OK, but then it would be an effort at „lightening up“ the Swiss implementation of the LP mandate, which is very different from what is written in the snippet above.
Peter wrote:
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.Rumours say that the Swiss have the most demanding / difficult language proficiency test in EASA-land. I did my latest ELP online with ilpt.net from Denmark and got L6. Before, I had L5, which I did on-site in Essen/Germany.
Renewed it recently and got Level 5 again. It cost me ~300 EUR to get legal for another 6 years€300 sounds way too expensive. I paid €179 at ilpt.net and it worked out very well, and paid another 45 CHF to FOCA for the ELP entry into my license.
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?
Absolutely. With all the challenges we have in Switzerland including loosing access to the main airports e.t.c. the ELP is the very last thing on my mind. It looks to me more like someones personal vendetta or the “justification” of “doing something” than anything else. Very disappointing.
I guess the background is that particularly in Western Switzerland, there are still quite a few pilots who deem themselves unable/unwilling to pass the LP exams and putting some pressure on AOPA to fight it…. instead of getting a grip on themselves and finally getting it done.
Fly310 wrote:
The ELP is only about English language, not even aviation related English.
The ELP was introduced because there are ample examples of pilots who can not communicate in English but still do with cheat sheets and heaven knows what, but are not capable of understanding the actual conversations. That is a danger and nuissance. Particularly in the airline world, the lack of ELP has caused some serious incidents in the past. It was a good idea but it went astray because exactly those countries it was aimed at did all they could to sabotage it from day one.
boscomantico wrote:
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.
I think what caused the resentment against ELP was the requirement that English shall be used as the only ATC language on all controlled airports in Switzerland. This caused quite a stir in the French part, where lots of people never did the ELP as they were used to communicate in French at airports like Geneva and Sion. I would imagine that this is where the campaign originates and it is why they mix up the requirement to use English with the ELP itself.
antoinebk wrote:
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.
I did both and hold an ELP level 6. While I agree that the table exams are sometimes a bit weird, the ELP exam was straightforward. The challenging part is listening-comprehension, which at the same time is the vital part. Most ATC cockups attributed to language problems stem out of the inability of pilots to properly understand what their opposite really wants to tell them.
The “table exam” is there to check people’s capability in standard phraseology. The ELP has to do with the general command of the language, which also contributes to understanding commands given by ATC primarily and being able to communicate properly outside the standard phraseology, which does become necessary particularly in non-standard situations.
antoinebk wrote:
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.
Don’t you need a French LP as well if you want to communicate in French?
Frans wrote:
Some Swiss pilots said to me that I would only get L4, and even some native speakers have difficulty to obtain L6 in Switzerland. Luckily, the FOCA (Swiss CAA) accepts all language proficiency tests from EASA member states, so you could do easily one online from providers abroad. No reason to do the LP test in Switzerland itself.
I have done the ELP in Switzerland and achieved L6 on the first attempt. Actually, on my very first ELP test, they were not yet authorized to do 6 and I was told to come back to do L6 the moment they can. I found the exam challenging (particularly listening/comprehension) but fair and to the point.
The thing with “native speakers” is something which amuses me. They need to be able to communicate in something other people can understand. Quite a few dialects and accents definitly do not fulfil that requirement and I know some “native speakers” whose English has not much to do with the requirements of ELP. Additionally I have repeatedly overheard ATC struggling with some Brits who are neither capable of proper standard phraseology nor able to understand ATC properly. But that has to do more with a questionable RT exam than ELP.
In order to do ATC properly you NEED a certain fluency in the language you do ATC in. IMHO proficiency in the language is the precondition for being able to do proper standard phraseology: You can’t seriously do one without the other.
@Mooney_Driver
Yes, it is a serious problem when someone fly an aircraft all over the world and doesn’t understand a word of English.
The idea of ELP is good but it probably did not solve much of the original issue since the examinations are still done within the country where the problem is. I guess the pilots of “Air China 981”(search YouTube for those who haven’t heard) all have ELP level 6 by now.
Fly310 wrote:
I guess the pilots of “Air China 981”(search YouTube for those who haven’t heard) all have ELP level 6 by now.
Well, given the number of amusing videos about pilots being confused about this exact situation it seems to me that being “cleared into the ramp” by a separate apron control is unique to KJFK.
Also, if the ground controller has to ask crew about being “cleared into the ramp” wouldn’t it be easier if apron control passed that information directly to ground control…?
No idea, who and why pushed this item on the agenda – and dont’t care too much.
My view: just reading the news, that is not even close to being a real problem for Swiss GA.
And: Focus is everything for advocacy work.
Diluting the message weakens it significantly.
Incidentally, who can take AOPA serious, if English language is considered an issue ???
(And yes, language training incl. Phraseology never hurts – as listening in will confirm / not necessarily excluding myself here)
Just read some of the stuff posted, the situation is nuts.
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
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.
It also appears to me there may be an inability by many to distinguish between the need to be proficient in English language and the need to be repeatedly tested and tracked by government in that proficiency. The translation of the initiative above is as follows:
No Language Proficiency Check for private pilots flying according VFR. A good “standard phraseology” is fully sufficient
Which implies that instead of additional ELP testing an assessment would be done by the CAA examiner in practical testing, just like any other flying related skill and just like FAA practice. If that’s the case this seems perfectly reasonable to me and if implemented would subtract one item from the many, many such things that pile up to make European GA a regulatory nightmare for participants. Ideally this would then lead to less reliance on communication with ATC for VFR flights, and more rational airspace to allow it. Dismantling chaotic overregulation needs to be done one step at a time.
The long term solution needs to be the near elimination of voice communication, replaced by e.g. ADS-B traffic and other non-verbal tools. Bearing down hard on what will never work, in a country where English is not the native language is not the solution to create growth versus ongoing paralysis.
Silvaire wrote:
Which implies that instead of additional ELP testing an assessment would be done by the CAA examiner in practical testing, just like any other flying related skill and just like FAA practice.
No. You get your RT exam once and it’s for life. You need to retest your ELP depending on your level, if you reach level 6 it is also for life. Level 4 and 5 have regular re-testing intervals.
What they imply by “standard phraseology” is “learnt by heart” phrases that those people know, often read from cheat sheets. And while I sometimes wonder how they did get past the RT exam, still a lot of people used to be able to exercise RT privileges without any discernible knowledge of English as a spoken language.
I doubt that anyone showing that skill level of ATC communication would pass an FAA check ride or a bi-anual flight review in the US.
Some of the people involved are also anglophobes who simply don’t WANT to speak English but their local language instead and feel their rights infringed by the regulation that controlled aerodromes MUST use English at all times. I think this is the background why AOPA Switzerland is still beating this dead horse, to satisfy that clientele. Personally I find this a waste of time, considering the pressing problems GA has, such as outpricing (loss of ZRH for GA from 2024 on as a starter, which was never even addressed by AOPA to my knowledge!!) only being the most obvious.
So for most people, AOPA membership these days is about the crew card and the resulting reduced rates at some destinations they may or may not fly to.
No. You get your RT exam once and it’s for life. You need to retest your ELP depending on your level, if you reach level 6 it is also for life. Level 4 and 5 have regular re-testing intervals.
Please. The details of the existing disaster are tedious and who cares? The whole thing as you describe it is just stupid, just like the seemingly hundreds of other examples of anal retentive nonsense associated with European GA, varying in detail between countries to add a rich and multifaceted landscape of nonsense that can be endlessly discussed, meanwhile adding nothing of value to anything. Nobody with an efficient brain has patience for this and other stupidity, which is why the activity is dying before your eyes.
