According to the latest AOPA Switzerland Position Report, one of the proposals is to drop the ELP requirement for VFR PPLs.
Text translated by Deep.com:
Language Proficiency Implementation:
We demand, among other things:
Not sure about this one. I usually listen out to FIS frequencies during my flights. Far from me being “ATC perfect” myself, but most of what I hear just makes me cringe. And I would rate the VFR (and some IFR) pilot voice standard as low, to very low. Bad is that this is usually compounded by a lack of airspace awareness and attending rules. Even most standard position reports are mostly erratic and inaccurate.
FIS controllers are to be commended for their patience and understanding: having to call airplanes several times just to get an answer, obliged to repeat frequencies multiple times, warn not to enter controlled airspace to pilots who clearly skipped any flight prep and don’t understand what they are being told, trying to decipher responses or questions in unintelligible, equivocal, and perplexing manners, etc, etc.
I’d wish AOPA pursue a fight against the darker clouds of GA, instead of trying to drop this requirement… what do you guys think?
Dan wrote:
I’d wish AOPA pursue a fight against the darker clouds of GA, instead of trying to drop this requirement… what do you guys think?
Couldn’t agree more.
The problem with the ELP is it has very little to do with English proficiency as such. At least in Norway it becomes an utter and completely useless nuisance, as most pilot people speak/write/understand better English than most of ATC and the examiners, who’s only English practice is ATC-English by the sound of it.
Besides, English isn’t even used in most of GA airspace except at controlled airspace. For some strange reason people with no English proficiency get by just fine outside controlled airspace, no matter where they come from.
It seems to me that English is not the problem. Too little practice of “ATC jargon” is, or too little SA, too little understanding of controlled airspace, and it’s independent of language.
I have no problem with seeing the ELP gone. It has nothing to do with the problems you describe. That is phraseology and radio discipline/experience.
The ELP is only about English language, not even aviation related English.
If not English, then what? Can we expect a mix of all the official languages at any given field in Switzerland?
What about visitors, who don’t speak any of them? How are we expected to build any kind of SA of what’s going on around us?
ELP is not the problem, it’s poor phraseology in general, and people flying with garbage radios and headsets, who can’t read back anything correctly because they don’t hear it in the first place.
There are more urgent and useful fights to fight.
I am no expert in Swiss radiotelephony legislation, but that summary above suggests that they are mixing up LP requirements and radiotelephony requirements. What language must or must not be used on aeronautical stations is primarily a matter of radiotelephony legislation, not LP. LP is about pilot license privileges.
boscomantico wrote:
What language must or must not be used on aeronautical stations is primarily a matter of radiotelephony legislation, not LP. LP is about pilot license privileges.
It’s not that simple. For EASA licenses that’s obviously the case, at least technically, but for national registered planes and national licenses, there are no LP requirements. There usually are RT requirements to be able to fly in controlled airspace, and LP becomes linked to RT licenses, unless of course one also has a PPL
LP is linked to RT, but it’s all bundled up in the (EASA) pilot license. Which is a large part of the nuisance, because LP cannot be renewed by someone signing the license. You have to get a new license each time from the CAA, and that is not free of charge. Renewal is usually not even in sync. The only way out of this nonsense is to get a 6 in ELP. You are better off with a national license in that regards, with a separate paper for RT/ELP.
For the record, I happen to have 6 in ELP, but I fully agree with Swiss AOPA. This ELP is the most nonsensical thing ever to have happened. It’s simply a big chunk of useless nuisance. The focus (on the entire RT) should be put on phraseology, and practicing of that phraseology, together with understanding of how controlled airspace works in practice, nothing else.
I had Level 5 and it lapsed last year. Renewed it recently and got Level 5 again. It cost me ~300 EUR to get legal for another 6 years and to learn that I am mispronouncing “r” in “gyro” and “relay”, as well as making “isolated grammar mistakes” in sequence of tenses, as in “I was afraid we’ll have to land somewhere in the Czech Republic”.
I think the assessment was fair enough, although I was surprised to learn that in essence “it’s not a phraseology exam” – ? – because maybe it should be?! (though I know I wouldn’t score 10/10 anyway …)
Then I had to apply for a new license printout, which could be easily done through an e-government platform. And then came the real penalty for taking the exam without any serious preparation (… and getting “just a 5”). Namely: the new license cannot be posted and one needs to pick it up personally at one of CAA’s offices. Options are: Warsaw (2.5h by train one way), Wroclaw (2.5h driving), Rzeszów (ditto), Poznań (3.5h driving), Kraków (1h driving). Opening hours of Krakow branch are Monday to Friday, between 9 and 13 LT (… contrary to what the website says). And absolutely no random turning up! Prior appointment is required, as only senior members of staff can hand out the licenses, making sure you duly hand over your old and invalid one. All in all, not doable without taking at least half a day off work :)
Lesson learned, next time I will do better!
It is completely ridiculous that you get only L5, with such practically perfect English (same for @chflyer BTW), when large swathes of ATC around Europe quite obviously cannot understand even the most clearly spoken simple English phrases yet they “have L4”.
From many flights to/over CH I would have thought Swiss ATC understand English pretty well and Swiss pilots probably have a generally high ELP level too. The Swiss are one of the biggest foreign-traveling communities in Europe and that will correlate with high ELP. Not travelling to foreign lands equally correlates with low ELP.
Does AOPA CH expect this will make a significant difference?
The particularity with Switzerland is that they make you do a classroom exam for phraseology on top of the typical ELP exam. These are two separate things although reasonably similar. It’s quite an expensive endeavor (about 600-700€ if you count in the preparation required) and you have to do it once for VFR and again for IFR.
Since it’s a classroom exam, it’s a very artificial exercise where you have to simulate a fictional flight and the examiner can make up constraints as they go. To be honest, I’ve done the IFR one and I thought it was ridiculous.
In France, there is no such thing for example. The PPL FE signs you off for the exam including real world phraseology and you get you radiotelephony this way. Same for the IRE on your instrument initial.
In my opinion, getting rid of the classroom radiotelephony exam is an obviously smart move that will save students money that did not need to be spent in the first place.
