How to Waste Money - $140 English Tests

[Dick Smith]

I have just found out that whereas in the USA the English test for a pilot is simply done at the flight test – i.e. the ATO won’t pass the pilot unless the pilot can speak acceptable English – in Australia it is completely different. Pilots need to do a separate course and this costs up to $140. I also understand an American pilot wanting to come here and fly has to do the course and send the results to CASA before his/her license can be endorsed. This is an incredible misallocation of money and will further damage Aussie aviation. What do others think?

P.S.: Yes, I know, it’s a so-called “ICAO requirement” to do the test before any training starts. Wisely, the US FAA simply notifies a difference to ICAO and that’s their only obligation. The US has more notified differences to ICAO than any other nation – that’s because they want to have a viable aviation industry.

[skkm]

ICAO English tests for the HKCAD are HK$1770 - nearly AU$300. Makes the Australian version look like a bargain!

[thunderbird five]

But Dick, the quality and readability of the transmissions overflying my airfield (well, I THINK over my airfield) have improved out of sight!




Oh wait............... nup.......:(

[27/09]

Dick, While it is an ICAO requirement, it's my understanding each authority can choose how to comply. I don't think the US filed a difference on this, they were just practical about how it was implemented.

When this requirement was introduced many authorities gave all of their existing pilots Level 4 and delegated to flight examiners the authority to issue to Level 6 as part of a flight review/competency test. I know this is how it's done in the US and the UK at least and so far as I know many other places.

I'm surprised that any US pilot doesn't already have at least level 4 on their licence. There should be no need for them to do any exam, once endorsed by their home authority this should be accepted world wide.

I think level 4 is the lowest acceptable level for aviation. Anything below Level 6 (which is the highest possible level) needs to be renewed, level 4 requiring renewal more often than level 5.

Any US pilot without English Language Proficiency (ELP) on their licence hasn't bothered to get their licence endorsed.

Otherwise I agree it is a waste of money.

P.S. I thought even CASA allowed flight examiners to accredit for ELP.

[Radix]

..........

[Fred Gassit]

They do but only to a certain level, wasted a bunch of my time getting accredited and assessing my colleagues, wasn't too sure I was going to pass the kiwi...

[thorn bird]

Dick,
its not just in Aviation. The whole "English" thing is a giant Rort making a lot of people and not just in Australian an awful lot of money.
The IELTS test, for example, set up by a company with a very official sounding name that would lead someone to imagine its a government institution. Its actually a private company that makes squillions of $$$ from very vulnerable people.
My wife, who is not Australian, works in the medical field, thirty years experience working almost everywhere in the world.
To practice in Australia she requires an IELTS score of 7.5, which equates to degree standard English, strange that our universities only required 6 for her to complete an additional masters degree.
At first I was amazed she couldn't achieve that result to practice in her profession, she could only manage a score of 7. To me her English was perfect, she had practiced all over the world including the USA, Canada, an UK, so I Paid and sat the test myself.
I was born in Australia, educated in Australia, hold a degree from an Australian university, I managed a score of 6.5.


U savi long pidgeon?


No wonder Australia is spiraling down the gurgler.

[Dick Smith]

I hope the CASA Board read this thread.

US pilots who come here to pay us money by hiring an aircraft have to do the test because their FAA approval is not accepted by CASA.

[ramble on]

Here is my story.

When I started flying in Australia in 1980 it was a a prerequisite to even getting a Student Pilot Licence that any applicant be able to read and speak english. You didnt get issued a licence to even start flying lessons without meeting that requirement fullstop.

Fast forward 30 years and I now have CASA, FAA and JAA (EASA) ATPLs - all exams completed to ATPL level in english.

ICAO introduced the requirement for aviation english standards because of the dangerous situations caused by more widespread global operation of poor english speaking pilots (and ATC) causing accidents through misunderstandings (eg: the collisions over India, the Swiss/German border, and the runways in Tenerife and Paris) - fair enough. Operate through China, Russia or France anytime to see why its a good idea that everyone speaks a common language.

But the practicality demonstrated by various authorities in dealing with this new hoop to jump through was plain to see.

The FAA just automatically reissued my FAA ATP with ICAO English Level 4.

Not CASA or EASA though. CASA $ and travel to a local flying school..... EASA $$$ and travel to the UK!

Yet again idiotic impractical bloody mindedness by these authorities but good for me because it took my english swearing ability to a whole new level.

[gerry111]

Dick wrote:


"I hope the CASA Board read this thread."


Sadly, I suspect that the latest CASA work experience minion sometimes does upon his/her daily visit to the P.O. Box...

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Dick, I recently had an American gent come to do some flying on a Certificate f Validation. CASA's ineptitude on this has been legendary since the advent of CLARC but regarding the English test, the FAA licence doesn't state a level of proficiency. As anything other than level 6 has an expiry it isn't acceptable elsewhere not to state a level. That is a burden the FAA have put on their licence holders that wish to fly overseas.

Easily sorted though, I was able to do his English test for a fraction of the rate you have stated ( though I have heard of places charging this not all of us do) and send the paperwork off to CASA.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Truly, it takes 10 minutes.

You can do the warm-up phase by asking them the questions to fill in the paperwork.


Then you play them a couple of those stupid audio clips with Branca & friends doing Monty Python accents and you're done.

ATC: "Please fondle my buttocks"

Aircraft: "My hovercraft is full of eels!" :8

[First_Principal]

In NZ the test is (was?) administered by ASL.

When I upgraded to a higher license some years ago I had to call a particular telephone number whereupon I was instructed to follow an automated procedure that lasted, if I recall correctly, around five minutes or so.

All this for more than $100. While I don't recall the exact figure I did think it was particularly expensive and reeked of a (non-market) rate being set by a monopoly.

I did also think that the CAA-mandated process made a particular arse of itself when it wouldn't allow the 30,000 hours CAA examiner who took me for my flight test (over two to three hours) to conclude that my language proficiency was adequate for the license upgrade.

At the time I had been flying on and off for more than twenty years, and was born and educated to tertiary level in an english-speaking country.

While I applaud the thrust behind the proficiency requirement - there are some truly terrible radio calls out there - I think there are better and more efficient means to achieve this, perhaps such as the US appears to have.

I often read compliments on NZ vs Oz aviation regulation here, but in this case they've dropped the ball methinks >:-(

FP.

[Dick Smith]

Charlie. Don't agree. You think the way to solve the problem is for the U.S. to change to our more expensive system.

My belief is we should change to the U.S. system which would mean all US licence pilots would be accepted here without further testing. And vice versa

[Sunfish]

The problem Dick is that all sorts of student pilots turn up with "certificates" that state they have Cambridge level "X" English. These are handed out no matter how poorly they perform once they pay their money. Its a scam and its going on in Australia and overseas as we speak.

I have first hand experience of students who are qualified on paper but are just effing useless. They included alleged graduate engineers and a Chinese girl whose life dream was to become a journalist for Rolling Stone.

The problem is compounded by the Asian tendency to say "Yes" rather than "No".

I saw Four C172's at Flight Safety once, all with the same damage (firewall) and all from the same cause (speed) - direct results of saying "yes" when the student hadn't a clue.

Hence the heavy handed approach of testing everyone. It is also not unknown for licences to be purchased and possession of one does not guarantee good English.

To avoid charges of racism, all must be tested.

[Horatio Leafblower]

He's got a good point.

[Left 270]

Ive certainly not "formally" sat this test and as far as I was aware, if the ATO declared that you met level 6 there was no requirement to go further? Was never charged anything either. Is this a new requirement?

[Frank Arouet]

The test should be to see if you "can't" speak English, not if you "can". The Asians are particularly bad and recent University scandals about plagiarism in exams and other people doing on line work is alarming when one considers they may be the next Hospital junior Doctor "attempting" to probe your arm for a vein with a needle.

[flyinkiwi]

When I upgraded to a higher license some years ago I had to call a particular telephone number whereupon I was instructed to follow an automated procedure that lasted, if I recall correctly, around five minutes or so.

All this for more than $100. While I don't recall the exact figure I did think it was particularly expensive and reeked of a (non-market) rate being set by a monopoly.

It is more or less still the same, just the same old revenue gathering exercise, but the problems associated with foreign language speakers has not lessened at all. I fly from an airport that has a sausage factory with students from all over the planet and some of their spoken English leaves a lot to be desired. I shudder to think what their comprehension is like, especially with the Nu Zulund uksunt being difficult to understand at the best of times for non Kiwi's.

[aussie027]

I am the same as left270, ATO filled out paperwork EPL form after a CIR renewal and that was that. Done and dusted , no mess , no fuss the way it should be for all people who were raised in an English speaking country with English as their first and main/only language.

The endless money grabbing caused by CASA regs etc by CASA itself and private companies taking advantage of these ridiculous dodgy regs is sickening and destroying what is left of a struggling and slowly dying industry. :ugh::ugh::mad::mad:

With the average age of prof pilots in all industry sectors being IIRC approx 45-50yo, same with LAME's, technicians etc they need to be reducing fiscal costs and admin burdens everywhere not making them higher/worse to get new blood into the industry.:ugh: :ugh::mad::mad:

[Fratemate]

Funnier than that is being tested by a Japanese person in order to have a JCAB ATPL issued. I had to slow down and use fewer descriptions of the scenes I saw in order that she could keep up :hmm:

(So lucky we don't get a Japanese test)

[Metro man]

I know one to two native English speakers who didn't get level 6.

[no one]

I over hear people on trains that I'm sure would be native born but wouldn't pass a level 4 test :E

Sorry thread drift, it is a travesty that you must fork $100 or so for this...

[LeadSled]

Folks,

The FAA position was and is quite straight forward --- FARs say that you have to have a suitable standard of English to be issued with any FAA license.

Ergo, if you have an FAA license, you have an adequate standard of English, Q.E.D.

As one poster say, English assessment is big business, where Australia leads the world. Indeed, a nephew in Canada has an area franchise from an Australian mob in the field, he is making a motza.

Pity we couldn't lead the world in something actually productive.

Tootle pip!!

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

What is really daft is that an RPL holder with a Flight Radio Endorsement can fly into a certified aerodrome chattering on the radio, a student can fly solo in Class D with a General English Language Proficiency...but the guy in Car One doing the runway inspection has to have ICAO Level 6 and do the "my hovercraft is full of eels" test even though they have never flown an aircraft in their life. This is something that CASA have messed up VERY badly and really does need fixing.

Dick, the FAA can of course file differences but it means that any pilot wishing to fly overseas has to bear the burden of having to do this test because of those differences. And all American pilots I have spoken to are not happy about that.

As for paying $140 for a test that takes around 10-15 minutes, shop around!

[Horatio Leafblower]

As one poster say, English assessment is big business, where Australia leads the world. Indeed, a nephew in Canada has an area franchise from an Australian mob in the field, he is making a motza.

Pity we couldn't lead the world in something actually productive.

Hang on - isn't Australia going to lead the world in exporting "services"? Isn't this exactly the sort of new boom Joe Hockey was talking about?

[LeadSled]

Horatio,
If you want to call it exporting bureaucratic services, I will go along with you, but this is not exporting education services, this is thinking up a test, then creating an industry to administer the test.

Re. FAA, to clarify, FAA did/does not administer aviation language tests to existing FAA license holders (real ones, not ones issued against a foreign license) on the basis I already mentioned.

Other countries demanding local testing (like Australia) of foreign license holders is just another case of non-recognition of a pilot's qualification, not anything to do with FAA, if it is an FAA license you have,and in the Australian case, a "nice little earner".

Put another way, I can fly an N registered aircraft anywhere in the world without having to have ICAO Level 6 on the license.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Anybody got a link to the alleged US difference, I can't find one on this matter.

[First_Principal]

At the risk of drifting a little far from the original topic I wonder how many of you have read the ICAO criteria for English proficiency?

I've just looked at that (it was difficult to find on the ICAO site, so I ended up at an online dictionary :rolleyes:); I was somewhat horrified to find that at level 4 it's permissible to:

(1) Allow pronounciation structure to "sometimes interfere with ease of understanding"

(2) Have a grammatical structure which allows that "Errors may occur... but rarely interfere with meaning"

(3) And goes on to say things like "make limited use of discourse markers" and allow that "comprehension may be slower or require clarification strategies"

Several here have commented on the apparent ineffectiveness of the examination, and the crap 'Engrish wot is spoken' over the air, given the above I'm not surprised :ugh:

Now, the bit that really concerns me is just how safe is it to have people flying around who may have 'interference' with their understanding, make errors in grammar, have limited discourse ability and slow comprehension?

And I think it has to be remembered that this allowance is seemingly as assessed from a test conducted on the ground in a (relatively) non-threatening situation with little else going on. How will someone perform such tasks when they're at 3000ft, slightly lost, with a bit of turbulence, just dropped their lunch and there's several other aircraft in the vicinity that are heading their way?

:mad:

Seems rather haphazard, and hazardous, to allow such people to fly, yet they do... and then the powers that be get all hot and bothered over CVD?

:hmm:

FP.