Get your "English Proficient" certificate

TMetzinger

TMetzinger

Final Approach
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Messages
9,660
Location
Northern Virginia
Display Name
Display name:
Tim
I saw on AOPA today that all US pilot certificates used internationally have to have an endorsement stating "English Proficient" per an ICAO rule effective March 5, 2008.

If you want to follow the letter of the regulations (or fly internationally), you need to order a replacement certifcate from the FAA, which will contain those two words. All pilot certificates issued after Feb 11 will automatically have the endorsement. You can do the request online. It will take five minutes and cost you $2, and you get a spare certificate in case you lose the one you have now.

Everything you wanted to know about this:
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2008/info08008.pdf


I had my social on my cert so I got a new one for free - we'll see if it comes up with "English Proficient" too.
 
That's a real shame, seeing as I had to demonstrate my ability to read and write the English language on my checkride (FARs) yet ICAO won't recognize it without those two words on my certificate. Sigh.
 
Well that's obnoxious. Might as well head to OKC and get my picture on the thing, too!
 
Teller1900 said:
Well that's obnoxious. Might as well head to OKC and get my picture on the thing, too!
Click to expand...
There are laws against attempts to damage government property.

I wonder if AFS-760 will respond to my request printed in Nihonjin?


:)
 
The link in the article Tim linked to is not helpful.

This link may be more helpful in learning the criteria used to establish what constitutes "proficiency".

http://www.jeppesen.com/wlcs/index.jsp?section=JeppAcademy&content=English_Training.jsp

So a pilot flying to, say Canada or Mexico or the Bahamas, after March 05, 2008 would not be in compliance without the cert replacement?

And what enforcement action would be taken against the cert of said pilot?


The article does mention that this is a ICAO not US requirement but would the aforementioned countries initiate enforcement action?

What a bunch of BS....
 
Oddly, I received this email today.

Hello All,
I would like to take this opportunity to express my profound respect for my Mother Tongue "Bengali" and for everyone else's Mother Tongue as well on the eve of the February 21, 2008, "The International Mother Language Day". Please check the following links for the history of ultimate sacrifices that the Bengali Language Martyrs made with their lives on February 21, 1952 for the right to speak in their own mother tongue. In honor of this tragically glorious event, UNESCO officially declared the observance of the 21st February as "The International Mother Language Day" every year worldwide since the Millennium year 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Mother_Language_Day
http://www.pmo.gov.bd/21february/imld_back.htm
Click to expand...

 
I ordered a new certificate yesterday. I had been meaning to anyways. I like ordering a second one that way when I upgrade I also still have a souvenir of my previous certificate. But I digress.

What I found interesting was this time around they want you to provide phot id to get your new certificate. The way they do this is your select what government photo id you want to use from a drop down menu and then they verify that is really your some how. I was intrigued that they have access to the driver license and passport records but it occurred to me how do they really know that was me. They cannot see me typing. OR CAN THEY ;)
 
smigaldi said:
I ordered a new certificate yesterday. I had been meaning to anyways. I like ordering a second one that way when I upgrade I also still have a souvenir of my previous certificate. But I digress.

What I found interesting was this time around they want you to provide phot id to get your new certificate. The way they do this is your select what government photo id you want to use from a drop down menu and then they verify that is really your some how. I was intrigued that they have access to the driver license and passport records but it occurred to me how do they really know that was me. They cannot see me typing. OR CAN THEY ;)
Click to expand...

IT proverb, never assume proficiency when incompetence is blatant.

We gotta figure they had weeks and weeks of meetings and that question was answered by "It has to be him. He's the one applying and we'll mail it to his address." (That we just let him change.)

e.g. I witnessed the head of a certain unnamed dept. (not this one) say they verified it was you because you have to verify the email address by answering an email message. :confused:

Dare I ask? Would Mohammad Atta have been stopped by this requirement?





Didn't think so.
 
smigaldi said:
They cannot see me typing. OR CAN THEY ;)
Click to expand...
Hmmmm.... The company just issued me a new Fujitsu laptop and it has a webcam built in. It is in the rim of the case at the top of the screen, pointed right at the typist.

Maybe they can see you, Scott.

Maybe I should put some electrical tape over the lens.....

-Skip
 

Attachments

  • eye.jpg
    eye.jpg
    6.5 KB · Views: 1
So let's say you land in Canada w/o the new phrase emblazened on your certificate. What if when questioned as to why you are not declared "English Proficient" you answer in flawless English "'cause I think that requirement is complete BS"? Think that would satisfy the requirement?
 
AWACSEng said:
So let's say you land in Canada w/o the new phrase emblazened on your certificate. What if when questioned as to why you are not declared "English Proficient" you answer in flawless English "'cause I think that requirement is complete BS"? Think that would satisfy the requirement?
Click to expand...

Nope. In Canada you would better off speaking flawless French. Den nobody would mess wid 'cha.
 
HPNPilot1200 said:
That's a real shame, seeing as I had to demonstrate my ability to read and write the English language on my checkride (FARs) yet ICAO won't recognize it without those two words on my certificate. Sigh.
Click to expand...
So I suppose now I won't be able to use the "good moral character" requirement for an ATP as my defense, either.:dunno:
 
RMCN172RG said:
Ya can't mix French and Hoser in one sentence unless your calling a Hockey came, eh.

Beauty, now who took my Molsen?
Click to expand...

yes I can. I'm married to a Canuk and in order to semi-communicate with her family, I gotta use French, Hoser, and Newfie all at the same time. After a week visiting them, I probably couldn't claim to be "English Proficient":rofl::rofl:
 
AWACSEng said:
yes I can. I'm married to a Canuk and in order to semi-communicate with her family, I gotta use French, Hoser, and Newfie all at the same time. After a week visiting them, I probably couldn't claim to be "English Proficient":rofl::rofl:
Click to expand...

Wow, you could try re-entering via Nawlins to ease your way back to English Proficiency:D
 
AWACSEng said:
yes I can. I'm married to a Canuk and in order to semi-communicate with her family, I gotta use French, Hoser, and Newfie all at the same time. After a week visiting them, I probably couldn't claim to be "English Proficient":rofl::rofl:
Click to expand...

Lard Thundering Jesus Bye! You knows y'arnt from the rock, is yeh? It's a terrible fine place now!
 
Nope, never been to the rock. Father in law's side is newfie and I had quite the time tryin' to understand what they were sayin' after a few bottles of Blue.
 
smigaldi said:
I was intrigued that they have access to the driver license and passport records but it occurred to me how do they really know that was me. They cannot see me typing. OR CAN THEY ;)
Click to expand...

I watched a program on Military Channel last night, and learned that the Global Hawk cameras can resolve the words in a book on the ground from 60,000 feet. I bet they know what you're typing right now!!!
 
flyersfan31 said:
I watched a program on Military Channel last night, and learned that the Global Hawk cameras can resolve the words in a book on the ground from 60,000 feet. I bet they know what you're typing right now!!!
Click to expand...

Nope, the blinds are closed:fcross:
 
RMCN172RG said:
Nope, the blinds are closed:fcross:
Click to expand...

That won't stop 'em.

I remember a friend of my dad's talking about a demo of a spy satellite he'd just seen (this would have been probably early 90's) and what most impressed him was that they'd zoomed in on his house and read him the license plate number off his car.

Inside the garage. :hairraise:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
That won't stop 'em.

I remember a friend of my dad's talking about a demo of a spy satellite he'd just seen (this would have been probably early 90's) and what most impressed him was that they'd zoomed in on his house and read him the license plate number off his car.

Inside the garage. :hairraise:
Click to expand...
I don't believe that. First if that was true and he told you that he should be in jail for violating the law on protection of secret material. But more importantly that type of resolution is actually beyond physics and is the type of OWT that I have often, yet have never seen backed up by real intel, heard about. What you see now on Google Earth, in the way of resolution, was highly classified in the 90's. Resolutions of around 1/2 meter is more likely these days. That is more than good enough. What remains classified is where they are taking pics, how often, and what they can interpret. That last statement meaning that they do not just use visible light. They look at a broad spectrum of wavelengths when performing a recon.
 
smigaldi said:
...snip... But more importantly that type of resolution is actually beyond physics and is the type of OWT that I have often, yet have never seen backed up by real intel, heard about. ...snip... They look at a broad spectrum of wavelengths when performing a recon.
Click to expand...
And you don't think they were using that broad spectrum in the '90s or that it is possible they used this technology to read a piece of metal treated with reflective paint or that it was wild speculation or that it was reported as fact to bolster one's reputation points? Any and all are possible and since the military just shot down a KH13 for $76 MILLION, I'm betting there's a lot out there WE don't know, can't guess, and never will. FOIA be damned, the government won't let out things that might hurt them (that is, compromise security).
 
silver-eagle said:
And you don't think they were using that broad spectrum in the '90s or that it is possible they used this technology to read a piece of metal treated with reflective paint or that it was wild speculation or that it was reported as fact to bolster one's reputation points? Any and all are possible and since the military just shot down a KH13 for $76 MILLION, I'm betting there's a lot out there WE don't know, can't guess, and never will. FOIA be damned, the government won't let out things that might hurt them (that is, compromise security).
Click to expand...
I didn't say they did not. I was actually very careful in parsing my words to make sure I only gave mentioned public information. It has been my experience that what is kept secret is not really all that secret nor all that fanciful either. There were often times that I would see stuff that would end up in Newsweek or Aviation and Space Technology months if not weeks after it passed over my desk.
 
smigaldi said:
I didn't say they did not. I was actually very careful in parsing my words to make sure I only gave mentioned public information. It has been my experience that what is kept secret is not really all that secret nor all that fanciful either. There were often times that I would see stuff that would end up in Newsweek or Aviation and Space Technology months if not weeks after it passed over my desk.
Click to expand...
So, that's how you made your fortune? :)
 
smigaldi said:
I don't believe that. First if that was true and he told you that he should be in jail for violating the law on protection of secret material. But more importantly that type of resolution is actually beyond physics and is the type of OWT that I have often, yet have never seen backed up by real intel, heard about. What you see now on Google Earth, in the way of resolution, was highly classified in the 90's. Resolutions of around 1/2 meter is more likely these days. That is more than good enough. What remains classified is where they are taking pics, how often, and what they can interpret. That last statement meaning that they do not just use visible light. They look at a broad spectrum of wavelengths when performing a recon.
Click to expand...
I am not at liberty to discuss that I know it to be true that which you don't believe. But I have seen it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top