Biennial Flight Review - English Proficiency Test?
Thread Starter
Biennial Flight Review - English Proficiency Test?
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.
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.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 24th May 2016 at 06:59.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 24th May 2016 at 06:42. Reason: LOL, CU, RUOK, B4...
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-pag...nd-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."
https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-pag...nd-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."
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...anges-october/
Tootle pip!!
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...anges-october/
Tootle pip!!
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.
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'
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!!
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!!
Lucky the ELP doesn't require written English!
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."
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."
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!!
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!!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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......?
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......?
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...)
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...)
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.
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?
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.
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.