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
 The work

of the PRICE Study Group
What
 The ICAO Language
FSS – Oct. 05
proficiency requirements
Aviation Language Proficiency

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



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.
FSS – Oct. 05
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
FSS – Oct. 05
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
FSS – Oct. 05
A Systemic Perspective
Design
Reason Model
Management
Training
Supervision
Kept under control in
normal system conditions…
Operations
Sources: Docs 9683; 9806
A Systemic Perspective (cont.)
Design
Management
Training
Supervision
…surface in unstable
system conditions
(with great damaging
potential)
Operations
Sources: Docs 9683; 9806
A Training Perspective
H
SHELL Model
S
L
E
L
Mismatches at the operational interfaces = breeding
grounds for operational errors
Source: Doc 9683
An Operational Perspective
Threats
Threat Management
Strategies
Threat and Error
Management (TEM)
Model
FSS – Oct. 05
Errors
Error Management
Strategies
Undesired State
Source: Doc 9803
Language Proficiency: A Threat
Passenger management
Language Proficiency
ATC
Terrain
Cabin Crew
Weather
Similar call signs
Maintenance
Time pressure
Ground Crew
Flight
diversions
Heavy traffic
System
malfunctions
Unfamiliar airports
FSS – Oct. 05
Automation events
Missed approaches
Source: Doc 9803
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
FSS – Oct. 05
Aviation Language Proficiency
Managing language proficiency in aviation safety:
A risk management exercise
Denial: defensive attitude
Repair: cosmetic acceptance
Reform: tackle the safety concern
FSS – Oct. 05
IICAO Aviation Language Proficiency requirements
How to tackle the safety concern?


IL-76/B747 mid-air collision, India – Nov. 1996
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



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
FSS – Oct. 05
The Issues




Existing provisions at the time
Phraseology vs. plain language
English only or English and other languages
Means to assess language proficiency reliably
FSS – Oct. 05
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
FSS – Oct. 05
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!
FSS – Oct. 05
Pre-eminent R/T communication problems:






frequency congestion,
poor microphone technique,
ambiguity,
phonetic similarity,
incomplete call-signs,
confused sequence of
numbers in messages,
FSS – Oct. 05





strings of instructions,
truncated phraseologies,
inadequate
acknowledgements,
readback errors,
hearback errors.
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


… is insufficient to deal with the full range of situations
requiring R/T exchange.
… but how to complement standardized phraseologies?
FSS – Oct. 05
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.


FSS – Oct. 05
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.
FSS – Oct. 05
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.
FSS – Oct. 05
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.

FSS – Oct. 05
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
FSS – Oct. 05
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!

FSS – Oct. 05
What





Annex 10
Annex 1
 General concept
 Review of the provisions
 Implementation timeline
Annex 6
Annex 11
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

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
FSS – Oct. 05
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
FSS – Oct. 05
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
FSS – Oct. 05
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
FSS – Oct. 05
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
Shall speak and understand
Rating scale is applied
27 Nov.
2003
FSS – Oct. 05
5 March
2008
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
Aeroplane & helicopter pilots (PPL, CPL and ATPL)
Language proficiency in Annex 1
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
FSS – Oct. 05
Free balloon and glider pilots
Flight engineersLanguage 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
FSS – Oct. 05
Flight navigators
Language proficiency in Annex 1


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
FSS – Oct. 05
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
FSS – Oct. 05
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)
FSS – Oct. 05
Other Aspects


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
ICAO will review the progress in the implementation of the Language
proficiency Standard in 2006
FSS – Oct. 05
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
FSS – Oct. 05
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
FSS – Oct. 05
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
FSS – Oct. 05
ICAO – EUROCONTROL
EUROPEAN SEMINAR ON LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY
FOR AERONAUTICALCOMMUNICATIONS
End
FSS – Oct. 05