ICAO English language proficiency

[glush]

So by my reckoning, March 2011 is the cutoff point where UK JAR licence holders are required to have been assessed at Level 6 English language proficiency. So if you haven't already got (or don't get the option to fly a test of some kind with an FE that has ICAO level 6) the form SRG1199 completed, it's off to an English language school to be taught how to speak aviation English, and pass a test before you can get your JAR licence renewed/revalidated....

Or have I missed something?

[Whopity]

No I think you have missed the point. The requirement to have English Language Proficiency on your licence was March 2008 if you want to use RT Internationally. There is no requirement to have level 6 at all, only Level 4 or above.

If you held a UK FRTOL you were automatically given Level 4 as a grandfather right so your licence was reissued with English Proficiency; only the CAA know what level. In theory level 4 must be tested every 3 years but if you still have a FRTOL, surely you must still be entitled to another level 4! Ask yourself, are they likely to take it away after 3 years? Of course not. Ideally on your next flight with an examiner you get the Level 6 endorsement sign off that is valid for life. If you are a native English speaker nobody is going to bust a gut over it. The UK was attempting to demonstrate that it was taking this new ICAO requirement seriously however it wasn't thought out very well.

[glush]

I think the CAA may have painted themselves in a corner over this actually, probably without realising the implications....

My reading of the ICAO language proficiency is that it's not just related to International flights - rather, that this is an International requirement to attain Level 6.

Only those people who have passed the RT practical in the last couple of years will have had their form signed off by an RT examiner at Level 6. So everybody else (i.e. pre March 2008 'ish) is still only Level 4. This was the 'getout' used by the CAA in 2008. Only those pilots who have had a flight with an FE (who themselves need to be approved at Level 6), and have the form 1199 signed accordingly by the FE can become registered as Level 6 by sending in the 1199 with their licence when it needs to be renewed/re-validated.

Therefore, anyone who has revalidated thier SEP rating by experience, or doesn't hold an MEP, IMC, IR rating, will have had no need of a flight with an FE... Surely this must mean that there are 100's of pilots out there who will therefore require to be 'tested', as they will not have level 6.

I really don't believe the CAA have thought this through.....

[Whopity]

All Examiners are Level 6 and it doesn't take a flight test to determine if someone is a native English speaker. The ICAO requirement is here: ICAO | FLS | FAQs (http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm)

[pembroke]

This issue was raised with the CAA last year and the form SRG 1119 Issue 15,1-9-09 had a small change. The explanation for para. 6, re the English language assessment indicates that if the examiner is satisfied, the PPL can be signed off as level 6, irrespective of whether this form is used for revalidation by experience or other tests. This is theory is stored by the CAA, with no indication in the licence whether one is level 4 or 6. I'm told all will change come full EASA and 2012!

[2close]

All Examiners are Level 6 and it doesn't take a flight test to determine if someone is a native English speaker

Feet on the ground, I agree with that statement but we have another example of something that has been ill thought through, and which I'm sure could have been easily avoided.

Examiners are only Level 6 if they have been assessed as such and it actually states in the following document that an examiner has to have been assessed at Level 6 in order to assess someone else at Level 6.

CAA Form SRG 1199

The CAA has determined that certain persons, themselves holding
ICAO Language Proficiency in English at Level 6 - Expert, are acceptable for the conduct of Informal Evaluation of ICAO Language Proficiency in English at Level 6.

The question is 'who assessed the examiner at Level 6?'. You can't state that someone is Level 6 merely on the basis of being an examiner. Yes, the vast majority are native English speakers, very experienced instructors who are able to determine whether or not the examinee would be understood over the radio. However, I (and probably others out there) have occasionally come across the odd UK based examiner who falls short of the ICAO Level 6 descriptors and may not be assessed at Level 6 and therefore, by the CAA's own rules, could not informally assess another person at Level 6.

Surely, whilst it may admittedly seem unnecessarily bureaucratic, in order for the system to work properly, the examiner must have been FORMALLY assessed at Level 6.

[S-Works]

The question is 'who assessed the examiner at Level 6?'.

We are tested at initial issue and at renewal by a Staff Member of the CAA. Usually a CAA FE or the CFE. That is how we are/were assessed as level 6.

[Whopity]

The question is 'who assessed the examiner at Level 6?'.The CAA conducted the assessment in house through the various Senior Examiners who knew the individuals concerned and granted them a Level 6. This was done early in 2008. RTF Examiners were done in 2005.

[pembroke]

And then of course there are the ground examiners,"GR". How are they awarded level 6 status in order to grant the same ,whilst completing the "revalidation by experience" on pages 1 and 2 of SRG\1119?

[S-Works]

A GR examiner can only hold LVL6 if they have been assessed at LVL 6 through either a direct assessment or through a flight test.

This is because a GRE is awarded differently to a Flight Examiner. A GRE is appointed without a standardisation flight with a CAA FE as it basically an administrative position

As I stated above as Flight Examiners we are/were tested in person by the CAA and this granted LVL6.

[Whopity]

How are they awarded level 6 status in order to grant the same ,whilst completing the "revalidation by experience" on pages 1 and 2 of SRG\1119?GR Examiners are not authorised to sign the Certificate on a SRG 1119 only a TRE/CRE/FE can do that. http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1688/Language%20Proficiency%20Process_examiners.pdf

[2close]

This is all very interesting.

I don't suppose anyone recalls which test or process was used by the CAA to validate FE's, etc. at Level 6.

I have a genuine interest in this and am not asking just for the sake of asking.

Cheers.

:)

[S-Works]

Are you referring to Staff FE's or us industry FE's? For industry we were granted Lvl6 as part of the continuous assessment during examiner training and the subsequent standardisation ride with a CAA FE.

There are guidelines as what constitutes each level and if you tick the boxes you are granted the appropriate level.


Can you clarify a bit further what you are asking?

[Whopity]

Yes, it was quite simple, they produced a list of all relevant examiners and through a group of senior examiners who had personal knowledge of them, determined that they were fluent English speakers. Thinking about it, there were probably very few they really had to consider. There was no complex process nor did there need to be.

[BEagle]

The CAA made a complete bolleaux of this whole thing and well they know it.

They were more $hit scared of being accused of racism if they refused a de facto ICAO English qualification to someone who, whilst holding a UK-issued licence, was not British by birth than anything else.

All UK-born CAA-issued pilot licence holders should have been granted automatic ICAO level 6 English and that would have been that. But no, some timid idiot wouldn't accept that.....:mad:

[pembroke]

Whopity, re the above, a GRE can sign off class rating on a SEP,within the validity period where the revalidation is "by experience". Re Stds Doc 11, version 8, page 8, para 3.3.2b. Ps I agree with all the other comments, "in my very best english"

[Whopity]

Pembroke: I was only referring to the English Prof Cert.

If people have been given a Level 4 on the basis of having a FRTOL then as long as they hold it, they will always have a level 4! Nothing is going to change.

[TractorBoy]

What should the licence say if you're level 6 proficient ? I sent off a renewal with the lvl 6 section signed by an examiner, and AFAIK the licence I got back simply stated that I was English proficient, with no level indicated on the actual licence - identical to what I had when I had level 4 ?

[Whopity]

Thats right, it gives no indication of Level. Only the CAA know that, and possibly the holder.

[mad_jock]

Nor does the French flight ops inspector when your license is in its last year and they decide that you might only be a level 4 cause they pulled you on something else and you proved them wrong after they filled out the paper work, so hold you on the ground. Your training Deptment faxes through your last LPC form with level 6 signed off on it along with the TRE's papers. The pilots company didn't even bother trying to get the details off the CAA as it was after 16:00z they would proberly want a release of information form, some money and its a 5 day wait at the moment (so many pilots going off to the middle east I presume). Thankfully we escaped getting checked before it was resolved but it sure screwed one crews duty time that day, if they even managed to sort it that day. I realised during the next sector my license was in the same limbo, in its last year with a presumed level 4 on it.

But its policy by the CAA, the fact that pilots might end up in prison over the policy doesn't seem to bother them. Gawd knows what you would do as a private pilot if you get pulled on a Saturday or Friday evening.

What's the reason behind this policy?

[Whopity]

The ICAO requirement:

Endorsements under Annex 1 paragraph 5.1.1.2, XIII

If a pilot has been assessed to level 4 or higher in English, the licence should indicate the following:

Meets language proficiency requirement
in accordance with para 1.2.9.4 of ICAO Annex 1 for English valid until [DATE]
ICAO | FLS | FAQs (http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm)

[BEagle]

...the licence should indicate the following:

Well, that's OK then. 'Should' is purely a recommendation - had this been a mandatory requirement, the wording would have been '..the licence shall include the following:...'. As it doesn't, there is NO legal requirement for this nonsense, it would seem.

[mad_jock]

Nope that would work BEagle all we need is a date on it. For a level 6 that can be the renewal date.

Next question is why is the CAA issuing none IACO compliant RT licenses?

Come whopity why can't we have exactly what it says in that document?

Meets language proficiency requirement
in accordance with para 1.2.9.4 of ICAO Annex 1 for English valid until [DATE]


There ain't no date on it currently. Why not? Opps sorry I know the answer its "policy".

Seems very strange that the CAA is anal retentive about all other forms of company paper work but there own paper work which I might add is used by every single UK pilot is actually not compliant.

[Whopity]

Actually there is no such thing as an ICAO compliant RT Licence; RT Licences are issued in accordance with the requirements of the ITU and do not carry an ICAO English endorsement.

The fact that there is no date implies that its non expiring or valid for the period of the licence.

[mad_jock]

The fact that there is no date implies that its non expiring or valid for the period of the licence.

Not if your a second English language speaker and your aim is to shaft British flight crew. And other country's actually have a date on them as per the document you quoted.

And the question still stands why can't we have a date on it?

[Sepp]

Good idea. I may one day forget how to speak my native tongue - one cannot be too careful!*

* As a Brummie, I realise that there will be some folks who would wish to take issue with my professing an ability to speak English in the first place. :)

[Whopity]

And the question still stands why can't we have a date on it?What date do you put for a Level 6? The FAA don't put a date on it either.

There is no requirement in JAR-FCL or ICAO Annex 1.2.9.4 to include a date, only in the ICAO FAQ.

The French Ops Inspector has no remit to ask for anything other than the entry!

[mad_jock]

The date that the license expires would be more than helpful for a level 6 or the date that the level 4 or 5 runs out.

Exactly as the document you quoted says. If its in the FAQ's why do we have to be different for no real reason apart from "policy"

Just something that gives a valid until date.

I really can't understand why there is so much resistance to put a date on it. Or stick (level 6) after the entry. It takes 30 secs to set up the template so it automatically puts in the same date as the Flight Crew license in section IX.

Its not as if the remarks section is full of other info.

Whats the problem with a small change so crew don't get grief?

Its all very well arguing the toss in London that there is no requirment for it. Its a completely different when your in some Airport discussing the Issue with some one that could put you in the nick for the night.

French Flight Ops inspectors do alot of things that in the UK would be considered outside there scope of an inspection. Even had one of the open an emergency exit, thankfully we had a TRE in the other aircraft to sort the tech log out. And they have a habit of grounding you while they argue the toss.

[2close]

Look at the Irish AA licences. They have a full page which,as I recall, includes an explanation of the system, the ICAO level of the holder, validity date, etc. As stated above, it's not rocket science.

As for the UK 'informal assessment' system, I'd have no problem with it whatsoever as common sense dictates that a native English speaker can identify whether or not another person is a FLUENT English speaker........except that it appears that examiners are ticking the Level 6 box, regardless of the actual ability of the candidate to speak English.

I make this statement with some authority as (a) I am a qualified English Language Proficiency Assessor at an accredited Test Centre and (b) I come across UK CAA issued PPL and CPL / IR holders on a very regular basis in the course of my work who are nowhere near ICAO Level 6 - some Level 5, more often Level 4 and occasionally pushing the boundaries of Level 4 where there is difficulty understanding them; however, they have been ticked off by the FE as Level 6 with no further assessment necessary.

The question is 'why?'. The vast majority are obviously not Fluent English speakers, so why are FE's informally assessing them as Level 6?

In a similar respect, I have been told personally by some foreign students that they don't undertake the assessment in their own country because they know that they may not pass even at Level 4 but they 'do know' (having been told by their mates) that they WILL be assessed as Level 6 during their Skills Test in the UK. That smacks of taking the 'p***' out of the examiners, to be honest.

So, I have no problem with the informal assessment procedure provided that it is being applied correctly, which doesn't appear to be the case

[AviationEnglish]

As a professional language trainer and Aviation English consultant, I can tell you that the UK CAA's error regarding this matter lay in the following fact-it assumed that the majority of its licence holders will be level 6 because it also assumes the majority are UK natives. This as we all know is simply not the case.
The subject of Language Proficiency is still very unregulated and lacks standardised testing on a global level.

[AviationEnglish]

It is indeed true that the FAA had a language requirement in place before ICAO's recommendations came in. However my point concerning standardisation remains the same. What test was originally used by the FAA to initially test Language Proficiency? Does that original testing method contain the required content of today's LP requirements? What about new pilots under FAA, how are they tested these days? How similar is the new test to the original test? The fact remains, due entirely to the fact that ICAO made no effort to get involved in test accrediation, that all tests currently being used, whether created by National Aviation Authorities internally or the commercial ones (VAET, AEROSOLUTIONS, RELTA,TEA etc etc) contain very very different content and provide different results. Fact.

[AviationEnglish]

Interesting doc, thanks SoCal App. What I note is that it the 1997 FAA requirements on LP do indeed differ from the the current ones in that they tested all 4 skills, including writing and reading. As you probably know the current requirement only assesses speaking and listening.
While it's great to know the FAA were already thinking ahead back then, it still shows that there is a global discrepancy in testing. On the one hand we have the FAA relying on its previous across the board level 4, and on the other we have a wide variety of tests used across the EASA member states. I have personally experienced two sets of results from one pilot taking two different tests. Even though both results were a pass (4 and 5), if testing continues to be unstandardised we could end up with pilots actively researching "the easiest test" out there, and in worst case scenario, have "false level 4" pilots in the skies.

[AviationEnglish]

My fault, I was implying the current ICAO requirement.

[SN146]

The thing with the English language testing, it not the testing itself, but rather the classification of the results as well as the consequences it has.

It is fairly easy to determine whether somebody is able to communicate in English sufficiently well, but it is far far more complicated to accurately rate that person's ability on a score from 1 to 6.

To obtain a level 6, you basically need to speak English correctly, fluently and without repeated hesitations nor disturbing accents.

The thing is however, many native English speakers won't be able to hide their accent (some of which ARE disturbing, even to other native speakers) nor will many be able to speak fluently either if you give them a randomly selected topic to talk about.

And how many native speakers won't make small grammatical errors in their spoken language? I am definitely not always perfectly fluent in my own language either, at least not when using the same criteria used to get to a level 6 in some of the tests being used!

If however you're taking the test as a non-native speaker, all these 'errors' are detected by the automated system and make you end up with 'just' a level 5 at best, meaning you have to take the test again every so many years which is totally ridiculous really, given the fact I am convinced half of the native speakers woudn't get a level 6 either if they were to take the same automated test, nor is it making any sense to assume non-native speakers would suddenly completely forget how to speak English correctly after a few years!

As such, the evaluation system should be fully reworked, IMHO, although I have a feeling test centres will be opposing any change that makes it easier to get 'life-long proficiency'. After all, what's better for them, you think: give non-native speakers who can communicate without any problems in English but who obviously show their origin life-long proficiency, or give them just a level 5 and have them come back every so many years to take the test again? :rolleyes:

That many native speakers aren't at level 6 standards either, yet are automatically assumed to be so just because they happen to be a UK citizen, is conveniently disregarded in all this, although it actually means those non-native speakers with a level 6 rating, are often more proficient in English than the average pilot from the US or the UK! :ugh:

[2close]

SN146,

There is a lot of truth in what you say - the assessor's practical examination (over 1 - 1 1/2 days with a required 100% pass mark) is without doubt the hardest practical exam I have ever taken and it is not always easy to objectively score candidates, especially Level 3 - 4 marginal candidates.

Likewise, there are British dialects which are often very difficult to understand, especially over RT equipment. I recall many years ago interviewing an Irish lad from Strabane and I had to have an "interpreter" present as his dialect was incomprehensible. There are possibly some native English speakers who would only achieve Level 5, however, I would expect these to be the exception rather than the rule as the Level 6 ICAO Descriptor for Pronunciation states 'almost never interferes with ease of understanding' so it is acceptable for occasional difficulties to arise, which you may find with regional UK dialects and could expect with most non-native but fluent English speakers - that would not preclude them from achieving Level 6 unless it regularly interfered with understanding.

Conversely, I would expect the majority of non-native English speaking persons to be assessed below Level 6 and this is where the biggest problem creeps in as candidates are being signed off at Level 6 as the result of an 'informal assessment' when they are clearly nowhere near Level 6 - I see this on a very regular basis.

A typical conversation I often have when discussing assessments with foreign students is along the lines of:

"Why should I take the test now when I will be signed off at Level 6 in my Skills Test?"

"How can you guaranteee you will signed off as Level 6?"

"My friends told me; they did their training at XYZ and they were signed off as Level 6 and their English is much worse than mine".

BTW, the above foreign students' English is not usually up to the above standard - I wrote it that way for clarity of understanding.

Another student I know personally, who is at best Level 4 (and was a very marginal Level 4 when he was initially assessed - personally I would have assessed him at Level 3), claims to have been told by one flight school that he will be assessed at Level 6 during his Skills Test provided he does his training with this particular school. That's one way of securing business.

These are very dangerous precedents to set and make a complete mockery of the whole rationale behind introducing English language testing in the first place. What is the point of having an English Language Testing system if it's not going to be rigidly applied and to be perfectly honest it seems that the UK is leading the way in misapplication of the ICAO Language requirements. In one native English speaking country I know of all candidates are formally tested, regardless of fluency in English, if the candidate is going to be flying internationally. That may seem to be excessive but it certainly dots the i's and crosses t's.

As I stated previously I have no problem with informal assessment of candidates at Level 6 by examiners provided that the candidate is without any doubt fluent in English but where any doubt exists that candidate MUST be referred for formal assessment...........before his misunderstanding of an ATC instruction kills someone (the avoidance of which was the foundation for this whole system of standardisation and assessment in the first place). I am quite certain any subsequent enquiry into a serious incident which revealed an incorrect action by a pilot as the result of a misunderstanding of any instruction owing to a poor standard of English when he had been signed off at Level 6 could result in serious allegations and even claims for compensation in this world of never ending litigation in which we live. I'm not saying that WOULD happen, just that it could.

However, I can empathise with examiners as I know from experience that it's not always easy to sign someone off at a lower level when that person is convinced and insistent that their English is of a higher standard than it actually is. Recently we assessed someone at Level 4 who insisted on being a Level 6 English Assessor in their own country, which did not go down too well. So telling someone, "You've passed your Skills Test but your English isn't up to scratch and needs formal assessing before you can apply for your licence" would be very demoralising for the candidate and can't be easy.

:)

[DFC]

All UK-born CAA-issued pilot licence holders should have been granted automatic ICAO level 6 English and that would have been that


:D :D :D

BEagle - you are wasted by not being employed by the CAA..

Only you would provide a language proficiency cert to a Mute!!!!! :D :D :D

[AviationEnglish]

2close
Couldn't agree more about all that you say in your last post, especially the total discrepancies in levels being given and lack of standardisation. This is not only happening at CAA level as you mention but also at external language provider level where test results and rater standards vary greatly. This means in effect no two level 4s are really the same!

By the way, can you give more details on the Asessor's test you mention, presuming this is CAA driven?

[2close]

No, the Assessor's examination I'm referring to has nothing to do with the CAA but is the test for accreditation as an Interlocutor and Rater using the British Council approved Test of English for Aviation.

The candidate, following the training course, has to correctly rate a number of recordings of interlocution.

Not only must the overall grading in each case be correct but each individual area, i.e. Pronunciation, Structure, Vocabulary, Fluency, Interaction, Comprehension, in each interlocution must also be correctly graded.

It's undoubtedly the hardest exam I've ever taken.

:)

[WestWind1950]

I have been following this discussion for some time now with great interest. I have recently become an accredited Assessor for renewals Level 4 in Germany. The German LBA is taking the whole thing very seriously and, if the exams are all done the way they should be and the way I learned to do them, then they could be difficult indeed for some people. But I'm afraid there will be lots of "cheating". :ugh:

As an American myself, I was able to obtain the Level 6.

2close, it would be interesting to continue discussing this. At the moment I'm at the office and need to get to work :yuk:

[2close]

There has already been 'cheating', although it is very difficult with the TEA as (a) the first 10 ratings conducted by any accredited centre are double-checked by Mayflower College and amended if necessary and (b) after that, Mayflower carry out random checks of recordings of interlocutions submitted to the database (ALL recordings are submitted to the database) - at least 10% of any accredited centre's interlocutions will be checked and you have no knowledge of which ones which will be checked.

Saying that, apparently up to $10,000 has been paid for a Level 6 assessment (not using the TEA I should add) and I have come across many persons overseas who are below Level 4 but have been granted Level 4 +.

But look no further than the UK - the CAA has a system where examiners are expected to assess flight test candidates at Level 6 and are doing so on a regular basis when some persons are without no doubt whatsoever below Level 6. You can't blame the examiners - the system created by the CAA is riddled with holes just waiting to be lined up. Firstly, the examiners are designated as English Assessors on the basis that they are fluent English speakers themselves - for a start this is not true in all cases; I know UK based FEs whose English is questionable and probably not Level 6. Secondly, they are limited to determining whether or not the candidate is Level 6 with, in the majority I would expect, no training in assessing English, as determined by ICAO descriptors or otherwise. Thirdly, they have no clear guidelines as to what to do or where to turn when the candidate is obviously not Level 6. Therefore, the easiest thing to do is to just tick the Level 6 box and move on.

The CAA has been sitting on its hands for too long on this issue and those hands are liable to be burned if they don't pull their fingers out.

:ok:

[zondaracer]

FAR 61.103 clearly states:
quote:
(c) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language.

I don´t ever recall being tested on my ability to write for the purposes of proving my proficiency when I acquired my FAA certificates. Perhaps the examiner looked in my logbook and saw that I wrote all my entries in English. Or maybe the FAA assumes that since I passed my written exams which were in English, that I can read English. Therefore, I must be able to write in English.

An a slightly different note, even though the CAA will issue an ICAO level 6 when passing a flight test, would it be a good idea to also get an ICAO Level 6 certificate? I ask, because I heard a rumor that some airlines may actually ask for an ICAO English certificate. Thanks in advance for any replies.

[Whopity]

Thirdly, they have no clear guidelines as to what to do or where to turn when the candidate is obviously not Level 6.Yes they do (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1688/Language%20Proficiency%20Process_examiners.pdf) Page 19; you tick the NO box and they have to go to a professional assessor!

[SandroUK]

I am Italian and I have been living in England for 2 years... I am doing my NPPL licence without any problem up to know and my instructor never asked me a certificate to prove my spoken English...

[billyh42]

I have just had written notification from the CAA that when my JAR/JAA PPL (A) expires at the end of March then when I convert it to the EASA equivalent I must pay an extra £22 to "prove" I can speak English - even although I have pointed out I was born here, English is the only language I can speak and that my current licence states I am English proficient.

Still, it's not as bad as them also stating that to keep my FAA PPL valid then I must also "attend personally" at Gatwick to "prove" my identity and also pay another £45. Not really very handy for people living in Glasgow?

[Whopity]

I must pay an extra £22 to "prove" I can speak EnglishSo long as you do this at the same time as you convert your licence there is no additional charge. Just include SRG1199 signed by an examiner. Your FAA PPL has nothing to do with the CAA! As you hold a JAA PPL all you need to do is complete SRG1104, follow the instructions and pay them £73 for a lifetime PPL. There is another option to also retain a UK National licence, that will cost an additional £35. Checkout the Scheme of Charges (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/281PLS.pdf)Para 3.2 Table 2 and Para 3.3

[MrAverage]

If billyh42 has a piggyback FAA (I understand his post suggests not) is there not a requirement for I.D. check because of the slight change in his EASA licence number?

[nick14]

If the licence number changes then a new FAA certificate must be obtained as the privileges are limited to a valid licence (number written on the back) being maintained.

I had the same issue this year with a new licence number i had to go through the verification process again.

[Whopity]

Perhaps a good reason to pay the £35 and retain a UK National Licence as well. In any event the number remains the same.

[billyh42]

If billyh42 has a piggyback FAA (I understand his post suggests not) is there not a requirement for I.D. check because of the slight change in his EASA licence number?My FAA PPL is "piggybacked" on the JAA PPL. Initially when the EASA changes were announced, the FAA said that their "piggybacked" certificates would remain valid as long as the holder had an "equivalent" EASA licence.

However, they announced just last month that holders of any "piggybacked" licences would have to attend personally at Gatwick and renew if converting a licence to EASA. The point of my complaint being that I already have to provide a passport etc to the CAA at Gatwick to "verify" my identity for the EASA conversion, so common sense (not the CAA's strongpoint I know) would suggest that this should suffice as ID to allow everything to be done at the same time.

The deadline for renewal is however October 2018, but as usual it's still a bit ambiguous as to whether the current FAA licence remains valid?

[Whopity]

However, they announced just last month that holders of any "piggybacked" licences would have to attend personally at Gatwick and renew if converting a licence to EASA.Who exactly are "They"? "Renew what"? You cannot renew a FAA piggy back licence at Gatwick, so your claim makes no sense at all!

[billyh42]

Who exactly are "They"? "Renew what"? You cannot renew a FAA piggy back licence at Gatwick, so your claim makes no sense at all"They" are the FAA - they announced last month that anyone holding a UK National or EASA licence would have to have their "piggybacked" FAA certificates reissued and that it would be facilitated by the CAA at Gatwick.

I was notified of this, in writing, by the CAA as I was already involved in extensive correspondence regarding EASA conversion and had also asked about the FAA certificates.

Part of the FAA announcement reads:-

"Following harmonisation of European pilot licences, pilots holding UK National or EASA licences living outside the USA who also hold a US Federal Administration Certificate allowing them to fly in the United States must have it reissued with the UK CAA to retain its validity. This is an FAA requirement, following the format changes to European licences, and avoids the need for pilots to travel to the US...................Personal identity must be verified in person. Pilots having completed form SRG 2110, must visit the CAA Public Counter Service at Aviation House, South Area Gatwick Airport................"

The full announcement also appeared in Pilot Magazine, March 2014, page 10 - in which the lower third of the page explains this.

[Whopity]

would have to have their "piggybacked" FAA certificates reissued and that it would be facilitated by the CAA at Gatwick.This is the purpose of SRG 2110 which facilitates the reissue by the FAA.
"Following harmonisation of European pilot licences, pilots holding UK National or EASA licences living outside the USA who also hold a US Federal Administration Certificate allowing them to fly in the United States must have it reissued with the UK CAA to retain its validity.I think this sentance is missing a comma, (it) refers to the UK National licence. I don't see any process by which the CAA could, or would have the slightest interest in issuing an FAA Certificate. The CAA don't work for nothing annd I don't see the FAA paying them for the privilege. I can find nothing on either the CAA or FAA websites about any such process.

[BEagle]

See Verify a Renumbered Pilot licence | Our Role | About the CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=2345&pagetype=65&appid=54&mode=detail&appproc=70), which explains matters.

[billyh42]

"Following harmonisation of European pilot licences, pilots holding UK National or EASA licences living outside the USA who also hold a US Federal Administration Certificate allowing them to fly in the United States must have it reissued with the UK CAA to retain its validity. I think this sentance is missing a comma, (it) refers to the UK National licence.No commas missing - it clearly says UK National or EASA licences!

I don't see any process by which the CAA could, or would have the slightest interest in issuing an FAA Certificate. The CAA don't work for nothing annd I don't see the FAA paying them for the privilege. I can find nothing on either the CAA or FAA websites about any such process.As per the first quote from the FAA announcement, "must have it reissued with the UK CAA" seems to suggest otherwise! :)

The section I quoted from the FAA announcement was just that - a section. The full announcement appeared in Pilot Magazine, Feb 2014, Page 10 as well as eleswhere in the UK aviation media.

However, here's yet another snippet, this time from the CAA themselves:-

"Recognising the difficulties that this will present to European pilots, the FAA’s Flight Standards Service has decided to grant a deviation from its standard reissuance practice. This allows the pilot to attend the UK CAA in person with the required documentation and fee. The UK CAA will then verify your information to the FAA, who will then issue a new FAA pilot certificates (validation)"

[Whopity]

As per Beagle's post the FAA reissue the certificate. Cheaper to go to Gatwick to be ID'd than a FISDO in the US. The cost for the SRG2110 would be the same either way.

[Capt Chambo]

I'm at my wit's end.

I need to convert my JAA ATPL (UK issuing authority) to an EASA ATPL. My application has been returned as I do not have ELP 6. I no longer use my JAA licence but want to keep it "dormant".

Does anyone know of an authorised examiner in Australia who is acceptable to the UK's CAA who could do the necessary test for me. (The CAAs website only shows one authorised examiner in Australia, and they are no longer available)

PM's would be fine.

Thanks in advance.

[3 Point]

I'm no longer qualified to carry out the English Language proficiency assessment but I was. There is no requirement I know of for us to meet face to face to carry out this assessment. I simply have to verify that you can communicate effectively in an aviation environment using the English language. I don't see why that can't be done by phone or, even better, Skype video call!

I have previously done them via a phone call with crewmembers who are not based at the company's main operating base. Any EASA licenced flight examiner (ie not a ground examiner) who holds English Level 6 himself, can assess you as level 6.

Something to think about?!?

[Emorik]

Good Afternoon,
I hope someone can answer me quickly:
tomorrow i will renew my english proficiency
I have EASA licence under UK CAA
I live in italy and i will do the test here in a school associated with Mayflower college.

I've read on UK CAA website that i will need to provide them the form SRG1199 after the test
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG1199FFenabled.pdf
My examiner doesn't know anything about this. He told me that he will send everything to the college and they will send me back a certificate.

MY BIG problem is that today in england is bankholyday or something similar and CAA doesn't answer to the phone -.-

Does someone know if the certificate is enought or my examiner must fill this form (with some identification number that i'm not sure he has)?

Thank You

[ifitaintboeing]

There is no requirement I know of for us to meet face to face to carry out this assessment. I simply have to verify that you can communicate effectively in an aviation environment using the English language. I don't see why that can't be done by phone or, even better, Skype video call!

CAA Standards Document 51:

One such acceptable means, for ‘expert speakers’ Level 6 only, is for the holder of a CAA issued examiner certificate (as listed in (a) and (b) above) to conduct a language assessment as a face to face aviation-related conversation that is not associated with a Skill Test, Proficiency Check, Assessment of Competence or Flight Radio Telephony practical test.

ifitaint...

[Level Attitude]

I live in italy and i will do the test here in a school associated with Mayflower college.Emorik,
According to SRG1199, which you refer to, a UK Licence Holder can only be tested for Aviation English Proficiency by a language school provided that the school is either approved by the CAA or accredited by the British Council.

Although on their website, Mayflower (Plymouth Southern England) say they can conduct Aviation English tests they do not claim to be approved by the CAA, but they do seem to be accredited by the British Council.

However you are being tested by a local Italian school "in association' with Mayflower College. Additionally you say "My examiner doesn't know anything about this" - which implies it is a very loose association with Mayflower.

The day before a test does seem an odd time for you to try and confirm that the school you are using is acceptable to the CAA.

I would suggest you go ahead with the test and hope that Mayflower send you back a properly completed SRG1199.

If not you need to ask for your money back from the local school (I assume you specifically told them you wanted to be tested for Aviation English for a UK issued Licence?)

[gibr monkey]

Hello chaps,


How do you become one of these examiners? Do you have to be a FE or can you be just an English Language Proficiency Examiner?
If you had a UK issued licence for example.

[Whopity]

All UK Examiners are authorised to sign off Level 6 only.

If you want to be an English Language Proficiency Examiner to offer other grades you need an approval from the CAA. The initial approval fee is £3570 with an annual charge of £2550. (Scheme of Charges (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS5%20No.%20289.pdf) para 7.7 Table 49)

[Broomstick Flier]

Hello chaps,

Is any anyone aware of a way, or provision, to use the ICAO proficiency result as a form to waiver another language test, like TEOFL?

Due some side project I would need such certificate, but perhaps I could save time and money if I could use my ICAO proficiency test as an equivalent.

Any ideas?

Thanks!

[Whopity]

It appears that most administrations only accept an ICAO ELP that has been issued by a person or organisation under their jurisdiction. There is no provision for a second language to be added to Licences.

I have found some EU States that accept a UK SRG 1199 as proof of ELP at Level 6, but not all.

[Maoraigh1]

When the SEP revalidation form had an ELP add-on, my examiner signed it. When I checked in 2013, the CAA had no record of that part.
At my 2013 revalidation by experience, my examiner signed an ELP form.
I emailed the CAA in early 2016, and receipt was acknowledged. After 6 months with no response, I phoned. I there was no record of the 2013 SEP nor ELP.
I had not repeated the ELP at my 2015 revalidation.
I got an examiner to confirm my ELP, and confirmed it was received.
I've now got the forms back. I resent the £20, and a certified SEP revalidation record,as I've done everything as required. I fly a Jodel on a UK National licence.