How to Waste Money - $140 English Tests
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 日本
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 
(So lucky we don't get a Japanese test)
(So lucky we don't get a Japanese test)
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!!
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!!
Moderator
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!
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!
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.
Pity we couldn't lead the world in something actually productive.
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.
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.
Criteria, hazard, er, and CVD
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
); 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
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?
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?
FP.
I've just looked at that (it was difficult to find on the ICAO site, so I ended up at an online dictionary
); 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
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?
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?
FP.
