UK CAA English Language Assessment
I'm not entirely sure how some of these posts help enquirers, if they do. It's true that UK CAA Flight Test Examiners are authorised to assess candidates as Fluent or Level 6, as are RT examiners. If you cannot be assessed as being Level 6, you must be assessed by a language school. This secret list of those authorized to conduct tests is controlled by British Council, who do not themselves administer tests, as they have not been trained to do this, and have no expertise in English for Aviation purposes.
Anyone who is less than Level 6 will have to be retested as often as the regulator issuing their licence designates, for example, every 3 years according to the original ICAO intention for Level 4, except EASA has now done the wrong thing and increased this to 4 years. EASA of course denies they have done anything wrong, stating that their many years (no doubt) of language data reveals that 3 years is unnecessarily soon.
Since EASA would argue that 4 years is sufficient and therefore safe, it could be argued that the actual limit might be 5 or 6 years, or even 10 years. The truth is EASA has no scientific basis for saying 4 years, just as ICAO has none for saying 3 years. EASA has presumably succumbed to external pressure related to cost. Thus cost, not safety is already the controlling factor.
UK CAA have created an anomalous category in which some pilots, like myself have been designated Language Proficiency - English. This means that I was informally assessed over the phone, without my knowledge, as being provisionally Fluent, or Level 6, but without this official designation being assigned, and on the assumption that I would be 're-qualified' each time I received a proficiency check of my flying skills, which for instruments would be annually. In this case I would be continually re-qualified as unofficial Level 6, and never need to be officially assessed, but never officially be designated Level 6.
Of course all this may have changed since the last time I enquired, but why would UK CAA notify me of this.
The main thing is to be aware that ICAO did such a poor job of setting up the language program that it was pre-destined to fail, and it has. Consequently, there are no qualifications or experience requirements for teachers, other than the basic ones such as TEFL or CELTA, which only equips teachers to teach 'how to buy bread and milk', not RT and not 'will you be executing a missed approach, a low approach or a go around this time?', because most English teachers have no clue what all this means. This isn't really their fault, it is the fault of the regulators and the customers who are willing to settle for 'how to buy bread and milk', while paying inflated prices for English tuition.
There is also no benchmark curriculum for teaching pilots, air traffic controllers, mechanics, engineers, technicians and a host of other aviation professionals, the kind of English they really need. We know what it is, but it isn't officially mandated, and therefore it is largely unavailable.
Beware English schools that tell you they teach English for Aviation Purposes, and charge accordingly, but can actually only teach 'how to buy bread and milk'.
Finally, don't be complacent about a Level 4 qualification. I know this is Operational (Level 4), but if you are a marginal Level 4, under conditions of increasing workload, you will likely become Level 3, at best, but don't take offence at this, because under conditions of increasing workload, native English speakers and Fluent or Level 6 non native speakers will tend to lose their ability to communicate fluently and interactively.
If ICAO did a poor job, the regulators all over the world must accept their share of the blame, after all they are the regulators for the 191 member nations of ICAO. They could collectively have rescued the programme, but didn't. I won't go into the many opportunities that were missed or list all the shortcomings and failings, but there is plenty of blame to go around.
The final group on my critics list are the English speaking nations - Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, USA and a few other less wealthy nations. All these nations were handed a gift - the international or global language of aviation in the interest of increased situational awareness and safety will be - ENGLISH. Did they rush to offer assistance to all the other nations, offer teachers and funding, considering the programme was costing them essentially nothing? No, they did virtually nothing, just sat idly by and watched the whole programme fail, but will quite likely be first in line to complain when other nations are not achieving a good level of general proficiency in English.
I should of course acknowledge that many non English speaking nations have done a fine job all on their own, but unfortunately just as many have struggled, and some have achieved very little to date.
If you understand all this and that your test designed by academics to conform to traditional linguistic intentions and standards gives you access to the workplace, but guarantees little else, you will be quite well armed to select appropriate English tuition, and understand your potential limitations.
I hope this will be helpful for some, educational for others, and both interesting and inspiring for those who are involved in delivering, regulating, enforcing and sanctioning the expectations, and apparent assurances of the ICAO 9835 document.