ICAO English language proficiency
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
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
...the licence should indicate the following:
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.
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]
in accordance with para 1.2.9.4 of ICAO Annex 1 for English valid until [DATE]
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.
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.
The fact that there is no date implies that its non expiring or valid for the period of the licence.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that there is no date implies that its non expiring or valid for the period of the licence.
And the question still stands why can't we have a date on it?
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.
* 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.
And the question still stands why can't we have a date on it?
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!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Global
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The subject of Language Proficiency is still very unregulated and lacks standardised testing on a global level.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Global
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Global
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: belgium
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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!
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?
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!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BEagle
All UK-born CAA-issued pilot licence holders should have been granted automatic ICAO level 6 English and that would have been that
BEagle - you are wasted by not being employed by the CAA..
Only you would provide a language proficiency cert to a Mute!!!!!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Global
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Who cares? ;-)
Age: 74
Posts: 676
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
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
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
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.