[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-488351-105":59,"doc-detail-488351-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","level-6-validity-limitation-necessity-of-establishing-a-period-of-validity","Level 6 Validity Limitation - NECESSITY OF ESTABLISHING A PERIOD OF VALIDITY","","NECESSITY OF ESTABLISHING A PERIOD OF VALIDITY FOR LEVEL 6 is supported by evidence from the IELP Workshop outcomes in Kuwait (9-11 November 2015). The text argues that Level 6 can decay without continued use, and that ICAO-recognized test levels may not remain stable years after assessment. It further highlights inconsistency across EASA member states, limited monitoring and test security, bias during recruitment, and documentation or recording shortcomings, including lack of audio evidence. Overall, it recommends limiting validity to improve reliability through revalidation.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":20,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/level-6-validity-limitation-necessity-of-establishing-a-period-of-validity/488351/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/level-6-validity-limitation-necessity-of-establishing-a-period-of-validity/488351.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Alex Sinclair","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-07","2026-10-01",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":81},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"Why does the document argue that Level 6 should have a limited validity period?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It states that language proficiency decays when not used and that there is no proof Level 6 remains unchanged many years after testing. Limited validity would enable recurrent revalidation to confirm reliability.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What evidence is provided about inconsistency in language testing standards?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The document cites differing assessment practices and results across EASA member states and time periods, including retesting outcomes with lower ratings. It also notes that examiner training revealed participants not actually at Level 6.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What concerns does the document raise about test security and fairness?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"It mentions pressure from airlines or employers expecting Level 6 as an entry requirement, cases of falsified language documentation, and insufficient requirements for audio recording. It also describes situations where the same person acts as interlocutor and rater and notes test versions being available online.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},488351,1792969723,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":19,"category_name":20,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":81,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":81,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":39,"preview_page_count":4},1099523882182,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","NECESSITY OF ESTABLISHING A PERIOD OF VALIDITY FOR LEVEL 6  \nThe outcomes of the IELP Workshop, held in Kuwait from 9-11 November 2015, suggest a limited period of validity for Level 6. To support this suggestion by evidence arguments were collected to substantiate the necessity. The arguments found are based partly on research or facts, partly on the results of monitoring of tests and test standards conducted by several EASA or ICAO Member States since 2008. The main arguments are:  \n1. LANGUAGE LOSS Evidence for the argument:  \n- It is no secret that a language decays when it is not used (i.e. “it is gradually forgotten”) . This fact has been recognized by internationally accepted “high-stakes”tests such as TOEFL and IELTS, which restrict the score / grade validity of their tests generally to a period of two (!) years. Yet with TOEFL and IELTS usually there are no“physical” lives at stake.  \n- There is no proof that even a level 6 granted by ICAO recognized tests such as ELPAC is still a level 6 many years after the test. Here, a limited period of validity would provide recurrent opportunity to reassure / revalidate every single level-6 endorsement, which in turn would verify and substantiate the reliability of these ICAO endorsed tests (by having a closed test-retest cycle) .  \n2. NO COMPARABLE STANDARDS OF LANGUAGE TESTING Evidence for the argument:  \n- 2008:  \nConclusions drawn by Prof. Charles Alderson (University of Lancester) in his “Final Report on a Survey of Aviation English Tests”:  \na) little confidence in the meaningfulness, reliability, and validity of aviation English tests  \nb) monitoring is required of the quality of tests to ensure they follow accepted professional standards to language tests and assessment procedures.  \n- 2010 and 2011:  \nIn at least one EASA MS for an overall level 6 it used to be enough to assess level 6 in only four out of the six categories of the ICAO rating scale, while level 5 in the remaining two categories would be enough. It is unclear whether retesting of affected license holders has taken place since 2012, nor how many level tests have been accepted by other EASA MS due to mutual recognition. Nevertheless, in this country the number of pilots having a level-6 endorsement is at around 60 per cent of all license holders.  \n- 2011:  \nIn at least one EASA MS, that applies two different tests for pilots and air traffic controllers, several pilots were assessed level 4 or 5 with ATC language examiners after having been assessed level 6 with pilot language examiners.  \n- 2013:  \nA pilot having been awarded a level 6 in one EASA MS was retested by another EASA MS on the occasion of a license transfer and renewal. The result of that retest, which took place only four months later, was 5-4-4-5-5-4 instead of formerly 6-6-6-6- 6-6. In a similar case the result was 4-4-4-4-4-4 in one EASA MS and 6-6-6-6-6-6 in another EASA MS, while the second test took place only three days later.  \n- 2014 and 2015:  \nDuring courses for language examiners, taking place within an EASA MS and being conducted in English, it turned out that the language proficiency of some participants  \nwas not at level 6 as it had been assessed in language tests before. This might have something to do with unreliable testing but also with language loss, if the test took place several years previously.  \n- 2013 till 2016:  \nAt least one EASA MS checks level-6 examiners for their ability to recognize errors in oral utterances (“error spotting” in terms of structure and vocabulary) . In 2016 one examiner who had already rated almost 3000 holders of pilot licenses, was checked the first time. The examiner failed the check twice. Though the examiner is not authorized to conduct level-6 tests anymore, there remain doubts about whether his ratings in the past were correct. Retesting of pilots with level-6 endorsements has not taken place, as it is impractical also due to administrative constraints (no audio recordings, no clear pro","cbCaikhuheKxSh30","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaikhuheKxSh30","pdf",190914,"English","# NECESSITY OF ESTABLISHING A PERIOD OF VALIDITY FOR LEVEL 6\n## LANGUAGE LOSS\n## NO COMPARABLE STANDARDS OF LANGUAGE TESTING\n## MUCH BIAS AND LITTLE TEST SECURITY","[{\"question\":\"Why does the document argue that Level 6 should have a limited validity period?\",\"answer\":\"It states that language proficiency decays when not used and that there is no proof Level 6 remains unchanged many years after testing. Limited validity would enable recurrent revalidation to confirm reliability.\"},{\"question\":\"What evidence is provided about inconsistency in language testing standards?\",\"answer\":\"The document cites differing assessment practices and results across EASA member states and time periods, including retesting outcomes with lower ratings. It also notes that examiner training revealed participants not actually at Level 6.\"},{\"question\":\"What concerns does the document raise about test security and fairness?\",\"answer\":\"It mentions pressure from airlines or employers expecting Level 6 as an entry requirement, cases of falsified language documentation, and insufficient requirements for audio recording. It also describes situations where the same person acts as interlocutor and rater and notes test versions being available online.\"}]","Level 6 Validity Limitation - NECESSITY OF ESTABLISHING A PERIOD OF VALIDITY | PDF",1790812870]