1st Mar 2012, 18:27
Hi mates, anybody with an idea of how Cathay's Icao English re-test is conducted?
View Full Version : Cathay cadet Icao English Re-test
1st Mar 2012, 18:27
Hi mates, anybody with an idea of how Cathay's Icao English re-test is conducted?
2nd Mar 2012, 09:52
You have to arrange a meeting with the examiner for a feedback session then he would let you know what things can be done. Usually they won't let you retest until 6 months later.
I heard the retest is just the same, but different scenarios.
2nd Mar 2012, 14:03
@<hidden>, thanks for the reply. I wonder how they conduct the re-test if a candidate is from Europe or Aussie. Do they provide tickets to HK just for the re-test just like they do in stage 2 invitation or will it be incorporated on the flight grading schedule or it's up to the candidate to take the burden of travel and accomodation?
2nd Mar 2012, 14:13
he would let you know what things can be doneWhere's that phone number for the ICAC ?
18th May 2012, 03:59
Just quick question!
Is that anyone have done the retest within 6 months???
27th Jul 2012, 22:35
:ugh: Feel bad to tell you so, but you would have to pay for your own ticket and accommodation, and it would not be incorporated in the stage 2 :}
3rd Aug 2012, 20:01
Where's that phone number for the ICAC ?
REPORT CORRUPTION HOTLINE 25 266 366
My last posts on this forum were well over a year ago, and received favourably. I have long held back my thoughts on this matter - but now, after careful consideration I strongly encourage affected candidates to come forward and relate their experiences and report them to the relevant authorities.
If you are asked to contact Brian Slade, do not do so as he has been proven to be corrupt and he is no longer qualified or approved by ICAO to conduct ICAO English tests.
I have audio recordings of Brian Slade threatening and abusing candidates in feedback sessions, telling lies about the qualifications of reputable language teachers and guaranteeing that they will pass the test if they pay his charlatan "ICAO test specialist" friend in Tung Chung $1000 HKD an hour.
If you have taken Brian's advice and he has asked you to pay money to his friend James, bring him a cup of coffee, attend a free Cantonese study group in Kowloon Tong, draw incomprehensible mind maps, or make a series of inane presentations please stop doing so immediately. It's a waste of your time and money if you are genuinely interested in an aviation career.
Beware of a HK based study group or aviation career centre that offers medicals, English assessments and interview practice because it's just a front for the same scam. Besides, they have stolen my copyrighted material.
Brian Slade knows very little about ICAO language testing or Cathay's needs. If you have recently passed a CX ICAO test at level 4 or 5 that does not mean that your English is good enough. This applies to any non-native English speaking SO/FO. You need Aviation English.
Brian Slade does not control your future. You do.
Brian Slade is a sad pathetic obese man, bitter and twisted, full of evil and jealous of people who have more potential than him. He is a serious risk to flight safety and belongs in prison.
5th Aug 2012, 06:51
Oh, Michael, managing director from Aviation English Asia.
By the way, is that your consideration based on commercial, and because of the famous assessor seems has resigned from CX? As long as he will not be the assessor anymore then you stand up to ENCOURAGE people to report him?
Hide your name next time before you are trying to do so. Many knows he is a disaster to the CPP selection, some hates him because even people speak completely and utterly fluent English failed the test. Anyhow, Brian will be gone, it seems there would be no more competition between you and James if there would be no one referring James to HIS OWN CANDIDATES. However, I am afraid when the killer is gone, there wouldn't be much unsuccessful candidates coming up to find you :sad:
No offense, Brian's really too mean and there is nothing related to operation from his test, but we seriously do not hope some locals which can't even speak english getting into our cockpit because they have attended some courses like yours lol. Commercial is fine, but don't bring us a bomb in the front :}
6th Aug 2012, 03:51
Admittedly I have commercial interests in language training but that is not the reason for my post. I speak for myself not my company.
Slade has made knowingly false statements about myself, my organisation and my peers. I am within my rights to call Brian Slade a crook because that is exactly what he is. He belongs in prison, his resignation is irrelevant.
AEA students have a particular character - they are successful because they ignore the test and focus on skills that they actually need. It seems like you "jumped to a conclusion" about the kind of training we conduct, so why not give me a call and see for yourself.
6th Aug 2012, 15:29
If Brian Slade failed candidates with "utterly fluent" English speaking ability, i don't see why having him resigned will lower the standard of Cadets getting into the programme..
What i knew is many pilots in other non-English speaking countries are not as fluent as you might expect (well, you can listen it on atc.net), and they are functioning well on a day to day basis. At the end of the day, i think the focus should be more about the operational needs of pilots rather than the general English ability Cathay is testing currently.
6th Aug 2012, 23:27
Errrr no its about being able to speak general English well. Most pilots at CX speak English as a first language, all pilots at CX speak English fluently. Some of our flights are over 15 hours long, what a great time everyone will have if the guy sitting next to you can only understand operational English. What happens when there is a problem in the cabin that requires a discussion?
Yeah ATC online gives you a great picture of how much English you need :ugh: Most screw ups with ATC are due to poor English, either on the part of the controller or the pilot. If your English is borderline forget about the ICAO test, you will fail the interview if you can not have a broad conversation, covering technical subjects as well as personal ones. You have to be able to speak fluent English to get a job at CX.
7th Aug 2012, 05:44
There seems to be some confusion as to what Aviation English actually is.
It is composed of 3 elements.
1. Technical vocabulary
2. Radiotelephony (including the plain English used to fill in the details)
3. General English for aviation purposes.
Brian Slade seems to think that Aviation English is just 1 and 2 above, and that lousy academic English is a sufficient replacement for 3. But he's so wrong. There is a big difference between General English you might get at happy language centre or from some gwailo in starbucks, and the training AEA provide.
This is from a article I wrote way back in September 2009.
What is Aviation English?
The answer to this question would probably depend on whether you are a teacher, a flight instructor, a pilot or air traffic controller, a cadet pilot or a provider of ESL learning materials.
It usually relates to teaching pilots and air traffic controllers. In recent years communication difficulties have been rcognised as a leading cause of accidents so the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has mandated that all pilots and air traffic controllers should achieve proficiency at ICAO level 4.
In it’s simplest form Aviation English is a form of ESP. ESP stands for English for Specific purposes. Sometimes the term English for Aviation is used which is actually a bit more specific. It implies that the English taught is specific technical language that would be used in the context of aviation. Such language is normally (but not always beyond the realm that English language teachers are comfortable teaching – unless they have an aviation background or a deep interest in aviation. In contrast the term Aviation English is used to refer to teaching just the essential language used in aviation. Some subjects, themes and grammatical structures might be omitted. In that respect, Aviation English, combined with radio-telephony is its own language – distinct from regular English.
If that is not confusing enough, what is radio-telephony? Radio-telephony, or R/T is a system of communication between stations. Stations are typically control towers or aircraft. Radio telephony has its own protocol, pronunciation rules and “grammar”. Usually pilots and controllers will use a system of communication called phraseology.
A good aviation English syllabus will include both radio-telephony and English for Aviation as it will build confidence in the learner if they are using language that they could be expected to use during training or later active duty. In general, an Aviation English course is based around topics and themes that are directly relevant to pilots and controllers.
Is this model too simplistic? Maybe. There is some body of thought that believe that you cannot teach aviation English. Instead you need to teach general English until the learner is at such a stage that they can grasp technical aviation language.
At Aviation English Asia we take the view that English should be a complete language. Some aspects of language should be prioritised – this is in line with the ESP perspective. That would be catering to learner’s immediate needs. Longer term the English for Aviation perspective is superior and gives greater functional ability. In that respect many airlines find that such English for Aviation training is a complement to their own CRM (Crew Resource Management) training. There are great overlaps between teaching “content” and “language”. Modern ESL teachers are trained to teach “language” without content and not express their own opinions and beliefs to learners. This is with the aim of empowering English learners to “own the language” rather than copy what theteacher has dictated to them. In the aviation context, the lines between content and language are blurred when language training takes place alongside other aspects of aviation training such as CRM and Human Factors. The Aviation English teacher needs to be able to facilitate language aquisition, but often simultaneously reinforc knowledge needed for safety.
One of the difficulties with Aviation English is that there are very limited learning materials available. This however is changing and there are a number of course books commercially available. The question is, how suitable is the material for the learner’s needs. Therefore the aviation English teacher needs to be skilful in assessing the learner’s needs and use these coursebooks as tools rather than the basis of a course itself.
For more information about Aviation English please contact info@<hidden>
End of article
As much as I enjoy all this Brian Slade Bashing (well overdue and thoroughly deserved), I'd like to steer this topic back on track to actually give candidates some useful advice about what they can do if they are facing a retest.
Here's my advice overseas applicants
Overseas applicants are not likely to have been affected by Slade, so it's a matter of reaching the required standard in the new test. This is possible and achievable within a reasonable time frame.
1. Try to talk to someone in the language department and get some feedback. Then contact me and I'll give you my feedback too.
2. Based on the above you should know how long you need to prepare for. If you are able to do a course in Hong Kong, great. But if not I have friends that teach Aviation English in other parts of the world so I might be able to arrange something.
Advice for local HKG candidates.
1. If you get an email saying you have been unsuccessful (or various other wordings) please contact Brian Slade for feedback do not contact Slade as his status is less than dirt. Instead directly contact one of the managers in the language department, who I believe are extremely helpful. There might be some delays in getting feedback as there are big changes within this department. However, I can say that the changes are all good and appear to be very much in line with the industry. The advice you get will probably be very similar to my own.
2. If you are currently caught in Slade/Strang's presentation trap stop immediately and report it to the ICAC. If you have evidence of Slade taking money from candidates please contact the ICAC.
3. Contact me. Obviously I have commercial interests in this, but AEA has a reputation for providing valuable language training and our ethics are strong. If I recommend a course, do it. If you have absolutely no money or you don't want to spend anything on language training - get real. This is aviation. It's an expensive industry to enter. If you think our courses are expensive you obviously don't have any commitment to an aviation career. AEA courses are reasonably priced and provide great value.
I can't recommend any other language training provider in Hong Kong as we the most experienced in this field. I have seen copycat organisations that are truly awful. I know that there are a large number of candidates affected by Slade/Strang so AEA are willing to arrange some special training plans for those affected.
4. Forget about the test - do not try to memorise a word list or focus only on the answers to the test. Do not try to find past papers and obsess about the test, because the more you do that the worse your functional English will become. Leave the choice of lesson content to us because that's our job.
5. Don't worry about how many 3s, 4s and 5s you have as the results on paper don't really tell you very much. Realistically you should expect 3-6 months of practice before your retest, although this might be different for some candidates.
6. Don't worry about whether your mate is going to join the next batch of cadets, or whether the cadet programme will still be open next year. The world will always need pilots.
7. Consider at this stage whether you are genuinely interested in aviation, or just the idea of being a pilot. There is a big difference. If you have the motivation, and language is your main difficulty, you can achieve the target level relatively easily.
Hope that helps...
7th Aug 2012, 14:18
Thanks for the info.
1 - "If you think our courses are expensive you obviously don't have any commitment to an aviation career." hahahaha :D
2 - "Don't worry about whether your mate is going to join the next batch of cadets, or whether the cadet programme will still be open next year. The world will always need pilots" hahaha :ok:
The world need a lot of CADET PILOTS....................... to follow point 1.
Came on guys, pay for english courses in Hong Kong, expensive Flight Schools were these airlines will take you as cadet pilots, type ratings for European low costs, Line training for Eaglejet in Indonesia.
Please follow point 1, and believe in point 2 when asking for a loan to the bank. The world will always need pilots that commit all their money into an aviation career.
"Contact me. Obviously I have commercial interests" at least honest...
8th Aug 2012, 03:58
I think the issue is really the priority that people (both candidates and the airlines themselves) give to language training. Lack of language proficiency is a major safety concern.
I have friends caught in the post CPL bottleneck too. I have watched them wait and apply for airlines and get rejected. Some of them are native speakers. I'm not encouraging people to run out, get bank loans and spend all their money on flight training. I'm encouraging them to sort out their English before they even apply to airlines. If you do get your licences, take them for what they are - just a licence, not a guarantee of a job.
Language training is much more affordable than flight training. And if ultimately you are unsuccessful, at least you have better English.
12th Aug 2012, 08:30
I've heard there has been a significant change in ICAO test format. Anyone got any info on that?
4th Sep 2012, 06:52
Da test structure has changed dramatically after Brian left. The test is more like aviation test and relatively easy... I am trap in this icao test choas here as they offer the test to the others but not me.... Btw this study group and presentation is completely useless since Brian has left....
I think Brian fail people recently for personal reason as I knon he is starting his own business and tryin to grab as much as student as he can before he leaves.... One of my frd failed the test and he has absolutely no pro with his language but still fail.... I don't know how many ppl fall in this trap but I think we should really make a complain to CX or KA about this.... If this is only me than is fine...
4th Sep 2012, 07:52
Sometimes I think one cannot blame the assessor entirely, though words have been spread saying he is corrupt and so on. Based on personal experience, i do know quite a lot of individuals in HK who think their English is ok but in reality, well, have overestimated their English ability.
I think you need to ask yourself certain questions, e.g. 1. Can you understand a native speaker completely out of context? (Try to pick some random clips and see if you can understand without knowing the theme of the clip) 2. Can you still speak English when you are agitated, emotionally involved or arguing with someone?
I guess a lot of HKers would answer "no" to these two questions. Of course you have the right to launch a complain, but i doubt that will be of much use. Good luck anyway.
6th Sep 2012, 04:27
As a pilot I don't think you need a perfect english level. Do you know how many pilots or atc in the world doesn't speak English at all? Well I know some in China...... I understand what you saying and I admit that we aren't perfect in English. What I am trying to say abt the examiner is the way he conducts the test. If this is a normal english level assessment test well ok I accept the way he run the test but this is ICAO English level assessment. If you know what ICAO stands for than how come the test has nth to do with aviation? Btw we are not trying to blame everything on the examiner but if he is completely clear than why everyone is pointing their fingers at him?
6th Sep 2012, 05:06
I think you might find that the "everybody who is pointing their fingers at him" has recently been banned from this forum and some of his posts may have been removed. I don't know what went on, but slander and libellous accusations on a public forum are not smart, neither is it smart to place so much weight on them, particularly as the author was trying to promote his own vastly more expensive English course as an alternative. A bit of an axe to grind, methinks.
As far as the English assessment is concerned, of course it isn't and shouldn't be totally aviation orientated. The subjects that arise day-to-day do not always have an aviation theme. What about the instance that arose last week on my flight deck when the FA1 came to tell me that there were two thieves on board who were looting overhead bins of cash? Do you think that the resolution of this incident required any English language that was to do with aviation?
This is why you will find that the English assessment needs to be more than just what you are going to say to ATC.