Comments for Aviation & TESOL in China

Comment on Summer Travel by arapaho1

arapaho1 — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 00:15:10 +0000

Firstly, your log in doesn’t recognise me. Then it often cuts out….

Admin,
I was hoping in your latest blogs you would clarify a few things regarding your position (and others similar to you) in the Chinese Aviation English program. You did mention you were chosen to instruct the Chinese assessors and raters. I don’t know about what you think, but from what I have heard from Chinese pilots and seen from your publication “Fast Track to ICAO 4″, written with Tian Yong, it is clear that you and other ESL teachers are not giving the correct teaching that this industry requires.

Some examples from the book: “What is the detailed ride condition?”, “What’s the cause of your turbulence?”. Goodness me, this is laughable!! The rest of the book continues along similar Chinglish lines. And you are instructing assessors and raters?

I recently spoke to an RMIT teacher who was in based in China. He told me he knew of only 2 teachers there with aviation experience. He also mentioned that at the end of the contract, the students pass rate (in Beijing at least) was about 98%. Many of the students were clearly below Level 4. Some hanky panky going on in your backyard, admin?

It is clear China needs more people with aviation experience and my previous ranting about ESL teachers milking the system stands to reason.

Comment on Chinese Hospitality…an oxymoron? by Flight88

Flight88 — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 01:03:09 +0000

Flight88…

[...] something about flight88[...]…

Comment on Pakistani Airblue Airbus Crashes near Islamabad by World Wide News Flash

World Wide News Flash — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 07:34:34 +0000

Pakistani Airblue Airbus Crashes near Islamabad « Aviation & TESOL ……

I found your entry interesting do I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog …

Comment on One Unconventional, One Unidentified by All Around the World News

All Around the World News — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 05:29:02 +0000

One Unconventional, One Unidentified « Aviation & TESOL in China…

I found your entry interesting do I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog …

Comment on Aviation Officials Feel the Heat by SEENTHING

SEENTHING — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:47:21 +0000

Mysterious Object UFO in China | UFO is Still Mysterious Object | China UFO…

I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog …

Comment on Aviation Officials Feel the Heat by Aviation Officials Feel the Heat « Aviation & TESOL in China CCJS On Me

Aviation Officials Feel the Heat « Aviation & TESOL in China CCJS On Me — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 04:27:50 +0000

[...] more: Aviation Officials Feel the Heat « Aviation & TESOL in China By admin | category: charter planes | tags: aircraft, airport, also-get, board, [...]

Comment on Air China names new Shenzhen Leader by Aviation Officials Feel the Heat « Aviation & TESOL in China

Aviation Officials Feel the Heat « Aviation & TESOL in China — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:14:36 +0000

[...] by scores of officials in Chinese aviation, as the government clamps down hard on corruption. We reported earlier the demise of several airport and aviation authority officials, and it appears that there is no [...]

Comment on 2 Weeks in Chengdu by admin

admin — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 05:08:06 +0000

Hi Arapaho and thanks for your comments, which I just read (another week-long CAAC meeting which I will blog on when I have more time). I’m somewhat confused about the issue you’re trying to bring up. Was it that my example was not a radiotelephony example? ICAO Phraseology (as opposed to FAA or CAA standards) is in fact a huge component of the PEPEC. The example I put in my “Chengdu” entry was an example from the PEPEC’s interview portion, which tests general English, which, if you are familiar with ICAO 9835 and relevant documents, is as important as phraseology if not more so, due to, among other reasons, the obvious fact that phraseology does not and can not cover all situations, routine or otherwise, in aviation, in which case general English has to be used. Having said that, we do recognize that grammatical accuracy should not (and is not) emphasized in our tests. This is actually stressed to our test raters. However, the questions themselves, provided by 3 training organizations and 3 major airlines, should be grammatically and technically accurate. If you are unclear about what the test involves, feel free to check out the sample contents on the CAAC website.

On your comment “The more I look at the China situation, the more I see foreigners milking the ESL teaching krap for their personal benefit…” That may be the case in Korea or other countries, and knowing quite well the ESL field in general and China specifically, it likely happens here as well with some training companies, but I would say this is the exception rather than the rule. For example, about 75% of the instructors from RMIT, which until last year ran the training for half a dozen airlines in China, come from BOTH aviation and ESL backgrounds. There is an abbreviated bio for myself on flight88.com. Thanks again for your comments.

Comment on 2 Weeks in Chengdu by Arapaho

Arapaho — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 14:15:45 +0000

While I don’t dispute the PEPEC meetings to debate things so questions can be grammatically set out, the content should be aviation based. ICAO expects people with level 3 or less to be general english proficiiency, but must include aviation in their level 4 stage of training. It is up to the examiners to prepare a test as such.
In Korea, we tested aviation material mostly, because that’s what was required to get level 4 or better. Most of the communication pilots have with ATC is 99.9% speaking their own lingo. It was not about whether you used a verb in past perfect or past continuous. It’s about whether you had understanding between pilot and ATC. In Pilot-ATC coms, most prepositions, verb types and adjectives are thrown out the door. When, for example, you are in New York airspace, your communicative english skills rely on abbreviated tact, not superfluous amounts of sensitive english grammatical structure that the author seems to think.
The ICAO level 4 pass means the students can make mistakes, as long as they can generally understand and can be understood. You can use the correct grammar and structure in your instructional training and tests, hypacky, but don’t expect the student to reply in the same manner.
You state “We are all clear….” and “we won’t use right……”. Who are “we”? Are you also a part of the PEPEC meetings? Are you the author, Bobby, in disguise?
I would also like to repeat, what aviation experience do you have? The more I look at the China situation, the more I see foreigners milking the ESL teaching krap for their personal benefit.

Comment on 2 Weeks in Chengdu by hypacky

hypacky — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:44:35 +0000

No, not exactly, but maybe you misunderstood the author’s intention. He just illustrated a discussion about the grammer in aviation English. We are all clear that grammer sometines is ignored in real communication between the pilots and ATCs, but it does not mean that we won’t use right and standard grammer and structure any more, esp in the instructional training and tests! And it is also the requirement of ICAO.