Me Myself
Well folks; after reading this thread I went in like a lamb ready to be slaughtered............and I got a 6 !
I totally disagree with the above remark and for once with DGAC, I found the test to be really very down to earth. It does measure english competency. Having to describe a situation taken out of an enveloppe to another fellow requires all the competency you can muster. Some blokes were really tragic and you'd wonder what it would be like under stress. The " voyage " is along the same lines. If you can't speak english ( wether general or aeronautical ) you're suffed. Indeed, as a group, the french speak crappy english and crappy will not do with that test.
You say you got a six? It is obvious from this paragraph that your English is not to the standard of a native speaker, so I think you prove the exam is not accurate!
As to the " out of context " thing ? RT when you're flying, is totally out of context too. You have to underdstand everything that's going on and reply to what directly concerns you and I think the test does just that. It requires that you just write down what you're hearing. Period.
And by the way thanks to all the feedback cuz I didn't miss a , or a . The trick is indeed to write EVERYTHING that you hear. General meaning won't do I'm afraid.
I take it you've never read CAP 413, or any other nation's RT manual? That's the one that indicates the calls to be used in various contexts, i.e. puts the RT in context. I take it you have never trained as a pilot, where your instructor puts the RT in context?
The test might require you to write down everything you hear, but that is something required neither by standard flight operations nor the ICAO definitions of English competency. The whole problem is that the test requires everything to be written down, which is irrelevant to testing proficiency against the ICAO standards. The point of the entire thread is that general meaning won't do, but that there is no apparent reason not.