Personally, I don’t understand why level 4 and 5 are time limited. Either you manage to communicate in english or you don’t.
Can’t wait for a) digital radio b) getting the communication as a short text message which – at best – interfaces with your autopilot so you only have to check and confirm.
Silvaire wrote:
a rich and multifaceted landscape of nonsense that can be endlessly discussed, meanwhile adding nothing of value to anything.
Then why do you discuss it…?
I got my RT licence for VFR during my flight test for the PPL. It was called the TT back then.
It.was stamped in my licence in French as “ability to use radiotelephony in French language”
When I did my IR one of the theory exams was in communication which you could do in French or English.
At the time I took my TT there was no need for an ELP test, you just had to have enough English to get by if you wanted to fly out of the country.
With the advent of EASA? we now needed an ELP level of at least 4 to fly outside the country. Which NAA or group of NAAs thought that one up I don’t know. It’s not as if there were a huge amount of accidents or near accidents that were put down to communications which a) could not and were not ultimately fixed by changes to phraseology eg the use of the words two, to, too being changed. b) were better for an ELP test.
I now have 4 stamps in my licence Level 6 VFR French, Level 6 IFR French, Level 6 VFR English and Level 6 IFR English.
My English is no better now than it was when I didn’t have to take a test, in fact it might be slightly worse through lack of use, except on this forum. Mind you my French also leaves something to be desired.🙂
IMHO bad pilot ELP is about 1% of the problem of bad ATC ELP. Why? Because ATC is never wrong. If you don’t understand ATC they will keep calling you. If ATC don’t understand you, they just stay silent, so there is nothing incriminating on the recording. And you don’t get a clearance for the next bit of CAS, or just lose radio contact, but that’s OK because you were not automatically entitled to that anyway… ATC is never wrong.
But, yeah, lots of ELP discussions in the past.
Then why do you discuss it…?
Why not? He’s not exactly wrong 
And AOPA CH seems to have another agenda, as pointed out above.
Digital radio won’t help. Unless they google translate 
the messages will be limited to standard phrases, which ATC is supposed to understand and which all pilots flying internationally are also supposed to understand.
The rest of the problem is the constant push for a “European level playing field” but that (the inability to have national licenses, like the UK has, which potentially don’t need ELP) is what creates this issue. CH is not in the EU but they have had to sign up to almost everything to get the trade deal.
I don’t understand why level 4 and 5 are time limited
Probably an ex military guy… the UK CAA does the same on the CAS bust online test; it’s to make you fail.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
In order to do ATC properly you NEED a certain fluency in the language you do ATC in. IMHO proficiency in the language is the precondition for being able to do proper standard phraseology: You can’t seriously do one without the other.
Why? Linguistically standard aviation RT phraseology is per definition a separate language with very specific vocabulary with it’s own specific circumstantial meaning, both explicit and implicit. It even got it’s own alphabet and numbers. Besides, this is not what the ELP is about at all.
For instance, at the website ICAO English Online (disclaimer: found by Google, I don’t know who they are, or the validity), the following can be read about Level 4 (my bold):
ICAO English Level 4 ✅ Pronunciation
We do not expect your Pronunciation to be perfect. Language examiner will spot almost instantly that English is not your first language nor the mother tongue. The most common ICAO English Level 4 Pronunciation sign is the strong local accent. This is reflected in English depending on your mother tongue. For example – German speakers have specific pronunciation of “th”. Great example of ICAO English Level 4 Pronunciation is a word “think” pronounced as “sink”. Besides that the content of your message is easily comprehensible from the context.
The lack of logic here is striking. Communication consists of at least 2 persons. Now, what can we say about the person on the receiving end who do not understand English spoken with a German accent ? Remember: it’s ICAO, this is in an international setting. Well, I for one have zero difficulties understanding a German accent, why should a native English speaker have problems with it? The whole thing is beyond silly, way beyond.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Then why do you discuss it…?
It’s good that someone points out ridiculous nonsense when seen, instead of following the sheep in silence and misunderstood self importance of following nonsensical regulations.
Inkognito wrote:
Personally, I don’t understand why level 4 and 5 are time limited. Either you manage to communicate in english or you don’t.
Excellent point. If 4 is good enough today, then it also is good enough in 20 years from now (which it de facto is). Obviously this ELP was made by people with a total lack of understanding of basic general logic, but instead being wrapped up in a self made web of erroneous quasi theoretical musings while trying to somehow make perverse point in making people fail. By doing so, a penalty is also inflicted, which consists of money, nuisance and wasted time.
Ah, suddenly remembered a youtube video by two funny creatures. One is a pilot and owner, the other one coming along for a ride. Both native English speakers and youtubers (American). At about 3:10 they have a conversation about RT and languages. I guess young females are in general a bit more honest about this and similar things than the average grumpy PPL male at 50+
Then why do you discuss it…?
Good question. It’s mainly the frustration with seeing something anything fundamentally dumb continue unchecked.
Digital radio won’t help. Unless they google translate the messages will be limited to standard phrases,
Digital radio wouldn’t help, but that’s not exactly what I suggested, which is closer to no radio: I think ADS-B traffic awareness and flying standard procedures without ATC would be fine for most VFR flying now and could be extended to IFR with some work. It would take some development and innovation for use in high traffic density areas, versus what is being done now which is typically governmental, bearing down on what clearly is never going to work in a way that lacks any innovation, leadership or intelligence.
At about 3:10 they have a conversation about RT and languages. I guess young females are in general a bit more honest about this and similar things than the average grumpy PPL male at 50+
They are mucking about while talking in some gibberish language.
LeSving wrote:
Ah, suddenly remembered a youtube video by two funny creatures. One is a pilot and owner, the other one coming along for a ride. Both native English speakers and youtubers (American). At about 3:10 they have a conversation about RT and languages. I guess young females are in general a bit more honest about this and similar things than the average grumpy PPL male at 50+
Wonderful! But they should have landed on Catalina. A really interesting place.
If I remember correctly, in Switzerland after initial ELP test all the following 4-yearly checks can be done during SEP refresher training flight (provided that the instructor is endorsed as a language assessor). Perhaps what AOPA is trying to do to achieve something similar also for an initial?
