If you’re an ab-initio pilot, a line pilot, or an ATCO, you’ve probably sat an Aviation English test and thought:
“This doesn’t really feel like how we actually communicate.”
At Aviation English Asia Ltd, we agree - and that belief drives how we design training and how we evaluate tests. Poorly designed Aviation English tests don’t just feel frustrating - they can:
- reward memorisation instead of decision-making,
- penalise competent pilots who communicate efficiently,
- fail to identify candidates who struggle with real-time interaction
- and demotivate candidates from improving their language proficiency.
In other words, test design is not just an academic issue. It directly affects safety, fairness, and careers.
Before going further, I would like to introduce two terms:
-
The AEROSTA Framework is the Aviation English Rating, Syllabus, Test Analysis Framework - a principled way of analysing what Aviation English tests should measure and how tasks should elicit valid evidence.
-
AEROSTAF refers to a family of role-specific tests built using that framework (for example, AEROSTAF Cadet Pilot Language Test and AEROSTAF Airline Pilot Language Test).
This article explains, in plain language:
- what valid Aviation English testing really means,
- what often goes wrong in poorly designed tests,
- and how AEROSTAF tests, guided by the AEROSTA Framework, are built using data and science.
What “validity” actually means (in one sentence)
In assessment terms, a test is valid if it measures the skill it claims to measure - not something easier, more convenient, or only loosely related.
For Aviation English, that skill is operational communication, not storytelling, not technical knowledge, and not exam technique.
Test validity: more than “aviation topics”
A common misconception is that a test is valid if the candidate:
- talks about aviation,
- mentions emergencies,
- or uses technical vocabulary.
That’s not what ICAO intended.
ICAO guidance is clear: Aviation English tests must assess whether a candidate can communicate effectively in operational contexts, not simply talk about aviation.
That means evidence of:
- comprehension (especially under operational pressure),
- interaction, and
- the ability to perform the right communicative function at the right moment.
Listening tests: what should they really assess?
Listening is a concern for many candidates, and they consider it a matter of luck if they can hear all the words. Many listening tests focus narrowly on:
- recognising words,
- spotting keywords like “Mayday”, "we have a problem here", and "engine failure"
- or answering multiple-choice questions about factual detail.
These tasks can have a place - but only as supplementary evidence.
Poor listening tasks often over-assess:
- keyword spotting,
- recognition of emergency labels,
- and test-taking strategy.
What they under-assess is whether the listener understands what needs to happen next.
In real operations, listening is rarely passive. You listen in order to respond.
That’s why well-designed listening tasks:
- use realistic inputs (ATC transmissions, crew messages, briefings),
- and require the candidate to act on what they heard, not just recognise it.
In AEROSTAF listening tasks, comprehension is demonstrated through appropriate operational response, not by getting a tick in the “right” box.
Interaction: the core of Aviation English
At the top of the ICAO language “pyramid” is interaction.
Interaction is not:
- how quickly you respond to an assessor,
- long explanations,
- polished general English,
- or narrating procedures from memory.
Interaction is:
- refusing an unsafe instruction,
- requesting clarification when information is ambiguous,
- warning about a conflict,
- stating intentions clearly,
- correcting misunderstandings,
- and doing all of this efficiently and intelligibly.
For example, safely refusing an ATC instruction requires:
- recognising a constraint,
- signalling non-compliance clearly,
- and offering an alternative or stating intentions.
That is interaction - not explanation.
Many traditional test questions fail here.
Questions like “What would you do in this situation?” often produce:
- procedural narration,
- checklist explanations,
- or hindsight-based reasoning.
They may sound impressive - but they do not reliably test interaction.
How the AEROSTA Framework shapes better tasks
Under the AEROSTA Framework, tasks are designed around one central principle:
Communicative functions must be necessary to complete the task.
In other words, the candidate cannot succeed unless they actually perform the interaction.
Core design features
1. Mixed-mode input
- Written context: who you are, where you are, phase of flight
- Audio trigger: an ATC instruction, silence, error, or new information
2. No lexical “hand-holding”
- Prompts avoid telling candidates what to say
- No labels like “engine failure” or “request priority” appear in the task text
3. Immediate response required
-
The candidate must respond now, just as in real operations
4. Phraseology first
- Standard ICAO phraseology is expected wherever it suffices
- Plain language is used only where phraseology genuinely runs out (for example, security or medical situations)
This is how AEROSTAF tests transform linguistic data into practical tests
A simple example
❌ Poorly designed task
You have an engine failure after takeoff. What would you do? Explain why.
This mainly tests:
- technical knowledge,
- narration,
- and test-taking strategy.
✅ AEROSTAF-style task
Context:
You are Speedbird 432, passing 2,000 ft after departure.
One engine parameter is outside normal limits.
ATC (audio):
“Speedbird 432, climb to five thousand feet.”
Instruction:
Transmit your response to ATC.
Now the candidate must:
- interpret constraints,
- select the correct communicative function,
- and express it clearly and efficiently.
The resulting utterance is what an ICAO ELP test is supposed to measure.
Why role-specific tests matter
A cadet pilot, an airline captain, and an ATCO do not interact in the same way - and they should not be tested as if they do. AEROSTAF tests are role-specific by design, not by marketing label.
Each test targets:
- the communicative functions most relevant to that role,
- the types of listening and interaction that role actually performs,
- experience
- and the level of linguistic control ICAO expects at that stage.
What this means for you as a candidate
As a candidate you might be tempted to take the easiest test possible as it fulfils the airline requirements. Those requirements can shift rapidly. We appeal to your professionalism to train for the needs of the job - not the needs of a test, because the chances are very high that the test does not measure what it claims to do.
- Don’t waste time focusing on a task, eg picture description, scripting model answers, or limiting your listening to the recognition of words - focus on what the test should be measuring
- Practise responding to instructions, constraints, and ambiguity.
- Aim for clarity, not length.
- Remember: in Aviation English, less but better is often safer.
Our commitment at Aviation English Asia Ltd
At Aviation English Asia Ltd, we don’t just prepare candidates to pass tests.
We care deeply about whether a test is worth passing. When we first started in 2009 we decided quite deliberately to not get involved in test administration, mostly because we did not want to take on any additional risk of liability in high stakes testing. But in recent years we have (1) witnessed tests which clearly do not measure what ICAO intended, (2) being used for inappropriate purposes, and (3) administered by organisations actively demonstrating a significant conflict of interest. The consequences of which are so severe that ICAO ELP testing demotivates candidates from improving the skills which they so urgently need.
We made the commitment to use our knowledge and experience to
- analyse tests using the AEROSTA Framework,
- design and support AEROSTAF role-specific tests,
- train organisations to administer tests ethically,
- and align training with communicative functions, not just aviation topics.
Aviation English testing should reflect operational reality - not tests that are convenient to administer.
Learn more about our Aviation English courses and assessment philosophy:
Aviation English Asia Ltd has been delivering appropriate language training and testing solutions for ab initios and cadet entry pilots since 2009.
https://aviationenglish.com/language-tests/aerosta-framework-airline-pilot-language-test.html
https://aviationenglish.com/language-tests/aerosta-framework-cadet-pilot-language-test.html
#AviationEnglishAsia #CommercialPilot #AirlinePilot #CadetPilot #AbInitio
#StudentPilot #ICAOTest #ICAOELP #AviationEnglish
.jpg "Workplace English Campaign")