Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By ray
#573019
If I'd seen this thread on April 1st I'd have seriously thought it was just another spoof!

On reflection though I can't see any personal problem with complying and just hope it helps make flying a bit safer.

Now, what can we do about strong regional or international accents, mumblers, poor phraseology, Carp radios, interference and arguments & confusion around ATC, Air/Ground etc?

I suppose we could turn it off and all go non radio - only joking :-)
By The Westmorland Flyer
#573028
Does this mean that my examiner, who is Scottish will have to prove that he has a command of English before he can certify that I, as an Englishman, can speak my native tongue? :shock: :lol:
User avatar
By Morley
#573030
this in an ICAO requirement and in my view tv CAA are implementing it with the minimum of inconvenience to the pilot.
By The Westmorland Flyer
#573119
That's true enough, Steve, though quite why they need to (yet again) capture information such as DoB; full address and whether this is a change of address; name and address of employer and so on is a bit beyond me. It smacks of just taking a standard form and bending it to the new requirements, rather than thinking about what information actually needs to be captured.

I just thought it was rather amusing that my instructor/examiner who speaks a broad Scottish variant of English should have to examine my English language credentials! Rather reminds me of when I was sitting in the FBO at Boston sorting out my FAA airman's certificate - the guy interviewing me was originally from Texas and had a typical southern drawl. "I need to be shu-arrr you can speak 'En-ger-lay-ish" he said. I replied that being English, I did indeed speak English. He, on the other hand spoke American and I then recounted Winston Churchill's famous opinion on the matter of two nations divided by a common language. We had a good laugh about it and he put a tick in the box!
By haggis
#573147
seem to remember that I had to sit a "radio" exam as part of my PPL training and the nice CAA issued me with a certificate to prove it. If I could not speak English to an acceptable standard how could I have passed?

What's changed in the past 9 years to make me need to prove I can speak English?

Where are my "grandfather" rights.

What B@@locks
User avatar
By dublinpilot
PFMS Team
#573175
Haggis,

You proved you could speak just enough English to pass the RT exam.

That is level 4 English.

You are given granted a level 4 English certificate without further test. What's the problem there? ;)

What is changing, is that Level 4 and level 5 English will require regular retests.

The CAA isn't ignoring your RT exam....they are indeed recognising it.

dp
User avatar
By Morley
#573180
Is I said before if forum pedants are doing the testing none of us'll even get a level 4
User avatar
By AlanB
#573191
What is wrong with an ORAL portion of the flight test, where the examiner can FAIL someone for not having the required level of English? Seems bloody easy to implement to me, and leave it at that.
User avatar
By dublinpilot
PFMS Team
#573245
Well AL,

Suppose someone has very poor English. Perhaps before taking up flying they didn't speak any English at all. They learn just enough to barley scrape through the RT exam, sticking strictly to standard phraseology.

They then go flying in some other country where they don't need to use English, or perhaps they give up flying for 18 months or so. At this time they are not likely to be able to speak enough English to be safe, because of the lack of practise. It would seem that these people should be tested on a regular basis to ensure that their English remains sufficient for safe flight.

The better their English, the less frequently they should need to be tested. If you're fluent, then you shouldn't need to be tested again, as you're not likely to loose your skills.

Well, the funny this is, that is just how it is going to work! ;)

I suspect that it will also be the case that your examiner on the skills test/RT practical will give you your initial test. If you're found to be fluent, then you won't need a separate formal test...ever.

Having sat behind a TNT? 737 at Exeter 18 months ago, who's grasp of English language was frightening, I can fully appreciate where ICAO is coming from on this. The controller spoke to him very slowly, using standard phraseology and the guy did not understand. The instructions were very simple, such as "After the landing traffic, line up and wait runway xx, after the landing traffic". This had to be repeated appx 4 or 5 times, before he got the read back right. Then when the traffic landed, he requested a clearance to line up on the runway. There was also a lengthy period of the controller trying to give him some very basic departure instructions.

I don't object to taking a once off test, if it sorts this sort of thing out. My only objection would be if there is an expensive fee, and difficult logistical arrangements for taking the test.

dp
User avatar
By Keef
#573316
I don-a speak-a da engleesh so my days are numbered...


What I think this misses is checking whether the person has the intelligence to understand an IFR clearance. Those "737 pilot not getting it" stories scare me - it's not as if clearances require fluent command of English, is it!
User avatar
By HGFC1
#573329
It will take several weeks to get them out.
Mine arrived in the post today. :) Well done the CAA. :thumright:
By haggis
#573337
Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick.

In the late 1990's it was recognised that the standard of RT was well to put it simply -lacking- so along came the RT exam - your instructor could not longer pass you off as competent.- So a practical exam - you pass - you get an RT license- hence I am fit to operate a radio in the air - Note I do want to join a debating society.

Now the FI's who were judged not to be in a sense competent to sign you off in the 1990's are now going to be charged with assesing you in 2008- where's the sense in that - also throw into the equation that the current crop of FI's don't have English as a first langauge- Boy am I confused or am I confused.

came someone come to my aid?

Between trying to implement a Microsofrt AX ERP system at work and this I think I have lost the will to live.

Help
User avatar
By HGFC1
#573344
the current crop of FI's don't have English as a first langauge
:scratch: They do at both the places I fly from. Even Blue Robin speaks passable English and he's located at a different place again. :wink:
User avatar
By akg1486
#573614
As this comes from a higher authority, it applies throughout Europe. In Sweden, we were automatically given a "5" for our native language and "4" for English. In 2011, I need to do a proficiency test in English and in 2013 in Swedish. If I manage to get a "6" in either language, no more tests; otherwise new tests every three or five years.

The little piece of paper from our equivalent to the CAA arrived a couple of weeks ago, and we are quite certain that it is the first piece of official paper from them that was not accompanied with a hefty bill.

As a hobby pilot, I never have any trouble with English in non-English speaking countries: Holland, Germany, the Baltic countries, etc. ATC there tends to stick to the fixed phraseology and speak relatively slowly. I found the MATZ people in the U.K. much more difficult to understand as they spoke very fast, and I without an instructor I would have had big trouble speaking to Sydney approach in Oz.

/Peter
User avatar
By flybymike
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#573628
[quote='haggis']

In the late 1990's it was recognised that the standard of RT was well to put it simply -lacking- so along came the RT exam[/quote]

As an aside, the RT exam was [i]reintroduced[/i] in the nineties, having previously been temporarily withdrawn. I certainly took an RT exam in 1983.