ICAO Level 4 Test Questions and Answers: Free Practice

In my job I prepare before the duty and check the information I need. I talk to the people I work with, and we discuss any changes. During the day I try to speak clearly, especially when the radio is busy. If I do not understand a message, I ask the person to repeat it. This helps us have the same information.

Before a duty I review the information relevant to the operation, then discuss any changes with the people I will be working with. During the shift I keep messages concise and confirm the details that affect the next action. If I miss something on the radio, I ask for it to be repeated instead of completing the message from memory. At handover I highlight anything still unresolved.

I begin by building a picture of the operation, then compare it with what my colleagues know so that an overlooked change comes to light early. As the duty unfolds, I try to separate confirmed information from assumptions and make the next action explicit. A good handover is not just a list of events: it tells the incoming person what remains uncertain and what needs attention, so they can ask informed follow-up questions.

First I would tell my colleague what the problem is and where it happened. I would explain what we have already done and what is still not clear. I would also say who has the latest information. My colleague can ask me questions before I leave. A clear handover is important because the next person needs to continue the work.

I would give a concise account of the problem, the actions already taken and the current status. I would then identify any unanswered question and explain who is dealing with it. Before finishing, I would invite my colleague to repeat the key points or ask for clarification. That way we can correct a misunderstanding while the person with first-hand knowledge is still available.

I would start with the current operational picture, then distinguish the actions completed from those that are merely planned. The useful detail is often what we do not yet know: for example, whether a reported fault has been confirmed. I would identify the person following it up and ask my colleague to challenge anything that does not fit their understanding. A handover should transfer responsibility as well as information.

I heard part of the instruction, but I did not hear the end. I would say that I missed the last part and ask the controller to say it again. I would listen carefully to the full answer and confirm what I understood. I do not want to guess the missing information, because my answer might be wrong.

I would tell the controller which part I missed and request a repetition, using my call sign so there is no doubt who is asking. Once I had heard the complete instruction, I would give the appropriate readback and listen for any correction. This is more useful than guessing from the part I heard, especially if the missing detail changes the action.

I would identify the missing portion rather than ask a vague question, for example by saying that I missed the end and requesting it again with my call sign. I would then read back the applicable instruction and listen for a correction. The key is to restore a shared understanding; sounding confident is of little use if I have filled the gap with an assumption.

I can see a parked aircraft and two people on the apron. One person is pointing at some liquid on the ground near the aircraft. I cannot see where the liquid comes from. I would tell the crew or ground team what we can see and ask someone qualified to check it. I would not say it is fuel if I am not sure.

There is a small pool beneath the wing area, and a ground handler appears to be drawing a colleague’s attention to it. The picture does not establish the source or the type of liquid. I would report its location and appearance to the appropriate ground team and the crew, then wait for an assessment before drawing conclusions about its operational significance.

A handler is indicating a patch of liquid near the parked aircraft, but the photograph gives us no reliable way to identify it or trace its source. I would pass on the position and what is actually visible, then make sure the crew and the responsible ground personnel receive the same account. The distinction matters: calling it a fuel leak without evidence could send the discussion in the wrong direction.

The pilots are flying towards a very large cloud. There is clearer sky to one side of it. I cannot tell from the picture what the weather is inside the cloud. The crew can discuss the weather information they have and, if they need another route, ask the controller. They should explain what they need and listen to the answer.

A large vertical cloud lies ahead, with a clearer area visible to one side. The crew may want to compare the view with their available weather information before deciding whether a deviation is needed. If so, they can tell the controller the direction and extent they require, then confirm the response. The photograph alone does not establish the conditions inside the cloud.

The cloud dominates the view ahead, although the clearer sky to one side suggests a possible way around it. That is only a visual impression, not proof that a particular route is suitable. I would expect the crew to assess their available information together, make a specific request if a deviation is needed, and check any limitation in the controller’s reply before acting on it.

I can see the landing gear of an aircraft and a person checking one tyre. There is a damaged-looking area on the outside of the tyre. From this picture I cannot know how serious it is. I would report where the mark is and ask the maintenance team to inspect it. I would wait for their answer before making a decision.

An engineer is examining a scuffed area on an aircraft tyre at the stand. The image tells us where the concern is, but it does not establish whether the tyre is serviceable. I would inform the crew and maintenance personnel of the location and appearance, then seek the result of the inspection before discussing how the departure might be affected.

The point of interest is a scuffed patch on the outside of a main-gear tyre, which an engineer is inspecting. It would be tempting to label it minor or serious, but neither judgement follows from this image. I would describe the location without assigning a cause, ensure the crew has the same information, and ask the responsible engineer for the inspection result and any operational implications.

It is raining heavily and the aircraft is parked on the apron. I can see baggage carts near the aircraft and ground workers under shelter. The bags may take longer to load, but I do not know if there is a delay. I would ask the ground team about their plan and tell the crew if the situation changes.

Heavy rain is falling on the stand, and covered baggage carts are waiting near the aircraft while workers shelter nearby. Loading may be interrupted, but a still image cannot tell us why the workers are waiting or how long the operation will take. I would request an update from the ground team and pass any confirmed effect on the departure to the crew.

The visible facts are a rain-soaked apron, covered baggage carts and ground personnel taking shelter. A delay is plausible, but the picture does not tell us whether loading has stopped or whether the schedule has changed. I would ask the ground team for the present status and their next update, then give the crew a qualified account rather than inventing a cause or a departure time.

I can see controllers in a tower and a small vehicle beside a taxiway. One controller is looking through binoculars. An aircraft is waiting farther away. I cannot tell why the vehicle has stopped. The controller can contact the driver, ask for the vehicle’s position and intentions, and share the necessary information with the aircraft before giving any further instruction.

One controller is observing a stationary service vehicle near a taxiway while an aircraft waits at a distance. The image does not tell us why the vehicle is there or whether it is affecting the intended route. The controller could confirm its position and intentions with the driver, assess the situation, and give the pilot a clear update relevant to the aircraft’s movement.

From the tower, a controller is watching a vehicle stopped near a taxiway, with an aircraft waiting some distance away. The important unknown is not simply why the vehicle stopped, but whether its position affects the aircraft’s intended movement. I would first establish the vehicle’s exact position and intentions, then communicate the relevant restriction or instruction to the pilot and listen carefully to the response.

The cabin crew member says there is a loose item in the cabin and the aircraft is in turbulence. I would ask where the item is and whether anyone is hurt. I would listen to the cabin crew and discuss what they need. When the situation is clearer, I would make an update for the people involved. I would not guess that someone is injured.

I would first confirm the location of the loose item and ask whether anyone has been injured or needs assistance. Then I would discuss the situation with the cabin crew, taking the current conditions into account, and agree how they will update the flight deck. The initial report identifies a potential problem, but it does not tell us whether an injury has occurred.

I would establish where the item is, whether anybody has been hurt and what the cabin crew can safely report at that moment. The report tells us there is a loose object, not that it has caused an injury. Once the immediate picture is clearer, I would agree a way to keep the flight deck informed and adjust the response as new information becomes available.

If the plan changed during my work, I would first find out what has changed. Then I would tell my colleagues the new information and explain what we need to do next. I would ask if they have any questions. If I did not know an answer, I would say so and look for the information before giving another update.

If an operational plan changed, I would establish the reason and the immediate effect before passing the update to my colleagues. I would identify what remains unchanged as well as the new action, because a partial message can create confusion. I would then invite questions and confirm any point that is still uncertain, rather than presenting an assumption as a decision.

When a plan changes, my first priority is to work out which decisions are affected and who needs to know. I would give colleagues the confirmed change, its immediate consequence and any issue still awaiting a decision. I would also make room for them to challenge the plan: they may have information I do not. A useful update creates a shared picture, not just a record that a message was sent.