Biennial Flight Review - English Proficiency Test?

[Dick Smith]

Recently I sent some information in relation to a biennial flight review undertaken by a long-term private pilot in Australia.

He stated, “it also included an English proficiency test, alone costing $150, which was administered by someone with probably fewer language skills than me”.

The person undertaking the review had lived in Australia and had spoken a form of English for over 70 years.

Can anyone advise if this is normal, or is there a particular reason for this test?

I have also been advised that US pilots wanting to come to Australia do to some leisure flying, have to undertake an English proficiency test, as the Americans have simply notified a difference with ICAO, and don’t have this as part of their licencing system.

Any advice is greatly appreciated.

[fujii]

Dick, l prefer the bi-ennial review rather than doing it twice a year.

[Frank Arouet]

Dick;
I'd wager the $150 is the sole "excuse".
The person doing the BFR is only "reviewing" your already granted license. If he has difficulty with your literacy or numeracy he should request you undergo remedial actions. Perhaps with modern education standards someone should start looking at those doing the teaching in the first pace. Perhaps CAsA should look at who issued the license in the first place also.
Same goes for taxi drivers.

[Arm out the window]

I said to myself I wouldn't respond to any more of your lazy requests for information when it's freely available Dick, but why don't you look up the bloody regs and guidance material yourself?

https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/background-information

Also I'm a bit concerned that this thread doesn't have a title like "Half-wound back system introduced by military to destroy life as we know it."

[RUMBEAR]

A flight review is not a licence issue or upgrade? So unless intending to fly international ops then no need to be assessed for ELP. ( according to the link above )

[LeadSled]

Dick and all,
There is no general requirement for an Australian license holder, only flying in Australia, to have the ICAO Level 5 or 6 endorsed on a license.

The $150.00 try-on ( some are $250 and up) for a review is a ruse I have come across several times now, comes in the category of "a nice little earner", in the same category as schools who will not to a review unless you fly a 3-5 hours "refresher" with them. See the link below for how bleeding complicated CASA has managed to make it --- surprise.

To further complicate the issue, the whole ICAO program is to ensure that all pilots on international operations, and whose first language is not English, will have an adequate standard of aviation English. It seems CASA has turned that on its head, there is a CD around that has examples of other language speakers speaking heavily regionally accented "English" and you are being tested on your ability to understand what is NOT ICAO aviation English, NOT the ICAO requirement to speak Level 5/6 aviation English.

Re. the problem with FAA licenses, FAA declared by regulation that all FAA licenses comply with ICAO Level 6 English language requirements, on the basis of the required FAA/ICAO level of English must have been achieved, because they have an FAA PPL or up.

That is not good enough for CASA, who insist that an individual license must be endorsed ICAO Level 5 or 6. FAA have no such mechanism for such as an "endorsement", as it is automatically part of your FAA license.

Despite our some 1400 plus notified ICAO differences (non-compliances), isn't it amazing, the CASA zeal for absolute compliance when there is the opportunity to add cost, complexity and inconvenience.

Nothing like encouraging visiting Yank pilots to do a bit flying on a VH- aircraft. With the paperwork CASA now requires to validate a FAA license, plus the ASIC nonsense and now this latest, it is no wonder the number of American pilot visitors spending $$$ here is as good as nil.

See also: https://www.casa.gov.au/licences-and-certification/standard-page/english-language-proficiency-requirements-changes-october/

Tootle pip!!

[Clare Prop]

Recently had an American gent come to do some flying on a private hire. The application for a Certificate of Validation was the most painful part. ...something that used to be handled in less than 24 hours by the regional licensing people in days of yore and can now take up to 9 months.

Having been assured by someone in CLARC that it would all be done by the day he arrived, we checked a few days prior to his arrival to be told that the person handling it (who had had the paperwork for several weeks) was on sick leave therefore it would not be completed in time after all, tough ****. A phone call to the right person higher up the food chain, who basically had to start the procedure from scratch, had it done in less than an hour but it shouldn't be that way.

As for the ELP it is annoying that the FAA have chosen not to put ICAO English requirements on there but this was done in a few minutes. $150 for this is extortion!

Dick the main barrier to people from overseas coming on flying holidays is the woeful performance of CLARC and the restrictive rules on who overseas can verify documents. This should all be left to the flying schools, as is done in other countries, without anyone in Canberra getting involved and stuffing it up.
As for the ASIC...that's another rigmarole due to again the restrictions on who can verify documents, and the fact that unless you have time to apply for an Australian driving licence or someone here who has known them for more than 12 months and can provide a verifiable reference it is actually impossible to do.

[gerry111]

(Whilst English is being discussed, licence is the noun. License is American.)

[LeadSled]

Gerry111'
Close, but no chocolate frog.

Here from a CASA doc: "Part 61 of CASR 1998 prescribes the requirements and standards for the issue of flight crew licences, ratings and other authorisations, including those issued to pilots and flight engineers. ... Since commencement, the Flight Crew Licensing regulations have been subject to post .."

If you have a CASA licenCe, you are the licenSee, and CASA is the licenSer/licenSor, or so says the Macquarie Dictionary, the usual authority in AU.

So take your pick, more generally "c" is English English, "s" is American English. The general rules in English English is the the "licence" is a noun , and license is a verb/adverb, except where it is a noun --- as in licensee.

Now back to the real world ------ !!

Tootle pip!!

[kaz3g]

Clearly there needs to be more English practice because not enough is practised here.

Kaz

[Clare Prop]

Lucky the ELP doesn't require written English!

[Lead Balloon]

LeadSled

G3 and others were merely pointing out the correct grammar. Ironically, the quote you posted and the words you highlighted make the point.

In Australian English, the words "licence" and "license" have different meanings.

The word "licence" is a noun. "Here is my licence, officer,"

The word "license" is a verb. "I license you to copy my software."

As Kaz points out, the word "practice" is a noun. "My dental practice is lucrative."

The word "practise" is a verb. "I'm going to practise soccer this afternoon."

And a favourite of mine...

The word "dependant" is a noun and the word "dependent" is an adjective.

"I have two dependants: Mary and John. That's because they are dependent upon me for food and shelter."

[truthinbeer]

So you are licensed to fly a plane?

[LeadSled]

Lead Balloon,
Isn't that exactly what I said??
Personally, I prefer the simplified American English usage, just an "s" all the time. The Macquarie seems to accept that?
Tootle pip!!

[thorn bird]

Yu savvy long pidgin?
I know of one operator required to do a very expensive "proving flight" for the issue of an international AOC, all up costs around fifty grand.
I heard one of the NCN's issued was the CP should have travelled to the destination prior to the "proving flight" to lecture the countries ATC on proper "Singlish". That or run a course for aircrew on "Understanding Singlish".
Sometimes you really have to wonder......?

[Lead Balloon]

It depends on whether you take my advice [n], TIB.

I advise [vb] you that if you hold a pilot licence [n], you are licensed [adj] to fly an aircraft.

(The usage of "plane" and "airplane" is also an Americanism. In Australia, there are aircraft, some of which are aeroplanes, some of which are helicopters and some of which are something else...)

[spinex]

Ah English testing, another in a long line of rorts the Aussie public meekly put up with. Case in point, a friend is required to undertake English testing to practise her profession, this despite having 2 overseas degrees in English and a more recent Aussie qualification. Imagine the consternation when she failed the English test, on enquiry; much tittering behind hands of native Mandarin and Farsi speakers administering said test - you mean you took test without going on our special training course beforehand - you'll never pass like that! Go figure.

[Frank Arouet]

I blame the spell checker myself. I believe it's American.

[TBM-Legend]

I said to myself I wouldn't respond to any more of your lazy requests for information when it's freely available Dick, but why don't you look up the bloody regs and guidance material yourself?

This guy should move to another segment if he doesn't like what's written....rude p...

[Arm out the window]

TBM-Legend, if someone puts out repeated requests for information when it's freely available, and then changes tack when the information gained doesn't agree with their preconceived ideas, they need to be told.

This is not my usual way of interacting with people; in fact, I'm usually unfailingly polite, but as you would probably be aware, Dick doesn't ask simple questions in the usual way - he throws out these provocative fishing lines for his own purposes.

If someone legitimately wants information and can't find it, I'm often the first to help, but Dick's in a different category and I'm sick of his ways.

[Aussie Bob]

Dick's in a different category and I'm sick of his ways

AOTW, that is only your opinion and there are a lot here who like Dick and the fact that at least he is having a go.

It is obvious you even failed to read his post and interpret it. To save you scrolling back, Dick was asking about ELP assessment and how the industry was handling it with regard to flight reviews. Please show me where this information is available online. Dick was asking for industry experience.

You are clearly a dick basher and you should stop it before you go blind.

[Arm out the window]

I read his post, though he's edited it now. I don't mind Dick, but I'm pissed off at his way of coming out with over the top statements, stirring up a bunch of brouhaha and only listening to what he wants to hear.

The regs and explanatory documents as they stand (and I'm not saying I like 'em) have all the info about what's required. Dick said
Can anyone advise if this is normal, or is there a particular reason for this test?
Any advice is greatly appreciated.


Yep, there is, that's what the regs read. Is it right or not? No, in my view, but that's not what he asked. On a broader note, my objection to Dick's online persona is his penchant for coming out with the most sweeping unfounded statements and provocative Dick Headlines, not doing his own homework but happy to say any kind of bull**** to support his stance.

So no, I won't stop Dick bashing - dick bashing's another story!

[jumpnut]

Good ol' Tall Poppy Syndrome at its best.

[Aussie Bob]

AOTW, perhaps you don't realise that there are a whole bunch of pilots (read thousands) out there who have no ELP on their licences. It only became mandatory in the last decade or so and only for new licence issues or if an existing licence is upgraded to a higher level (PPL to CPL etc).

I have had a CPL for 30 odd years and only got ELP on it a couple of years ago because I had to have it to assess ELP myself. CASA gave it to me, including the test for free. There is no charge to get ELP put on a licence (expect to pay for a test) and anything a flight school charges for the test is for their time only.

For an instructor to look and see if it is on your licence prior to conducting a flight review is a bit rich. Insisting you get it as part of an AFR is pure BS. I think what Dick is asking is if this is normal FR practice. I have never heard of it myself and never look to see if the applicant has it on flight reviews I conduct, but it would not surprise me at all if some in the industry see it as a cash cow.

Yep, there is, that's what the regs read. Is it right or not.

Wrong, this is not what the regs read!

[gerry111]

AOTW wrote:

"I don't mind Dick, but I'm pissed off at his way of coming out with over the top statements, stirring up a bunch of brouhaha and only listening to what he wants to hear."

I agree.

Jumpnut wrote:

"Good ol' Tall Poppy Syndrome at its best."

I disagree.

[Arm out the window]

Wrong, this is not what the regs read!

Fair enough, they're convoluted and confusing and I'm not insisting I understand everything in them. I was reacting to Dick's manner of posting as previously mentioned.

[Aussie Bob]

Fair enough, they're convoluted and confusing and I'm not insisting I understand everything in themThere at least we have something in common! :)

[zanthrus]

If a pilot has an old CAR 5 Licence then after writing the FR on their licence and giving them the completed FR advice form (to send to CASA) I advise that he /she will need, 61-TX (something) conversion form to change to Part 61 Licence (first transaction with CASA post Part 61 implementation), ELP assessment (if required), possibly supply photos to CASA on 61 P form? (every 10 years if required) and check if they have valid ASIC or AVID. All these documents are required by CASA.

I do the ELP for free as part of the FR if they require it (takes little of my time anyway) I print the photo form and 61 TX form for them and tell them to send it all to CASA with their FR advice form. If they have no ASIC or AVID I tell them of their obligations. It is up to them as to whether or not they comply with the laws. I view the FR as an educational opportunity to bring them up to date on the new system and rules.

[Aussie Bob]

ELP assessment is not required to transition to a Part 61 licence. Nor is it required for a flight review, but good on you for providing it for free. IMHO it should be provided free as part of any flight test when the testing pilot has the capability. :ok:

[zanthrus]

Thanks Aussie Bob. I thought it would be required. Goes to show how confusing the mess is then! For all of us. :confused: