French DGAC award English pilot only level 5 English!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Some sunny place with good wine and good sailing
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am an Italian national flying in Italy for an Italian Airline, but with a UK licence.
My licence is about to expire its 5 years validity, and I just discovered I have to pass this exam to have it reissued.
Do you know where I can take it on a short notice?
(As long as I have understood in Itlay it is not possible yet anywhere)
My licence is about to expire its 5 years validity, and I just discovered I have to pass this exam to have it reissued.
Do you know where I can take it on a short notice?
(As long as I have understood in Itlay it is not possible yet anywhere)
By the way, the only difference between level 6 and level 4 is the frequency at which you have to be retested (you get level 6 for life).
OutofRunway:
Delta 138, that's approved, negative speed restriction
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sussex UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DGAC test
Richatom that test didn't seem too bad; I don't know if my answers would be correct though.
1 to 3 - same as you.
4 the missing word is "alpha"2061.
5 "negative speed restriction". No "due to" is intended, he is being advised that there is no speed restriction.
6 to 9 - same as you.
10 there are also clouds "few at 1700 feet" and the broken clouds are at 2200feet. The English (British if you prefer) never did really warm to Hectopascals instead of millibars.
YAD
1 to 3 - same as you.
4 the missing word is "alpha"2061.
5 "negative speed restriction". No "due to" is intended, he is being advised that there is no speed restriction.
6 to 9 - same as you.
10 there are also clouds "few at 1700 feet" and the broken clouds are at 2200feet. The English (British if you prefer) never did really warm to Hectopascals instead of millibars.
YAD
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: I know EXACTLY where I am..
Age: 54
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest, to most of the transmissions I would counter with the ICAO standard "say again?"
I firmly believe in making sure you understand what atc is trying to convey to you, even if it means asking three times.
I'm not easily embarassed.
OORW
I firmly believe in making sure you understand what atc is trying to convey to you, even if it means asking three times.
I'm not easily embarassed.OORW
if the recording says "turn heading 190, and climb to level 120", and you write "turn heading 190, and climb level 120", you will lose a mark!! Similarly, if on the recording the grammar is incorrect, or slang is used, but you reply in correct grammar, and without slang, then you will be penalised! So if a recording of an american pilot announces "I'm gonna take next left, then taxi up runway Lima", but you write "I am going to take the next left, then taxi up runway Lima", you will be penalised!!!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, they are French, look at the way they design an aircraft......you have to move thrust levers forward to give thrust, yet to turn the landing lights on you have to flick them back towards you., you can disconnect the autopilot, but PLEASE DONT DISCONNECT THE AUTOTHRUST, cause its not recomended, cause "TSHE EAROPLANE SHE KNOWS WHAT SHES DOING" 
....... 
so dont worry about your test, count your blessings, you could have been employed to fly one of these pieces of plastic
....... so dont worry about your test, count your blessings, you could have been employed to fly one of these pieces of plastic
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Pretty far away
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, the DGAC English test in no way tests those measures of English competency. The DGAC English consists of a series of out-of-context ATC recordings, and if you fail to understand one or two words then you are excluded from level 6. Completely ridiculous!
I totally disagree with the above remark and for once with DGAC, I found the test to be really very down to earth. It does measure english competency. Having to describe a situation taken out of an enveloppe to another fellow requires all the competency you can muster. Some blokes were really tragic and you'd wonder what it would be like under stress. The " voyage " is along the same lines. If you can't speak english ( wether general or aeronautical ) you're suffed. Indeed, as a group, the french speak crappy english and crappy will not do with that test.
As to the " out of context " thing ? RT when you're flying, is totally out of context too. You have to underdstand everything that's going on and reply to what directly concerns you and I think the test does just that. It requires that you just write down what you're hearing. Period.
And by the way thanks to all the feedback cuz I didn't miss a , or a . The trick is indeed to write EVERYTHING that you hear. General meaning won't do I'm afraid.
The facilities were good, the sound system flawless and the people running the test professional and friendly ( certainly not a french trade mark proving that with new blood things can change ) on time and we were out in 90 minutes.
I think it does the trick scooping up the not so " crème de la crème ".
I can't really see where the problem is for a native english speaker unless they came with a cocky attitude thinking it was owed to them. I dunno, only suggesting.
Tchekuddu
I wish the french were the sole designers / producers, think of all those jobs and money !! However, a few other nations also design / produce this " piece of plastic ". I'm sure you're coming from one of them.
I always thought adaptability was one of the foremost important qualities a pilot must have. If you have a problem with the landing lights the rest must be a tad stressfull for you.
Last edited by Me Myself; 18th Apr 2008 at 10:38.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
""negative due to speed restriction". See what I mean by native speakers missing prepositions without realising it?"
I though CAP413 specifically prohibits the 'to' preposition (confusion with two)
I though CAP413 specifically prohibits the 'to' preposition (confusion with two)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Some sunny place with good wine and good sailing
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The French test is trying to combine the FCL1.200 (r/t competency) with the FCL1.028 (linguistic competency - which assumes no aviation knowledge). Therein lies the problem. For if a fluent native English speaker, but non-pilot, were to take their test, they would not score level 6. They would likely fail even to get level 4, since the test assumes aeronautical knowledge (and it also requires fluent French to understand the questions - but that is another matter).
The CAA tests the two skills with two separate exams - FRTOL for r/t competency, and an entirely separate English competency exam for those who are not automatically classified as native English speakers. This follows more closely the ICAO guidelines.
FWIW, the Head of Examinations at the DGAC just wrote to me privately to admit that the combined FCL1.200/1.028 exam needs to be improved to ensure that evidently level 6 native speakers are not penalised simply because they make a small error in transcribing a couple of r/t recordings.
Correct - and I lost a point in my exam for exactly that. The controller said "heading 310, climb to level 100", which I transcribed to "heading 310, climb level 100". I don't see how my correction of the controller to standard phraseology proves that I am not a level 6 speaker, which is what was supposedly being tested in the exam.
If I had to take the exam again, I would evidently write out all the errors etc, but there will not be another time. I've decided that the best solution to all of this is just to give up my DGAC licence and get a CAA licence instead. Type ratings, medicals are all so much easier to renew with a CAA licence than with a DGAC licence, even living in France.
The CAA tests the two skills with two separate exams - FRTOL for r/t competency, and an entirely separate English competency exam for those who are not automatically classified as native English speakers. This follows more closely the ICAO guidelines.
FWIW, the Head of Examinations at the DGAC just wrote to me privately to admit that the combined FCL1.200/1.028 exam needs to be improved to ensure that evidently level 6 native speakers are not penalised simply because they make a small error in transcribing a couple of r/t recordings.
I though CAP413 specifically prohibits the 'to' preposition (confusion with two)
If I had to take the exam again, I would evidently write out all the errors etc, but there will not be another time. I've decided that the best solution to all of this is just to give up my DGAC licence and get a CAA licence instead. Type ratings, medicals are all so much easier to renew with a CAA licence than with a DGAC licence, even living in France.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Pretty far away
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I had to take the exam again, I would evidently write out all the errors etc, but there will not be another time. I've decided that the best solution to all of this is just to give up my DGAC licence and get a CAA licence instead. Type ratings, medicals are all so much easier to renew with a CAA licence than with a DGAC licence, even living in France.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Italy
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TO richatom:
Thanks for your relpy,
that is exactely what I mean, I will be going to the CAA in a few days but I was trying to look already to some places where I can do the exam as I am probably NOT level 6.
I was just alarmed by the fact that in the website there is no mention of any school or organization yet ready to provide this service...
Thanks for your relpy,
that is exactely what I mean, I will be going to the CAA in a few days but I was trying to look already to some places where I can do the exam as I am probably NOT level 6.
I was just alarmed by the fact that in the website there is no mention of any school or organization yet ready to provide this service...
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Land of the Raj
Age: 69
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is so funny, I hold an FAA ATPL and needed the English Proficiency notation, so, I sent in my license to the FAA, paid my $2 and just got back my new license that now says "English language proficient". voila....
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: EGHP
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously people, you/we cant be surprised at the French providing some friction and pushback over language issues. There are some in politic circles, even this week, who appear to make a career of it.
I am just thankful that all of my ATC experiences have been good ones (and some VERY good).
I am just thankful that all of my ATC experiences have been good ones (and some VERY good).
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me Myself
You say you got a six? It is obvious from this paragraph that your English is not to the standard of a native speaker, so I think you prove the exam is not accurate!
I take it you've never read CAP 413, or any other nation's RT manual? That's the one that indicates the calls to be used in various contexts, i.e. puts the RT in context. I take it you have never trained as a pilot, where your instructor puts the RT in context?
The test might require you to write down everything you hear, but that is something required neither by standard flight operations nor the ICAO definitions of English competency. The whole problem is that the test requires everything to be written down, which is irrelevant to testing proficiency against the ICAO standards. The point of the entire thread is that general meaning won't do, but that there is no apparent reason not.
Well folks; after reading this thread I went in like a lamb ready to be slaughtered............and I got a 6 !
I totally disagree with the above remark and for once with DGAC, I found the test to be really very down to earth. It does measure english competency. Having to describe a situation taken out of an enveloppe to another fellow requires all the competency you can muster. Some blokes were really tragic and you'd wonder what it would be like under stress. The " voyage " is along the same lines. If you can't speak english ( wether general or aeronautical ) you're suffed. Indeed, as a group, the french speak crappy english and crappy will not do with that test.
I totally disagree with the above remark and for once with DGAC, I found the test to be really very down to earth. It does measure english competency. Having to describe a situation taken out of an enveloppe to another fellow requires all the competency you can muster. Some blokes were really tragic and you'd wonder what it would be like under stress. The " voyage " is along the same lines. If you can't speak english ( wether general or aeronautical ) you're suffed. Indeed, as a group, the french speak crappy english and crappy will not do with that test.
As to the " out of context " thing ? RT when you're flying, is totally out of context too. You have to underdstand everything that's going on and reply to what directly concerns you and I think the test does just that. It requires that you just write down what you're hearing. Period.
And by the way thanks to all the feedback cuz I didn't miss a , or a . The trick is indeed to write EVERYTHING that you hear. General meaning won't do I'm afraid.
And by the way thanks to all the feedback cuz I didn't miss a , or a . The trick is indeed to write EVERYTHING that you hear. General meaning won't do I'm afraid.
The test might require you to write down everything you hear, but that is something required neither by standard flight operations nor the ICAO definitions of English competency. The whole problem is that the test requires everything to be written down, which is irrelevant to testing proficiency against the ICAO standards. The point of the entire thread is that general meaning won't do, but that there is no apparent reason not.
Last edited by Life's a Beech; 18th Apr 2008 at 20:21.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Pretty far away
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take it you've never read CAP 413, or any other nation's RT manual? That's the one that indicates the calls to be used in various contexts, i.e. puts the RT in context. I take it you have never trained as a pilot, where your instructor puts the RT in context?
Ouch !!
As a 777 skipper I must have done something right during my training ( I hope ). Sorry for the suffed instead of stuffed ( no punt intended ) big fingers, small keyboard.........!
No, I haven't read CAP 413 and I admit this doesn't preoccupy me all that much when landing in JFK or LAX.
As I said, I just went in, spoke when asked to, did my stuff, left and got a 6. Sorry if that upsets you so much. My Aussie ATPL is good enough to cruise around the world I'm afraid.
I think you are totally missing the point here. Moaning and bitching about the system won't help you one bit. They want it done a certain way and unless you want to spend another 80 Eur, that's the way you're going to have to do it. They rule, we don't. I know it's a crappy deal but that's the only one we've got. The real question is : do you need a french licence or not and how bad ? If not where's the problem ? If yes, then go by the rules because they won't change, not before you eat the dafodils by the roots anyway. I've been around long enough not to try to understand DGAC. Life's too short.
By the way, thanks for the info some were good enough to share on this site.
This goes for any other administration around the globe. They whistle the tune......we dance. I don't recall CASA to be all that logical either when it comes to air law.
If the FAA wants to stamp a licence for 2 $, be my guest. I've also got a US licence and it bears " restricted use " meaning " take your sorry self elsewhere ". Unless you are a US citizen or have a green card, it's useless.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No upset, but you must admit that paragraph was rather obscure in language, even for an Aussie 
I agree that moaning and bitching won't, in the short term, help, However it has informed a lot of people who did not know before what this new system means (that it is level of English proficiency, not explicitly related to aviation English) and that there is a deep flaw in the French testing system. Comparison has also been made with other systems, with any luck exposing their flaws and helping understand which might be good.
There are some rather influential people here, and eventually if enough people know the problems that are being caused by the flawed system something might be done. This has got to be a good way of spreading that knowledge quickly, from you based in Aus or France to me based in the UK, and on to any of our colleagues to whom we might talk about the issue, by chance or because it is relevant. The more people who are aware of the issue, the more likely it is to be addressed.
Even European agencies, perhaps even EASA and the DGAC, occasionally do consult.
I agree that moaning and bitching won't, in the short term, help, However it has informed a lot of people who did not know before what this new system means (that it is level of English proficiency, not explicitly related to aviation English) and that there is a deep flaw in the French testing system. Comparison has also been made with other systems, with any luck exposing their flaws and helping understand which might be good.
There are some rather influential people here, and eventually if enough people know the problems that are being caused by the flawed system something might be done. This has got to be a good way of spreading that knowledge quickly, from you based in Aus or France to me based in the UK, and on to any of our colleagues to whom we might talk about the issue, by chance or because it is relevant. The more people who are aware of the issue, the more likely it is to be addressed.
Even European agencies, perhaps even EASA and the DGAC, occasionally do consult.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Pretty far away
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Life
The problem in my view isn't so much the test but the knowledge or lack of it people have.
Bear in mind that it was designed to assess french pilots only, not native english speakers. No one doubts for one second that an english pilot can speak english. Exept in Yorkshire maybe
Speaking of which, I remember reading an article last year about the Home Office implementing a new nationwide police radio system. They had to send each regional force a R/T manual to try to get rid of regional linguos.
The test however is very rigid and there are reasons. If you purely stick to by the book R/T you'll then end up with people jumping in droves through the loopholes. By that I mean R/T can very easily turn into " pigeon english ". That's what has been going on for years.
The test in its present form came as a nasty surprise to native speakers. I see a bit of over confidence here too. Knowing all this, getting a level 6 should be a walk in the park for any native english speaker. Just be a good boy, do what's requested of you now you know the traps and walk away happy just like I did.
Apparently, the only people complaining here are.........native english speakers which, you'll admit, is bit of a laugh isn't it ?
This reminds me of a line in a movie where one boss asks his employee " Do you want to be right or.......happy ?? "
As to the french ? I think the test does just what it's supposed to do. People will have to be on their toes knowing they'll be tested on a regular basis or face the posssibility of being grounded. I don't know what AF will do or be allowed to do however, but don't hold your breath thinking half of their pilots will be sent home.
I understand a few airlines are starting to request level 6 to apply. This should make things interesting with pilots coming in short supplies very soon. What about chinese pilots ??? Forget the poor french !
Someone here was praising the CAA system where you just show up, have a nice little chat with a nice civil servant and walk away with whatever level they feel like giving you.
You can't possibly imagine a pilot walking into.........let's say Toulouse and request to be assessed by the local " bureau de piste " person on the spot, can you ??
The problem in my view isn't so much the test but the knowledge or lack of it people have.
Bear in mind that it was designed to assess french pilots only, not native english speakers. No one doubts for one second that an english pilot can speak english. Exept in Yorkshire maybe
Speaking of which, I remember reading an article last year about the Home Office implementing a new nationwide police radio system. They had to send each regional force a R/T manual to try to get rid of regional linguos.The test however is very rigid and there are reasons. If you purely stick to by the book R/T you'll then end up with people jumping in droves through the loopholes. By that I mean R/T can very easily turn into " pigeon english ". That's what has been going on for years.
The test in its present form came as a nasty surprise to native speakers. I see a bit of over confidence here too. Knowing all this, getting a level 6 should be a walk in the park for any native english speaker. Just be a good boy, do what's requested of you now you know the traps and walk away happy just like I did.
Apparently, the only people complaining here are.........native english speakers which, you'll admit, is bit of a laugh isn't it ?
This reminds me of a line in a movie where one boss asks his employee " Do you want to be right or.......happy ?? "
As to the french ? I think the test does just what it's supposed to do. People will have to be on their toes knowing they'll be tested on a regular basis or face the posssibility of being grounded. I don't know what AF will do or be allowed to do however, but don't hold your breath thinking half of their pilots will be sent home.
I understand a few airlines are starting to request level 6 to apply. This should make things interesting with pilots coming in short supplies very soon. What about chinese pilots ??? Forget the poor french !
Someone here was praising the CAA system where you just show up, have a nice little chat with a nice civil servant and walk away with whatever level they feel like giving you.
You can't possibly imagine a pilot walking into.........let's say Toulouse and request to be assessed by the local " bureau de piste " person on the spot, can you ??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Some sunny place with good wine and good sailing
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's an FRTOL?
Having listened to 5 three or four times, I can now make out that he is saying "negative speed restriction", though even knowing the answer it took a few listens before I could correlate the known answer to what I heard.
Me Myself:
Your written English is ok but flawed, and I would guess that you are not a native speaker. Am I right?
As "Life is a Beech" points out, the French DGAC test is geared to native French speakers who have English as a second language, not the likes of me who have English as a first language and French as a second language. So perhaps there is a lesson to be learnt there for the DGAC and other national authorities. I read elsewhere on Pprune of an English pilot who was only scored level 4 in Germany, so perhaps the problem is not limited to France.
Incidentally, any of you who don't speak fluent French would probably be scored level 1 in English if you were to take that exam, as much of the exam is in French language.