How to Waste Money - $140 English Tests
 

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.

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

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.......:(

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.

How to Waste Money - $140 English Tests
 

..........

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...

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

UnZud just as bad.
 

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.

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

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.

He's got a good point.

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?

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.

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.

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: