be NO QUESTION OF ANY FLEXIBILITY
Criteria for granting Flexibility • The WG had particular regard to the ICAO “Associated practises” concerning Contracting States that are not compliant • The WG considers that before to grant any flexibility, a State should verify that 9 conditions are realised : • The Implementation Plan should be updated with progress report every 6 months • Evidence of its notification of non-compliance to ICAO is provided • Evidence of its publication in AIPs of differences
Period of Flexibility • The WG considered the question of the period of flexibility • The WG reached no conclusion on agreeing amongst themselves of a common deadline • The period of flexibility should be specifically stated at the outset between the State granting flexibility and the State for which the flexibility is allowed • The WG saw more interest in triggering withdrawal of flexibility in case of non compliance
Conclusions • The WG considered: • WG attaches importance to English LP • WG considers it is therefore regrettable that the Resolution 37/10 has undermined the efforts of the aviation community to 5 march 2011 as the last possible date for achieving compliance • WG recognises it is necessary to allow a certain flexibility provided that flexibility be strictly restricted within the frame of 9 criteria • In the absence of adequate information, no flexibility should be granted • The period of flexibility should be specifically stated at the outset between the state granting flexibility and the state for which the flexibility is allowed
End • Thank you very much for your attention