ICAO English Test Simulation: Free Four-Part Mock

I work in aviation and I need to prepare before each duty. I check the information that is important for my work and talk to my colleagues about any changes. During the duty I listen carefully and ask questions when I am not sure. At the end I tell the next person about problems that are still open.

Before starting a duty, I review the information relevant to the operation and discuss any changes with my colleagues. During the shift I keep track of the current situation, communicate the next action clearly and check anything I have not understood. At handover I explain outstanding issues, so the person taking over knows what has been done and what still needs attention.

I start by reviewing the information that affects the operation, then compare my understanding with my colleagues’ so that changes are not missed at the outset. Throughout the duty I distinguish a confirmed instruction from an assumption and make sure outstanding issues have an owner. A useful handover tells the next person not only what happened, but also what has yet to be resolved.

First I would find out what has changed and what we need to do now. I would tell my colleagues the new information in simple words. I would also say if something is not clear. Then I would ask if they have questions. If I receive another update, I will tell them so we can all follow the same plan.

I would establish the reason for the change and identify which parts of the plan are affected. Then I would give my colleagues the confirmed information, the immediate next step and any remaining uncertainty. I would invite them to question the plan, since they may have information I have not considered, and I would update them if the situation changed again.

I would avoid rushing straight to a new plan before establishing which decisions have actually changed. Once the position is clear, I would brief the confirmed change, explain its implications and identify what is still being considered. I would ask colleagues whether their information supports the same picture; a disagreement at that stage may reveal a detail that would otherwise surface much later.

I would explain what I understood and ask my colleague what they heard. We can compare the information and find the part that is different. If we are still not sure, we should ask the person who gave the message to repeat it. Then we can confirm the correct information before we continue with our work.

I would first identify the part of the message where our understanding differs. Rather than assume either of us is right, I would ask the source to clarify the detail, then confirm the corrected information with my colleague. If the message affects an immediate action, I would make that uncertainty clear while we resolve it so that nobody acts on an assumption.

I would compare our accounts to isolate the disagreement, then go back to the source with a specific question. A vague request to repeat everything may not reveal which detail caused the conflict. Once clarified, I would state the shared understanding and invite my colleague to confirm it. The aim is to resolve the difference before it becomes an unspoken assumption in the next decision.

The aircraft is parked and the cargo door is open. A ground handler is pointing towards the hold, and another person is near the baggage carts. I cannot tell from the picture what they are discussing. The crew could ask the ground team for the loading status and whether there is anything they need to know before the aircraft is ready.

The aircraft is on stand with its cargo hold open. One handler is indicating the hold while a colleague remains by the covered baggage carts. The picture does not establish whether the loading is complete or why they are talking. The crew could request the current loading status and ask the ground team to report any issue affecting the next step.

We can see an open hold, covered baggage carts and a handler drawing a colleague’s attention towards the aircraft. That is not enough to conclude that anything has gone wrong. I would ask the ground team where they are in the loading process and whether they need a decision from the crew, then pass on any confirmed effect on the operation.

Two engineers are near an aircraft engine. One person is looking into the engine with a light. The aircraft is parked and the fan is not moving. I cannot know from the picture why they are looking. I would ask the maintenance team what they are checking and when they can give the crew an update about the aircraft.

An engineer is using a torch to look into the intake of a stationary aircraft engine while a colleague observes. It may be a routine inspection or a response to a report; the picture cannot tell us which. I would ask maintenance for the status of their work and any confirmed effect on the planned departure before passing an update to the crew.

The image shows an inspection of the engine intake, but it does not reveal the reason or the outcome. I would resist describing it as a defect until the engineer has assessed it. The useful next question is what work is in progress and when the team expects to provide an update; only then can the crew discuss any consequence for the departure.

The controllers are in the tower, and I can see an aircraft on a taxiway outside. It is raining and the ground is wet. The aircraft appears to be waiting. I do not know its instructions. The controller and pilot should communicate clearly about the aircraft’s position and what it should do next. They can ask for clarification if needed.

Heavy rain is falling outside the tower, and an aircraft is waiting on a wet taxiway. The photograph does not tell us what clearance it has received. The controller and pilot may need to confirm the aircraft’s position and the next instruction, particularly if either has difficulty seeing a reference point. Any clarification should identify the specific point in question.

The tower is overlooking a rain-soaked airfield with an aircraft waiting on a taxiway. Although the view suggests that identifying references could be harder, we cannot infer a measured visibility or the aircraft’s clearance. I would expect the controller and pilot to establish a common position and communicate the next instruction explicitly, with a targeted question if either side is uncertain.

A cabin crew member is pointing to liquid on the floor and another person is looking. I would ask where the liquid is and whether anyone has been hurt. I do not know where it came from. I would tell the other crew members what has been reported and ask the cabin team to update us when they have more information.

The cabin report concerns a patch of liquid on the floor, but its source is not visible. I would ask for the location, whether anyone has been injured and whether the cabin crew have more information. I would pass the confirmed details to the rest of the crew and agree how the cabin team will provide a further update.

I would first establish where the liquid is and whether anyone has been affected, then ask what the cabin crew have actually observed about its source. A patch on the floor is a fact; a leak from a particular system would be an assumption. I would relay that distinction to the flight deck and agree who will provide the next update.

The tug and the aircraft are stopped, and two people are looking at the tug. The ground team says the operation is paused. I would ask why they have paused and what they need from the crew. I would tell the crew what I know and say when I do not have an answer. We can wait another update.

The ground team has paused the operation, and the tug is stationary near the aircraft. I would ask what has prompted the pause, whether the crew needs to take any action and when the team expects to update us. I would pass only confirmed information to the crew, including the fact that there may not yet be a firm estimate.

The only confirmed operational fact is that the ground team has paused the movement. The image does not establish a tug failure. I would ask the team to describe the reason, identify any action required from the crew and agree when we will speak again. My update would distinguish what is confirmed from what remains open, so the crew can plan without relying on a guess.

I heard the beginning of the instruction, but I missed the final detail. I would tell the controller what part I did not hear and ask for it again. I would use my call sign so the controller knows who is asking. Then I would listen carefully, give the correct readback and wait for any correction. I would not guess the missing part.

I would identify the missing detail and ask the controller to repeat it, using my call sign. Once I had the complete instruction, I would give the appropriate readback and listen for a correction. If the repeat were still unclear, I would ask a more specific question rather than act on the part I happened to catch.

I would make the gap explicit: I missed the final detail and need it repeated. After identifying myself, I would listen to the complete instruction, read back what is required and leave room for the controller to correct it. If the ambiguity persisted, I would narrow the question to the exact point at issue; a fluent guess is still a guess.