ICAO Language Proficiency Tests

[MarkerInbound]

FAA just put out a notice that the effective date of the ICAO rule has been pushed back but they will continue to issue new certificates with the endorsement.

[PA38-Pilot]

Interesting ... if anyone with an ATPL is assumed to be Level 4 or better, why have the requirement in the first place?

You are right... this, and other examples in this thread, show that this whole idea, while good in theory, will mean nothing at the end.

I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years they just throw it out altogether...

[AnthonyGA]

I've read that the rules of aviation are written in blood. Perhaps not enough blood has yet been spilled due to incompetency in English to write this particular rule in a durable way, despite the obvious potential advantages of the rule.

Unfortunately, as the globalization of air travel progresses, eventually accidents directly attributable to an inability to communicate in English are inevitable (some might argue that they have already occurred on multiple occasions, such as Tenerife). I suppose it will take a public outcry external to aviation to get the rules truly enforced. I think it safe to say that many countries that have not yet conformed to the rules (even though they've had years to plan for it) are likely never to do so in the future, either, no matter how many extensions are granted by the ICAO. The fact that the ICAO itself is in a location where considerable hostility to English has historically existed might also encourage the organization to be lax in enforcement and generous with extensions.

As for Argentina, this video clip from a documentary made in the country illustrating a serious ATC incident shows that problems still exist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvrbMjDvcX8

If controllers in Argentina are grandfathered into illusory compliance without testing in the same way that ATPs apparently are, I find this worrisome. On the brighter side, the pilot seems to speak excellent English, even though the country where his airline is based has an absolutely abysmal record when it comes to English competency. (I suspect, however, that the pilot in this case happens to be a native English speaker.)

[frogone]

Hi,

Has anyone not received their endorsement from the UK CAA like me? :mad:

What's you're plan of action, maybe can it be faxed as a temp fix?

IR

[FlyboyUK]

Not received anything from the CAA and haven't heard that any of my collegues have either.

[frogone]

I phoned the CAA yesterday and they said that some were being posted out this weekend. Very sloppy by the CAA. :mad: Bit tight for a March 5th deadline.

IR

[BEagle]

Received my replacement licence page from the CAA weeks ago!

Annoyingly, it has to be cut in half to fit into the licence booklet.

[Basil]

Justa go' reta say I go' grafara ri reva foe ICAO Ingri but can upgrade to level six at my next checkride :p:p

p.s: Joke aimed at ICAO, JAA etc and not at most foreign English speakers who speak English far better than I speak their languge.

[SAFrog]

I am based in France and phoned the CAA on Friday as I have still not received my update. They were unable to tell me if they have posted mine yet but apparently they will all be sent by next week. :rolleyes:

In order for me to get Level 6, I either have to return to the UK ( I can make an appointment with a CAA tester at Gatwick) for the test or alternatively take it in France with a CAA recognised tester here.

Apparently the CAA website will be updated next week giving us a list of all the people allowed to test .. will have to wait and see !

[slamer.]

Pilots to face English tests

5:00AM Sunday March 02, 2008


http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/Aircraft230.jpg
Photo / Bay of Plenty Times

Aviation authorities in New Zealand want tighter English language rules for trainee pilots.
That follows growing concern about radio communications by foreign students at uncontrolled airports, where pilots rely on talking to each other to avoid collisions.
The new rules have been put forward by the International Civil Aviation Organisation which said English language problems were a factor in more than 1100 aviation deaths worldwide between 1976 and 2000.
From Wednesday a company working for the CAA will give would-be pilots an aviation-related English test over the phone.
Until now, students were tested by their flight instructor. Students must pass the new test before getting a pilot's licence.
Around 350 overseas pilots are currently training in New Zealand. The CAA said it was aware of "general concerns" with their airmanship.
"This view is under investigation and, if found to be correct, proficiency with English language may prove to be a factor." It said two flying schools were under investigation but would not name them.


New Zealand Aviation Industry Association chief executive Irene King said complaints about the language issue had increased.
"Sometimes it is difficult to understand people at the best of times, let alone on a radio. We are obviously pretty concerned about it. We don't want to discourage foreign pilots from coming here, they are critical to the survival of the industry."
The number of trainee pilots in New Zealand has doubled in the past four years, mainly due to what King described as an "explosive" increase in overseas students from Asia, South America, the Middle East and Europe.
Richard Gates, the chief executive of New Zealand's busiest airport, Ardmore in south Auckland, declined to be interviewed.
In a statement he noted the introduction of the English language test.
Craig Hunter, general manager of Ardmore Flying School which has about 20 foreign students on its books, refuted claims of poor English.
Hunter said some of his overseas students spoke better English than some locals.
"Sometimes people need to get over their middle-class, Anglo-Saxon issues," he said. "We are a multi-cultural society."
Hunter said Ardmore had relatively few foreign students compared to Paraparaumu and Palmerston North, which catered for up to 60.
Several pilots at Ardmore said they were used to foreign students' accents on radio broadcasts and did not consider them a safety risk

[dusk2dawn]

I like this one (by gas-chamber (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=122783)) : If you are from a native English speaking country, just ignore it. Let's say there are 50,000 pilots in that situation, do you really think they will make our licences invalid? It's a crock....Ever had the DGAC inspectors nock on the cockpit door? No fluency in english will help you to move your bird before the magic number is in the license.

[planeenglish]

Hello all,

Firstly, I'd like to respond to gas-chamber whom I feel has had his head stuffed in a gas chamber. For only one whose brain has been cooked, no, singed can say something as foolish as this:

If you are from a native English speaking country, just ignore it.

I hope you are not a pilot. I pray you are not an instructor. Ignore a standard? Ignore a rule? Bah! :ugh:

Wake up people. It's a safety issue. Do you people think that the way you communicate on the radio is unnecessary? Then why do you use the bloody thing. Just start roaming around in IFR with VFR mentality. Have fun, I'll take the train.

I've said it a million times, it is an effective communications thing here. Monolingual speakers of English are as much to blame for dangerous miscommunications just as much as a foreigner trying to speak English on the radio. USE STANARD R/T AND A MYRIAD OF THESE PROBLEMS WILL DISAPPEAR!!!!!!!!!


This whole LPR Standards thing started as a pimple on the face of aviation. Then became a wart and now has turned into a huge tumour that no one knows what to do with but everyone seems to have their own idea of how to treat it. In the meantime the cause of this pimple is not being looked at or remedied and therefore is still there creating pimples and craters the size and capacity of Etna. The aspirin that CAAs are treating this tumour with is not doing anything but making the curators think it is relieving the pain.

R/T communications are a disaster. ICAO thought that if they made testing mandatory people would rush out and get training. (Smart thinking-using reverse psychology!) It didn't happen that way. People are rushing to find the quick easy test to get a certificate.

But the standard is here and we have to find a way to deal with it. Blame the new pilots and make it mandatory for them; not those already pushing throttles at the pointy end.

As we all know, native speakers of English mis-communicate and therefore who is native speaker must demonstrate proficiency. The fact that the FAA pissed and moaned about foreign pilots mucking up the bar-room talk on the US frequencies poured money into ICAO to find a solution. Looking in the mirror and saying "even we have a problem" wouldn't do. It just was easier to tell everyone else to learn to figure out what the hell FAA ATC and pilots are actually saying.

Training is what I'm all about. I think this testing stuff is for linguists in a lab. Pilots are tortured enough. Pilots are the profession most tested in the world. Hell, they did a study on how all these tests and studies affect pilot's psyche. That is taxing you on your taxes paid.

I feel that if ICAO had indeed just said that miscommunications (be it lack of English language proficiency, bad procedure in R/T comms or just plain neglect and/or ignorance) are causing problems then certain number of hours are required for pilots and ATC annually of Effective communication skills in English. Once a person has acquired the skills to use effective comms (note I don't say language proficiency) then there should be a certain number of hours of recurrent and upkeep effective comms training.

Annoyed to the tilt,

PE

PS. For those in or curious about Argentina,

Here's your test. (http://www.cra.gov.ar/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=59) Good luck! :ok:

[GlueBall]

Word is that FAA [USA] license holders have extension till 5 March 2009 to meet this ICAO required endorsement.

[Firestorm]

BBC Radio 4s PM programme has just given a shamefully inaccurate report on the introduction of ICAO English standards, without even asking for an explanation from someone who might know something about it, but from a travel correspondant! Most unlike Radio 4!

[king surf]

Simon Calder strikes again on Radio 4 PM!!.He gets all his info from this forum so it must be correct:ugh:

[beardy]

It's the prat Simon Calder you are referring to who commented on Radio 4. He has featured here before:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=282809&highlight=simon+calder


Why don't you contact Radio 4 and tell them about his credibility problem. BTW he referred to Pprune without naming it.

[planeenglish]

To Firestorm:

Can you tell us what he said? I'm not able to hear Radio4.

Thanks,

PE

[beardy]

On this page:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/pm/

Go to 'Listen Again' (right hand column,) use tonight's edition and fast forward to about minute 49+.

If you want to comment there is a facility on the same page.

[planeenglish]

Thanks, I'll listen but it may be best not to comment. :E

Best,
PE

[AnthonyGA]

While standardization of radio communication is an important goal and can do much to improve communication, it is not true that it can substitute for general English proficiency. Standard phraseology addresses common situations in air traffic control, but it says nothing about exceptional situations, and when exceptional situations arise, a much broader subset of English must be used. In order to understand radio communications in exceptional cases (which are common enough that they cannot be ignored), general English proficiency is mandatory.

If everyone confined himself to perfectly standard phraseology tomorrow, that would be a wonderful thing. But whether that happens or not, it is independent of the need for pilots and controllers to be able to speak general English, and not just a few standard phrases.

Indeed, the most likely situation in which standard phraseology will not suffice also happens to be a situation in which communication is most important, namely, an emergency.

[click]

Now that I have my shiny new license...SAFA? Where are you? Coffee's on, come on in:E

[WestWind1950]

This morning the German television brought a report about the new language requirements. They had a reporter interview pilots, in ENGLISH, at various international airports. It was amazing how the ones they presented couldn't converse at all! Of course, that can't be generalized, but it was very disturbing.

All German pilots that are already in possesion of an English radio licence have received documents for stage 4, good until 2010. They then will have to do a test to achieve stage 5 or 6.

Some (uniformed) pilots are of course having a fit! But that's to be expected.... and some may wonder why they didn't receive one. If someone gets the English radio licence and carry it with them, without informing the CAA authorities, then the "system" doesn't know it so they didn't get their document. And MANY have been "returned to sender" because the authorities were never notified about their new addresses after moving!!

So, if you have moved, inform your CAA!!

[PBL]

planeenglish (many posts) and AnthonyGA have more or less hit the nail on the head (note: phrase not in the ICAO subset).

Aviation communications English is more or less a formal language which aviators learn. You can't just get in an airplane and chatter away, even as a native English speaker: you have to learn what there is to communicate, and how people before you have decided it shall be communicated. The entire FAA documentation on ATC phraseology is not "common sense" to native English speakers; it is a learned language (even if the pronunciation and spelling is familiar).

Some years ago, NASA employed a linguist, Stephen Cushing, to analyse communications in accidents and incidents. Cushing published a book, Fatal Words (U. Chicago Press, I think 1997 - my copy is elsewhere). I recommend its reading to all.

Cushing tried to devise a formal grammar for ATC/pilot communications. We gave a formally simpler one, in EBNF (a formal grammar form suitable also for computer languages), as well as correcting some mistakes. We then applied this grammar to published CVR transcripts of accidents, to see how far the communications conformed, and whether the statements that occurred therein were unambiguous, even if theoretically ill-formed.

Didn't have much luck. Most aviation communication that we looked at is formally incorrect enough also to be ambiguous.

Switch context. The German railways (Deutsche Bahn) set out a formal language for train dispatching (a form of train control by voice, which is used on lines on which signals are not installed). Every so often, local modes of informal speech are used by controllers and drivers rather than the official wording and sometimes..... bam!

In aviation it is also sometimes thus, as I hope most people here understand (Cushing starts off, of course, with Tenerife).

Aviation communication is a formal language, and just because the words and pronunciation are familiar or identical to those which native English speakers use with their butcher, baker and candlestickmaker (reference clear to those of English descent) does not mean that it does not have to be learnt (note: USAmericans say "learned"). Indeed, sometimes it means (as with those railway examples) that one should preferably treat it as another language and not attempt to translate into your local dialect.

That said, as AnthonyGA has pointed out, a crucial test comes when one must step outside the formal language in an emergency. Do you want Evelyn Waugh on the microphone dictating the next chapter of his disaster novel or would you rather have someone who has learnt to confine his phrase-building to the crucial 500 word vocabulary and uses a standard syntax that everyone understands?

PBL

[EZYWorld]

I think it is about time the authorities put a procedure like this in place.

I, however, wonder now if the airlines will be getting English teachers to improve the proficiency of some of their pilots.

A level 4 means you have to be tested every 3 years. So, I take it, that we will go back to the LPC and whilst you are in the SE NDB procedure you will be asked to list fifteen irregular verbs and to make a short speech which should include at least ten of them.:eek:

[PBL]

whilst you are in the SE NDB procedure you will be asked to list fifteen irregular verbs and to make a short speech which should include at least ten of them

I thunk I was and wusn gone and din it before I woulda shoulda done n went n said it.

Memorise.

PBL

[planeenglish]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/programmes/

to listen again

go to Wed 5th march and scroll down the page until you come to the
Morning reports
comes in at about 16 mins

[GearDown&Locked]

PBL said:Do you want Evelyn Waugh on the microphone dictating the next chapter of his disaster novel or would you rather have someone who has learnt to confine his phrase-building to the crucial 500 word vocabulary and uses a standard syntax that everyone understands?


Yes, it makes sense. But me thinks there is another subject that's been overlooked by ICAO et all; Do they teach you (or are you tested for) the importance of good verbalization of a given phrase even if the syntax is spotless? Just Imagine an emergency situation reported on a monochordic tone... would that prompt the receiver as quickly as if it was done more emphatically?!

GD&L

[planeenglish]

Good question. Intonation is part of Pronunciation and it is rated as well as the "accent" and stress of the words themselves.

From the Doc. 9835

Level 4 pronunciation: Pronunciation, stress, rhythm, and intonation are influenced by the first language or regional variation, but only sometimes interfere with understanding.

Best,
PE

[dartagnan]

today, I got the mail from the UK CAA with the updated license, and same thing for the FAA after request.

i seriously think that students thinking going to this profession should give a miss if they dont have the time to learn english.

from March 08, now, I think students will think twice and will probably not run to their flight schools.

this is all good for this market flooded with pilots.

[NuName]

dartagnan did you mean this?
" this is all good for this market flooded with pilots."

Really! I cant remember a better pilots market in the last 30 years. All the minimums are being continually reduced as company's and individuals seek crew in an ever diminishing pool of capable pilots, what more could you want.

P.S. Good for you that grammar was not required:)

[dartagnan]

yes I meaned it. this market is not so rosy that we could think.
lot of pilots with 200h and stuck at home.
lot of pilots with thousand of hours and totally broke paying back their JAR license, or trying to find the money to buy a type and line training.

I have many calls from pilots asking me where to pay line training.
they are desperate.
I know this market is little bit better than 10 or even 20 years ago but many pilots wont find any position.

since the introducton of this new ICAO english, the situation will slightly improve for us and we will have better comunication between pilots-controllers.

remember when the JAR came in our EU system, 10 ago?. flight schools were supposely to give the training in english.
as it was unpossible for the teachers to learn english or to get the documentation in english, they started to ask their CAA for some derogations to keep their national language like france, spain,germany....
so in 10 years, nothing has been done regarding the english language.

now, legislators are coming back to strike back, but they strike where it hurts the most, the pilot directly..., and this time, there wont be any derogation at all. you dont speak english, go work somewhere else...

you want do your training in french?, well go ahead, but dont complaint if an airline dont give u a job because ur english is limited.

so this is all good for new pilots who want do the maximum effort to speak english and it 's bad new for the one, who got bad grade at school , and never thought english was so important.

last time, the captain or copi said "cabin crew, we take coffee in 2 minutes" with a strong german accent , instead of "we TAKE OFF in 2 minutes". is it so hard to say TAKE OFF???:{

just wait another 6 months, airlines wll be this time desperate to find level4 icao pilots...:ok:












I grade 50% on grammar, but 70% on the oral.
better than :http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=_Vq_1xt6vuY

[lambert]

What does that mean, exactly, PE, "only sometimes interferes with understanding". I believe that ELPAC has tried to be more specific and defined this as a percentage. At the end of the day the level is open to the interpretation of the examiner. So level 4 from one examiner could be a level 3 or 5 from another. What a pity that ICAO didn't complete the job by creating a test and approving examiners etc, but left it to the market to blunder on.

Makes for lots of interesting places to have conferences though!

[fractus]

Do you know where can I find materials or sample tests for this exam, couldn’t find anything on this forum. I’ve found www.relta.org (http://www.relta.org/) but couldn’t find where can I buy those books or cds. Or are they only available for course participants?

[AnthonyGA]

Unfortunately, bad pronunciation tends to interfere with understanding at precisely the times when correct understanding is most needed, that is, at times when the parties communicating depart from standard phraseology in order to deal with an exceptional situation. Additionally, all speakers of languages foreign to them tend to make more mistakes and speak with poorer pronunciation when they are under stress, or when they are required to engage in activities requiring considerable mental effort.

An apocryphal story holds that, during the Second World War, there were a few German spies who spoke perfect English, without any trace of an accent. The Allies sought to root out these spies, and would do so by giving them a math problem on a blackboard, and telling them to solve the problem, while explaining their work out loud. When spies who were not native speakers of English were given such problems, they'd start out well enough, but would usually slip at some point: "Two plus two is four, eight times twenty is one-sixty, six squared is sechsunddreißig ..." Oops!

In English, proper stress is essential to comprehension. Intonation, on the other hand, is irrelevant, and in fact a completely flat intonation is probably ideal for radio communication. It seems that many air traffic controllers, at least, pride themselves on maintaining a consistently calm and neutral tone, and justifiably so.

[ChristiaanJ]

AnthonyGA,
LOL !!!!!!

I'm Dutch, lived only half of my life in Holland, the rest of it in the UK and France, married to a native English-speaker.....

And yet I will still do some of my mental math in Dutch.

[Gulfstreamaviator]

but 0% on attitude.....thats life......

ps do you have to request in queens english from the yanks to get your faa sticker. ?

then I have three licences, and three sticki...what is the plural of BS.



glf

[richatom]

as it was unpossible for the teachers to learn english


"Me fail English, that's unpossible!"
Ralph Wiggums

[he1iaviator]

I am a native English speaker, born and bred in England. I do not have a regional accent. I have always taken great pride in my radio communications skills. I hold a JAA(UK) ATPLH with Instrument rating as well as a number of ‘foreign’ licences. Over the last 30 years I have flown in a great number of countries in this World with crew members from throughout the known universe and have never had a problem being understood either from within or from outside the cockpit. Someone at Jeppesen in Germany has assessed me, though a computer based test, as being level 5 and on asking for clarification I have been informed that my pronunciation is not good enough for level 6.

Perhaps it was the fact that I had difficulty with the question "Describe the difficulties that might be experienced by a beginning air traffic controller"?

WTF?!!? (Excuse my French!)

[richatom]

I think there may be a few other anomalies like that on some national English tests. Like you, I am English, educated in England, and have no regional accent. But because I have a French licence, I have to go to Paris in April to have my English tested. The English test consists of listening and replying to 20 short radio-telephony phrases. To be awarded level 6 English, I have to get 18 or more correct. Now having listened to a few of the practice tapes, I can well imagine that I might fail to get 18 correct, because some of them can be interpreted in different ways, depending on the situation etc.

[robert f jones]

I had dinner with a Delta crew last week and the subject of the new requirement was mentioned by the captain. To our astonishment he produced a small card he possessed stating his current standard - I guess it must have been 6. He knew of this via ALPA, unfortunately the 2 copilots hadn't !

[WestWind1950]

@heliaviator
what Jeppesen test? I live in Germany and the LBA hasn't put out any permissions as far as I know for any kind of official testing. I'm American and hope to get qualifcation for doing the tests, but so far it's not clear who will get to do it.

At least I have the stage 4 and thus 3 years before the serious testing begins :ok:

[LedZeppelin]

Sorry, He1iaviator, but to many people in this world, you DO have an accent. And comprehensibility is not just a matter of accent. (See post by Marhubeng above, p 11) This is all about the intelligibility in the international community, where native speakers have to conform to what works best for the non-native majority. We can all work on our comms skills.
A trainee recently gave me a link to an interesting exchange between a Chinese pilot and a controller at JFK. The pilot could not manage a simple taxi and hold readback, so I guess we were all supposed to laugh at his embarrassing lack of English. But the controller's strategy was to raise his voice and become agitated. I imagined the capt and copi cringing on the flightdeck. That was not going to help their situational awareness!
Any speaker may be over-fluent, too elaborate in structure and vocabulary, or just plain inconsiderate in interactions.

Another possibility, of course, Hel1aviator, is that the test was crap!

[he1iaviator]

To clarify; the test was done over the Internet on behalf of the department of civil aviation of a South East Asian country.
I do not have a UK regional accent, i.e. I am not Scottish!! If anything I speak BBC World Service English. If that is not correct pronunciation then what is? 95% of my flying (and 25 years of living) has been done outside the native English speaking world. I am sure that anyone who knows me will agree that I speak in a way that has been honed over the years to be well understood by non native English speakers. Perhaps I should do the resit with an American accent? :confused:
I am afraid that I tend to think that perhaps the test or the assessment was less than perfect. The question referring to "a beginning air traffic controller" may bear this out. :ugh:

[robert f jones]

The card was not Jeppesen related. I didn't look at the source, just assumed it was FAA. As I mentioned, the captain received the information from ALPA. If you can't find it I will email him for the details.

[AnthonyGA]

Everyone in the U.K. has a regional accent, unless he has been specifically trained to speak with a "neutral" pronunciation, which traditionally has been Received Pronunciation. Accents vary from region to region, to a lesser extent from town to town, and even from one part of a city (such as London) to another.

Strictly speaking, this is true everywhere, that is, everyone speaks his native language with some sort of regional accent unless he trains himself to use a different one. However, the differences are particularly marked in the U.K., for whatever reason, as English goes.

Regional accents can be found in other English-speaking countries, of course, but the magnitude of differences (and thus their impact on comprehension on the radio) is usually smaller. In North America, people in a very wide swath of the continent speak English with an almost identical accent; you can hear differences if you are listening for them, but otherwise they tend not to be noticeable. The exceptions are mostly in a few major metropolitan areas (Boston, New York City), and in a large part of the southeastern United States, from east Texas to the eastern coast, excluding Florida.

In general, if you have to ask someone where he is from, his regional accent probably isn't very strong (otherwise you'd know where he was from without asking). In the U.S., it can be very hard to guess what region someone is from, and people must ask. In the U.K., a tremendous number of distinct regional accents make it possible to place someone fairly accurately without asking.

For the purposes of aviation, the important question is whether or not a person speaks with a regional accent strong enough to interfere with comprehension when speaking with a large variety of non-native English speakers or English speakers from other places, given the already less-than-ideal audio quality of radio communication. Most people from the U.K. are understandable to all, as are the vast majority of Americans and Canadians. There are a few regional accents that are so different from mainstream pronunciations that they might cause a problem. Some people born and raised in Glasgow or Arkansas can be extremely difficult to understand outside their own regions.

I don't know how a German examiner would be able to tell the difference between Level 5 and Level 6 English, but it doesn't surprise me at all that a German examiner would believe himself qualified to do so. It's easier to hear an accent than it is to assess its impact on comprehension.

From a technical standpoint, in order to be understood in English (or any language), you have to be able to distinctly pronounce all of a set of about 42 basic sounds that are phonemic in the language (meaning that they serve to distinguish among utterances with different meanings). This is a very achievable goal for just about anyone, with a bit of practice. Eliminating an accent, on the other hand, requires proper pronunciation of a large number of sounds that have nothing to do with meaning, and it's a very ambitious goal. In teaching English as a second language, we concentrate on the 42 phonemes, starting with the most critical ones (such as the difference between the 'i' in "bin" and the 'i' in "bean"), and work towards the less important ones, and we skip the rest, unless a student really wants to work to eliminate a foreign accent.

Another issue is the choice of a "standard" pronunciation. While various standards exist in different countries for English, there is no worldwide standard for pronunciation. I've already mentioned Received Pronunciation in the U.K., although this isn't stable (because it's based on the speech of the royals, which changes over time); it is taught in the fancy schools, with considerable success. In the United States, where differences are smaller, the most standard pronunciations are usually those of the Midwest. These days, there are also broadcasting "BBC" and "CNN" pronunciations that are taught at broadcasting schools. The key thing, though, is that all of the "standard" pronunciations can be understood by anyone fluent in English. If someone truly has a very strong, unusual regional accent, it certainly can't hurt to work on aligning his pronunciation with a more widespread standard. Given the extreme variability of U.K. accents, this is more likely to be an issue in the U.K. than in the U.S., Canada, or Australia (New Zealand is somewhat of a special case because it has some rather marked differences).

As far as I know, the ICAO itself has not developed any standard test for English, so the actual testing varies from one member country to another (and member countries are not required to adopt a standard test, either). The image of rolling dice comes to mind in some cases.

Anyway, sorry for rambling.

[he1iaviator]

AnthonyGA; and a very interesting ramble too.

I am the son of an RAF officer so moved around every three years or so when young, including three years in Singapore. I was at boarding school in the UK after that and then joined the RN for a few years. Since 1979 I have lived mainly in various South East Asian countries. In fact, a rolling stone. As a result I really do not see how I could have a regional UK accent. The Queen's English? Very possibly, but BBC is probably the best description.

Perhaps BBC is only considered to be level 5 in some quarters, but I feel slighted nevertheless. :*

[birdonthewire]

I speak level 6 English flying my Hong Kong registered aircraft, but regress to level 4 when I get in my UK registered aircraft. Must try harder.....:hmm:

[Fareastdriver]

BBC English and all that.
Being in a part of the world where the only BBC is the international service I find one of the reporters has an incomprehensionible Irish accent that leaves me and people I know, with degrees in English studies, totally baffled.

[beardy]

For reasons I can't understand the BBC seems to employ an enormous number of Irish reporters, well above the proportion of Irish in the British population. The same is true, but to a smaller proportion of Scottish. Affirmative action from the luvvies?

[Jetjock330]

Would you be referring to Lise Doucet BBC World? Not Irish at all.

Interesting accent so I looked it up and it turns out she comes from New Brunswick, Canada.

[Fareastdriver]

I apologise to the Irish.

[His dudeness]

"Ever had the DGAC inspectors nock on the cockpit door? No fluency in english will help you to move your bird before the magic number is in the license."

Yeah, probably true. But why the f... have the authorities not just sent ONE letter to every other authority, telling them all pilot with our licence have Level 4 to this and that date, instead of sending thousands of letters to be carried around. Ours (german) is size A4 (roughly 10 by 13 inches). I can´t bring a bottle of water to work but my office is okay or what???

[sleeper]

quote "But why the f... have the authorities not just sent ONE letter to every other authority, telling them all pilot with our licence have Level 4 to this and that date, instead of sending thousands of letters to be carried around. " unquote

That is exactly what the netherlands caa has done. They reported to ICAO that all dutch license holders (pre 5th of march) are level 4 qualified and that it will not be on their licenses for the next three years.

[al446]

As one of the Scottish persuasion but with Irish mother I accept your apology Fareastdriver on behalf of the Irish.

Ah dinnae ken fit ye mean Beardy so can ye no get aff oor case.

[richatom]

A trainee recently gave me a link to an interesting exchange between a Chinese pilot and a controller at JFK. The pilot could not manage a simple taxi and hold readback, so I guess we were all supposed to laugh at his embarrassing lack of English. But the controller's strategy was to raise his voice and become agitated. I imagined the capt and copi cringing on the flightdeck. That was not going to help their situational awareness!
Any speaker may be over-fluent, too elaborate in structure and vocabulary, or just plain inconsiderate in interactions

I am English and native English speaker and I occasionally have difficulty with American controllers. They often speak very fast and use a lot of non-standard phraseology.

[WestWind1950]

@Dudeness
But why the f... have the authorities not just sent ONE letter to every other authority, telling them all pilot with our licence have Level 4 to this and that date, instead of sending thousands of letters to be carried around.

Because not all licenses automatically have the English radio licence! In Germany you have either the BZF II, BZF I, or AZF. Only those pilots with a BZF I or AZF radio licence recieved the letter. And you are to carry it with you when you fly outside of Germany or your licence may not be recognised by the foreign authorities. If you only have a BZF II, you did NOT get a letter because you only carry a GERMAN language radio licence!

I have read a few of your comments, for example in the Mannheim thread, and you definitely must brush up on your English grammar :hmm: sorry Dude.

Oh, and the letter is just to cover the time between now and 2010. By then, the problems of who, when, and where the exam takes place will be solved... maybe.

P.S. some countries don't even HAVE radio licences. Now, everyone (finally) has to learn proper communication in the aviation primarily language of English and prove they have done so.....

[Mach trim]

I work for a Spanish 320 operator.

As a result of the Level 4 English we will now be required to have level 4 Spanish within 1 year but have not seen it in writing yet.

Interestingly I have not been Grandfather rights to level 4 in Spanish as has been given out to most. Don't think this is equal.

Happy to improve my Spanish but not sure the DGAC are going about it the right way.

Will be a writing and taking a Spanish level 4 test. There is no syllabus and the Spanish DGAC has yet to write one.

When the idea of ICAO level 4 English was to set and improve the international English standard. Dont see this happening yet as many given grandfather rights, just more red tape and business for the schools.

I was a JAR 1600 English examiner and in my lowly opinion there are a lot of people with Spanish JAA ATPL licenses ( and Spanish controllers ) who do not have the required English standard.

If they would work on improving their English ( as I need to improve my Spanish ) which is the whole idea but grandfather rights kills the whole thing.

More red tape and beaurocrats... A lot will depend on the examiner and his/her interpretation of the level and people will slip through the cracks with the right examiner.

Personally in the future I do see it as a potential way to keep foreign pilots who do not speak level 4 Spanish out of Spain.

[WestWind1950]

When the idea of ICAO level 4 English was to set and improve the international English standard. Dont see this happening yet as many given grandfather rights, just more red tape and business for the schools.

that IS the whole purpose of it! With level 4, you must prove your standards latest in 3 years. If you then don't pass the test, then you either keep lever 4, and re-test again in 3 years, or purhaps (I'm not sure) you could even get dropped to a lower level. Of course the test must be properly done and I've been hearing lots of tales of good and bad testing.

I have not heard of required testing in other languages, like Spanish. Could that be a national thing? In Germany you must have one of 3 types of radio licences: only German (BZF II), German/English (BZF I), English for IFR (AZF). With only a BZF II you may not fly outside of Germany. Anyone already having proven their (basic) English radio skills and having a BZF I and/or AZF received the level 4 automatically, after all, a language skill test in English had already been done at one time. No German re-testing is as yet planned.

I have an AZF and in spite of being an American received the level 4 like everyone else. I, too, must prove myself in English.... latest in 3 years. ;)

[Rhiannon]

i was on this forum yesterday and there were links to a website that had actual audio clips of r/t that one is supposed to transcribe verbatim in order to demonstrate english proficiency. i do not find those postings on here today... can anyone point me to those postings, or inform me whether the postings have been removed?

[SallyBBC]

Hi, I'm a researcher on the BBC Radio 4 programme Word of Mouth, which is about words and language and the way we use them.
We're hoping to include an item about the new Language Proficiency standards in a forthcoming programme; we'll probably be talking to the ICAO but would like to talk to a pilot too, about their own experiences and their thoughts on the new standards.
If you're interested, could you give me a call on 0117 9742470?
Thanks

Sally Heaven

[planeenglish]

Hello all,

I am conducting an online, anonymous survey on what certain points of communications mean to you. Could you take a few minutes to answer these questions? I'll share the results eventually.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=ux1vpWFpOfXd8W91Ar2xUQ_3d_3d
Thanks,
PE

[alternatelaw]

Etihad Airlines have proven that the whole thing is B#rr#cks they have koreans who achieved level 4 but don't understand 90% of any conversation and can't read Engrish either, they have to go to their neighbours for help!
safe frying.
ALT

[ChristiaanJ]

planeenglish,
Just did your little survey.
Interesting.
Wouldn't even mind it being non-anonymous... send me a PM if you feel there's anything in particular worth discussing.

CJ

[LedZeppelin]

planeenglish...
Just did the survey
I like this idea and look forward to seeing the results

[planeenglish]

Thanks everyone,

Keep the responses coming and I'll publish the results in about a month or so.

Best,
PE

[PPRuNe Radar]

How many times out of 100 would a thing happened if it occured?

What does this question mean in the survey ??

[Cusco]

Interesting survey: How are you going to analyse the text/definition section in a meaningful way except to say that you got many and varied answers. I could have told you that for nowt............

Cusco;)

[Brian Slade]

Is this analysing the adverb use in the ICAO English Language Descriptors?

If so, good idea.

[Cusco]

Isn't the whole English proficiency test, that certain PPRuNers are miffed about underperforming in, all really to do with exam technique? :

If you sit a new style exam for the first time , because you are unfamiliar with it, you are likely to underperform.

That's why from poor little sods sitting SATs age 7 right up to A levels and beyond there are 'mock' exams partly to be sure that the format of the exam is understood (as well as confirming a respectable level of knowledge of course) .

P'raps there should be 'mock' English proficiency exams.........

Cusco

[Romeo India Xray]

I agree with the idea of "mock" exams. In one of my roles I swap hats and work as an LPE examiner for a JAA CAA. The exam board we use make the format of their available on their website in addition to offering a "pre-test" which has a slightly different format. Generally there are the pilots who enter my exam room having done their homework, listened to example tests, taken a pre-test and having spent as much time as possible before the test communicating in English and there are those who are not so proactive. Of these general pilots it is the former that tend to sail through the exam coming out with a Level 5 where they thought they were only in line for Level 3. Now could that be just a little more than coincidence? :rolleyes:

[planeenglish]

Hello all,

Thanks to those of you who did the survey. To answer PPRUNE Towers the question is related to the ICAO Rating Scale. If something were to happen frequently, how would you label it as a percentage? My objective is to do a survey on what these frequency adverbs and other subjective factors in the rating scale actually mean to different people.

An example: as of the results now the word "frequently" means
40% of the time to a couple of people;
50% of the time to one person surveyed;
60% of the time to 4 people;
70% of the time to 2 other people;
80% of the time to yet 4 different surveyed people and
to one person it means 100%.

The rating scale is subjective, every Member State has interpreted this Standard in their own way and until now only few have really taken it seriously yet miscommunications still seem to be a relevant issue in Human Factors in Aviation.

Some States have decided that language people and/or Operational professionals can be examiners yet few seem to be really sure of how to use the scale or worse have hired outside companies' tests to do so and those tests are unable to the job.

Think of it as if TREs or ATC examiners had to start using a subjective scale to rate their peers. On a line check a pilot has to say "FO Smith sometimes uses 'heavy' with the callsign" or "almost never forgets to lower the landing gear". What about if you had to report "ATC Joe frequently fails to remind altimeter settings to pilots descending from FL to ALT". How can this be a judicial answer?

My survey is only to prove that we are all human so adverbs of frequency and vague descriptors are not to be used for judging performance in a GO/NO GO situation. These people's livelihoods are on the line and it's a fallible system.

On another rant: I am all together against the testing aspect of this standard. I am all for required number of hours of effective communications training in English by people learned in this arena. For those operational personnel who are not at a proficiency level that allows such training then remedial training in English as a second/foreign language should be mandatory. Native speakers of English should undergo communications training (especially monolingual speakers of English). Lastly, fines and penalties should be issued to those who do not use R/T phraseologies properly.

My very non-academic survey and public ranting will not get any such standard changed but through various channels I am trying to get the Aviation Public aware that you are about to be tested by people who think differently on almost every (pardon the pun) aspect of the rating scale and are subject to emotions and one's rating reflects these facts. Your tester could very well think that almost never means 100% or 50%-do you want the latter to judge your proficiency?

We as raters should be calibrated periodically and most have a percentage of their ratings re-rated by a peer for quality control but this is not enough. Tests out there being used right now are performed by people who have been trained poorly and this will have a great washback effect on their candidates and the rest of the aviation world. No one seems to care, but then you speak of the Koreans who seem to have passed their test yet they still are unable to communicate in English.

I am reading "Flight Discipline" by Tony Kern and he states "Communications: ...but aviators generally believe themselves to be excellent communicators-and therein lies our challenge. How can we improve our communications when we ourselves don't think there is a problem?"

Communication problems can not be labelled "foreign pilots in American airspace". Recently three native English speaking pilots and two native speaking ATC's somehow miscommunicated enough to let an airplane land at the wrong airport. Now all anyone cares about is getting a certificate. Does anyone out there really care about communicating effectively for safety?

Thanks again for those of you who did the survey and I hope that more of you will follow.

Best,
PE

[chuks]

Why not put that test into grammatical English? I did it but I found that it was written in pretty poor English, so that most of the questions didn't make much sense to me. (I am not a linguist but I am a native speaker of American English and I also learned British English from working with Brits in a British company.)

The example cited in #322, above, has obvious errors in both grammar and spelling and it is not alone!

You probably know about the idea that a tester can only test up to his own standard, so that getting a test of English comprehension written in incorrect English makes for a certain amount of skepticism!

For now my UK licence simply reads, "Remarks: Language Proficiency: English". It will be interesting to see how they plan to move on from that, especially defining the standards for Levels 4, 5 & 6. I pay much closer attention to the Queen's Speech nowadays.

[Mach trim]

Could someone please let me know where I could do a Level 6 English exam in the uk ?

[zizilapop]

French ,most French pass with a level 6 in France and Americans also do get level 6. UAEmirates pilots too. Chinese pilots and Thai controllers are considered experts in English by their caa. I have seen and heard non native english speaking pilots who deserve the highest mark because of their high standard r/t.but managed 4 only. An english pilot who gets 5 because he works in France ! It is time to raise our voices because this is not working. I have been flying all over the world and i promess i try so hard but still find difficulties with the south African accent controllers who speak fast and give u multiple clearances.:= By the way , Thanks to the Netherland caa for the latter to ICAO. :D

[DFAvJ]

You guys most likely know already about this but the FAA requires now "English Proficiency": You'll have to have reissued your FAA certificates (licenses) which then will show that you are proficient in English.

[perceval]

as the FAA mentionned , the requirements for english proficiency (CPL) or fluency (ATP) were already enshrined in the FAR's . But in order to make it obvious for international pilots , they are now reissuing the certificates for those who ask (2USd) . Anyone getting a new certificate will automatically have "english proficiency '' endorsed . FAA.gov for more infos .

[WestWind1950]

zizilapop, the "managed 4 only" could be that they were given a certificate without an exam, yet already have an English radio licence. The certificate qualifies automatically for level 4 until the exam is done, latest in 3 years. After the exam, then a 5 or 6 is possible.

For example, I am a native English speaker, but exams are not yet available in Germany so, having an English radio licence, I automatically get only a level 4 along with my German peers.

I just wonder about some of those people NOT passing even level 4 in 3 years.... what then? Do they suddenly lose their priviledges to fly internationally? I mean, some really CAN'T speak good English and should never have gotten the English radio licence to begin with! :=

Westy

[alemaobaiano]

Westy

I can tell you that the position of ANAC here is that any pilot who fails the retest in three years will lose the right to fly international routes. However, three years is a long time and things can change, especially if it's going to hurt the airlines. My very personal opinion is that pilots will keep Level 4, even if their performance next time round merits a lower rating.

On a related point I am amazed at some of the results of the tests here. On the whole I would say that the ANAC test is fair, and the results seem to reflect the actual level of English demonstrated by the candidates, however there have been a few results that simply boggle the mind :ooh: I suspect that the comment above about the result depending more on examination technique than actual language skills might be close to the truth.

Maybe the ICAO audit next year will shed some light on this.

TTFN

[Sailor Vee]

I have been 'awarded' a level 4 of EP. As I reside in Ireland the TRE on my next LPC/OPC will not be able to 'upgrade' my level as he is not a 'recognised English Speaker'! WTF is going on!

I have 'O' level grades (old style) in English Language, English Literature and a Distinction in English Oral, but this counts for nothing with ICAO, I still have to pass the tests!

[DX Wombat]

Could someone please let me know where I could do a Level 6 English exam in the uk ?Try contacting any FTO over here, they may be able to help you. :)

[redout]

I have a letter from my FTO that states I have successfully met the requirements for JAR-FCL 1.200. Does this mean I still have to do a test for ICAO language proficiency ?

Cheers

[Hägar]

I believe you have nailed the underlying issue. Everyone in the aviation chain is "qualified" and "competent" in ICAO radio communication phraseology. However, it is when you need to communicate "outside the box" that the real problem starts. In many countries, ATC and pilots can ONLY communicate using ICAO radio phraseology. But, if for operational reasons you need to communicate other or additional info, they loose it. And this would invariably be at the time when additional info is urgently required by aircrew. Therefore, English communication competency must be at a broader operational level, but the current proficiency tests do not ensure that level.

[tbavprof]

Try speakflightsafe.tk (http://www.SpeakFlightSafe.tk).

[planeenglish]

Thanks tbavprof you beat me to posting the address.

Best to all,

PE