South Korea to test pilots in English language

[planeenglish]

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/07/04/207591/South+Korea+to+test+pilots+in+English+language.html
TRAINING LEITHEN FRANCIS / SINGAPORE
South Korea to test pilots in English language
South Korea's Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) will decide this month which company or companies will be responsible for testing South Korean pilots for English language proficiency so the country can meet its obligations to the International Civil Aviation Organisation.
CASA has been considering three undisclosed Korean companies says Lee Gun-young of CASA's personnel licensing division. Lee adds that CASA is likely to appoint more than one company.
The English language proficiency tests are required to fulfil a new ICAO requirement coming into effect in March 2008 that stipulates pilots must be capable of speaking "level 4" English.
ICAO has classified six levels of English, with "level 1" being minimal English and "level 6" being that of a fluent native speaker.
CASA wants to start testing pilots for "level 4" English before March 2008. Those that fail to make the grade may still be allowed to operate aircraft on international routes, although they will be expected to undertake further English language studies to achieve "level 4".
Pilots that fail to achieve "level 4" English when the deadline kicks in will no longer be permitted to operate aircraft on international routes and will be restricted to domestic routes, says Lee.
Flight International 4-10 July 2006
PE

[B A Lert]

Not before time but how many oyther nations will follow South Korea? Lord knows - English lessons are sure needed by so many, but before anyone jumps on me, I say this with all due deference to our non-English speaking colleagues. Let's face it, many native English speakers could do with a lesson or three, particularly their diction.

[Keygrip]

The UK CAA already have procedures under way.

All candidates for a Radio Telephony Operators Licence are evaluated and graded on a Level 6, yes or no, basis.

There is more - but it's not my place to say (at least, not yet) - but ICAO are taking this seriously.

[Airbubba]

Efforts to test for English fluency in the U.S. are inevitably met with cries of racism.

However, Geno's business in PHL has tripled:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5127134.stm

I'll be the first to agree that the dialect of English spoken in South Philly may not be intelligible elsewhere...

[planeenglish]

- but ICAO are taking this seriously.
...and so is JAA.
Best,
PE

[captain_jeeves]

English language proficiency testing is a recently new mandate from ICAO, which is scheduled to take effect in 2008. Pilots, ATC and radio station operators will be required to be tested and proficient to ICAO level 4. Details of the process can be found at http://www.flightsafety.org/pubs/fsd_2005.html (http://www.flightsafety.org/pubs/fsd_2005.html)

Cheers

[planeenglish]

Thanks,

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=230474

PE

[BTSM]

Well why not, the Koreans are?

[beamer]

Perhaps Binter could do the same - those who visit the Canaries reguarly will understand ! Que ?

[Groundloop]

Is this not a new ICAO requirement? Eventually everyone will have to be tested in English.

[planeenglish]

Hi everyone,

All pilots, according to the ICAO (PPL, CPL, ATPL- only glider and balloon pilots are exempt) must be level four or above in all six linguistic areas of English Language Proficiency (ELP), including "native tongue speakers of English". The issue Doc. 9835 from ICAO stipulates that even native speakers must be tested. The manner in which CAAs do so is up to them however staying within the requirements. (No pencil and paper tests, no academic tests, all aviation work-related, specific to the task, etc.) The manual goes on to aid in the standards' implementation and test design. It must be a test designed strictly following the guidelines.

JAA has issued the draft (now closed for comment) and should be put into the FCLs come September. The draft has said that CAAs must accredit a test or testing body. There are some other slight differences between the ICAO standards and those to be issued by JAA but the "gist" is the same.

Best to all,

PE

[Metro man]

As this test is obviously biased against those who don't speak English very well, they will need to have extra points added to their score to enable them to pass. Once again an example of white English speaking males discriminating against, and oppressing minorities.

The test will end up being watered down to the extent where anyone will be able to get through. A good idea, but it won't work, similar thing tried with Sydney taxi drivers.:ugh:

[B737NG]

If you hear Chinglish, Japlish, Konglish or something similar in the radio and both cannot articulate themselves on the radio then you agree that the test is needed. Who test´s the other 4 ICAO languages? Chinese, Russian, Spanish and French???? Fears are within some far east operators that they may cannot "pass" 20% of the present pilots they have into the minimum level required. More Expats to fill the gaps? What a mess, you are not welcome as you "take" a Job of another Buddy....

Fly safe and land happy

NG

[planeenglish]

If you hear Chinglish, Japlish, Konglish or something similar in the radio and both cannot articulate themselves on the radio then you agree that the test is needed. Who test´s the other 4 ICAO languages? Chinese, Russian, Spanish and French???? Fears are within some far east operators that they may cannot "pass" 20% of the present pilots they have into the minimum level required. More Expats to fill the gaps? What a mess, you are not welcome as you "take" a Job of another Buddy....
Fly safe and land happy
NG
Dear B737NG,

Studies show it takes about 200 study hours to advance one level in language proficiency. By putting pilots and air traffic controllers in the language learning environment years ago (Sept. 2004 was the first of just a series of ICAO symposiums dealing with the test and implementation of the applied 2008 standards) this would have been adequate time for these 20% you mention to raise their proficiency levels. Many countries have been working on implementation and much progress has been made. It boils down to money in many situations. Many, many waited or kept their heads in the sand saying that the date would be extended, the application to certain licenses or air space would change and so forth. The fact is that since 2004 the standards and help in implementation have been there, it has taken this long for the "word" to get out.

As for hearing Chinglish, Japlish, Konglish you can also hear German English, Italian English, Spanglish etc, etc. The standard is in "plain language". I am a big supporter of International English, but aviation English is an English that leaves out idioms and idiomatic phrasal verbs. It focuses on certain structures (grammar) and vocabulary (including, but certainly not limited to, technical vocabulary) and teaches exactly the language needed when radiotelephony phraseologies do not suffice. If the people who are on the radio every day who speak English fluently would use only this type of language it would help that 20% (if not more) communicate too.

As for who will test the French, Russian and Chinese; there is a Russian test in the making and it is very good. The Chinese have been deciding on the test they will use as well as a training solution. I am not sure what the French have planned.

Pilots and ATC are motivated learners, nothing like thinking your job will be given to the first Ex-Pat that passes to get you studying. No, it won't be nice to take the place of someone else simply because they speak English at a higher proficiency level, but it is not nice to think that an airplane falls out of the sky due the flight deck couldn't communicate. Not nice at all when incidents and accidents are due to miscommunications.

The ICAO operational level 4 isn't native-like English. It is a proficiency level that insures one understands and can make himself understood to an international aviation community. (ICAO's words, not mine)

Best,
PE

[planeenglish]

An amendment for the testing solution
Please note that the section on "Radiotelephony content" has been amended. The amendment was needed to clarify and accurately reflect the Organization's policy concerning language testing in line with the Note in the Appendix to Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing. Please note the amended text below and refer to it in your language testing activities.
http://www.icao.int/td/aud001/textv11.html
Radiotelephony content
Because of the high stakes involved, pilots and air traffic controllers deserve to be tested in a context similar to that in which they work and test content should therefore be relevant to their roles in the work-place. The descriptors for Vocabulary and Comprehension for ICAO Operational Level 4 refer to "work-related topics". Tests should provide test-takers with sufficient and varied opportunities to use plain language in aviation work-related contexts in order to demonstrate their ability with respect to each descriptor in the Language Proficiency Rating Scale and the Holistic Descriptors. To achieve this, the design of tests should be undertaken by a team of linguistic and operational subject matter experts to ensure validity, reliability and operational relevance.
The Note found in the Appendix to Annex 1 indicates that the Holistic Descriptors and Rating Scale apply to the use of phraseology as well as plain language. Just as testing of ICAO phraseology cannot be used to assess plain language proficiency, neither can English language proficiency tests be used to test ICAO standardized phraseology.
It is acceptable that a test contain a scripted test task in which phraseology is included in a prompt. The test task may be used as a warm up or an ice-breaker and elicit a plain language response from the test taker. Test prompts should not be intended to evaluate specific technical knowledge concerning operations. For example, prompts such as "What is the separation minima for aircraft being vectored for an ILS approach?", or "Describe the different flight modes of the A320 flight control system" are not acceptable.

[2U5A]

I am professionally interested in asking how all the various ICAO members are progressing with this English proficiency requirement in each country, any comments??

[planeenglish]

In early 2007 there will be a survey to assess the progress for each member state. During the safety audits being performed now I am not sure they are addressing the situation.

PE

[sky330]

I just has been checked in China.
CBT based test:
- Select the correct word; graphic description
- Select the correct word; oral description
- Add correct word in sentence
- Answer context question; after text reading
- Answer context question; after listening to a text
- Find correct answer to a standard aviation clearance; text based
- Find correct answer to a standard aviation clearance given orally
- Answer orally to a clearance given orally. Computer records the answer via a mike and it is graded later on by the instructor.

This taken between two and three hours. Level is easy but non-trivial.
IMHO, if you failed, you better stay away from some american airport!
If your grade is just above pass, you should be confident with all standard clearance, and understand most other r/t.

A nice step in the correct direction.

[skol]

If competent english is required how come Air France and Montreal ATC speak french? Is it something to with the language police in Quebec maybe?

[Clipper7]

If competent english is required how come Air France and Montreal ATC speak french? Is it something to with the language police in Quebec maybe?

Quebec French is not French - as any person from both Quebec and France will tell you ! This could explain many things...

[planeenglish]

If competent english is required how come Air France and Montreal ATC speak french? Is it something to with the language police in Quebec maybe?
ICAO document 9835 2.5 states,

2.5.1 In Annex 10, it is stipulated that radiotelephony communications shall be conducted eitherin the language on the ground or in English, and that English shallbe made available when pilots are unable to use the language of the station on the ground.

Regardless, each pilot and ATCO must demonstrate English language proficiency as of March 5, 2008. (See table 2-1 of abovementioned Manual on the Implementation of ICAO Language Proficiency Requirements.)

Best,
PE

[2U5A]

Here in Canada it has been annouced that until March 2008 the test for English proficiency will be free! (Very un-Canadian!) Those of you who have taken your English test, where there any costs involved?

[MorningGlory]

Well I never! Does this actually mean that soon, when I ask for 'Gear Down', the other chap won't look at me with a vacant stare?
:}

[Few Cloudy]

What is racist about speaking English, which pilots and ATC have to do anyway, to a better standard?

Many different races live in England and in USA too for that matter and English is the official language in quite a few counties with other mother tongues.

If French had been adopted as the language of the skies (which historically it well could have been) then we would be using that.

White, male, oppressing minorities... what a lot of cobblers Metro Man!

FC.

[planeenglish]

Hi Few Cloudy,

Check your pm.

ICAO explained why English was chosen as the language for the new standards at the symposium in Montreal HQ Sept. 2004.

Many mumbled French and Spanish were a better choice. It is said that it is not a cultural decision but a practical one. I believe there is mention in the manual itself. If not, there are transcripts of the speeches made at the Montreal symposium.

Regarding free testing: No, here where I am I have not heard of any free testing. I personally have gone to aero clubs and local training airports and have done free or reduced rate testing after doing free presentations for all who will listen to help spread the word. Surprisingly, many have refused due they say they are afraid!:confused:


Best to all,

PE

[GreyEagle]

I just has been checked in China.
CBT based test:
- Select the correct word; graphic description
- Select the correct word; oral description
- Add correct word in sentence
- Answer context question; after text reading
- Answer context question; after listening to a text
- Find correct answer to a standard aviation clearance; text based
- Find correct answer to a standard aviation clearance given orally
- Answer orally to a clearance given orally. Computer records the answer via a mike and it is graded later on by the instructor.

This taken between two and three hours. Level is easy but non-trivial.
IMHO, if you failed, you better stay away from some american airport!
If your grade is just above pass, you should be confident with all standard clearance, and understand most other r/t.

A nice step in the correct direction.

2-3 hours seems a long time for a CBT test of English. Was this a placement test, an achievement test or a proficiency test?

[chandlers dad]

Quebec French is not French - as any person from both Quebec and France will tell you ! This could explain many things...

As someone who has flown in both Quebec and France recently, how about we all speak English? Just because its the offical language of Aviation might have something to do with it, along with safety?

[planeenglish]

2-3 hours seems a long time for a CBT test of English. Was this a placement test, an achievement test or a proficiency test?
I agree. This is also a hot topic among linguists and operational experts as well. Seems the average is about 1 hour 45 minutes. This particular type of test is called "high stakes" therefore the language needs to be adequately tested. The standards require that a preparation course of sample test be offered so the candidate will have ample time and occasion to prepare.
This is a proficiency test. It can not be an achievement test as you say, probably sarcastically so, but in order for language people to have enough opportunity to elicit language it is necessary to put the candidate in certain situations to do so.
For example, a rough outline of a pilot's English proficiency test on the market is: a warm-up (who are you, what do you do etc. where plain language[PL] is 100% of the language required), followed by a flight briefing (plain language with technical vocabulary), normal flight communications (standard phraseology-R/T), abnormal situation (R/T +PL), urgency or emergency situation (PL+R/T), de-briefing (PL).
For ATC it would be a number of flights maybe one abnormal and one urgency/emergency and then a report to their superior. Whereupon it would be followed by a "conversation" afterwards (or before depending on the test structure) regarding the ATCs particular experience. A sample question is "what is a time sot and who imposes them" "what instances could make a A/C lose its time slot..." and so on.
You need time to do all of this. It can not be all CBT and fulfill the standard requirements set out by ICAO and subsequent authorities.
Also, this thread is about the South Korean testing scheme but other countries have already chosen their schemata. In these last two weeks in Singapore the Australian/Asian territories met for a symposium regarding these standards and ICAO biggies were present. Seems many countries are already deciding on what they'll do for their pilots and ATCOs.
My concern is for private pilots (PPL). Most every test I have seen is geared towards air transport pilots (ATPL). PPL are pilots too. It is costly to develop a test of this magnitude and timely. It takes time to validate a test. Who will test the Sunday flier? He will not be able to understand certain situations given on these tests.
IAOPA has tried to push for changing the standards to certain airspace but failed. Even still they have pledged to keep trying to moderate them. Look here. (http://www.iaopa.org/info/bulletin/3_2006.pdf)
Some say this can be handled in the Simulator. I say yes only if the person who is assessing the language is himself/herself trained to do so and at a level of proficiency that is at an expert level. Then I still believe a short "conversation" in the debriefing is mandatory.
Comments?
Best,
PE

[manincrz2937]

Guys.....:cool:

Don't expect too much from Korean goverment or ailrline company.
Do you guys really expect something from it?

If they consider it seriously, they should expect stop more than half of entire flights. Phew...No way man.

Already there is a rumor in the air.

CASA and old school guys will make way to get avoid this in someway.

They will put young, fresh guys who took flight school in US or OZ first. then they will make data bank. so rest of old school guys can memorize questions as many as they can. Same old trick like they always depend on small ATC note beside of thier clib board in the cockpit.

It won't change anything. Just another deception.:=
Sad but will be True.

[MrBernoulli]

manincrz2937

Not enjoying your time in Korea then? :uhoh: