By Adam Hunt
Previously reported in COPA Flight (April 2004), ICAO passed a new standard requiring all ATC and pilot licences worldwide be endorsed with the holder’s language proficiency by March 5, 2008.
The language endorsed can be the local language used in aeronautical communication, such as French in Quebec and the National Capital Region, or English.
Following the ICAO Aviation Language Symposium held at ICAO headquarters in Montreal on Sept 1-3, 2004, Transport Canada started their process of complying with the requirements of the new ICAO standard.
TC decided that the most efficient procedure was to form an internal study group to look at all the issues and make recommendations to the CARAC Part IV Technical Committee.
To maximize the expertise on the study group TC also decided to include COPA representation along with two other key associations, the Air Transport Association of Canada (ATAC) and the Association Quebecoise Transporteurs Aeriens (AQTA).
This new Language Proficiency Study Group (LPSG) started its work with a meeting in Ottawa on Oct. 15, 2004. The first meeting dealt with defining the challenges of complying with the new ICAO standard without incurring costs to pilots for having their language proficiency endorsed on their licences.
The LPSG has been given a short timeframe to complete its large mandate. The work of the group is scheduled to be completed by Nov. 30, 2004 and will be followed by a CARAC Part IV Technical Committee meeting Jan. 20-21, 2005, to brief the larger aviation community on the recommendations for implementation of the ICAO standard.
This issue has been previously identified by COPA as a critical one for costs and “freedom to fly.” COPA has previously stated that it is unacceptable for pilots to have to pay to show compliance with this new rule and the LPSG has started from that premise.
COPA will continue to represent pilots on the LPSG and at the CARAC Part IV Technical Committee to ensure that pilots don’t end up paying for this ICAO standard and that Canada doesn’t end up with requirements that are more restrictive or costly than those adopted by the USA.