ICAO Level 5 Practice Test: From 4 to 5

When visibility is poor, it is harder to see the taxiway and other traffic. Before the flight, I check the latest information and talk with the other pilot. We agree on the route and where we will stop. If I do not understand the controller, I ask for the message again. We take more care and do not hurry.

Poor visibility can make it harder to recognise the route and see other traffic, so I would spend more time discussing the taxi plan with the other pilot. We would review the available information and identify points where we might need clarification. If an instruction sounded different from our expectation, I would ask the controller to repeat or confirm it before continuing. That gives both sides an opportunity to resolve the uncertainty.

When the view outside is restricted, the quality of the shared mental picture becomes especially important. I would talk the taxi route through with my colleague, including any points we might find ambiguous, and compare it with the information available to us. If the clearance differed from what we expected, I would stop the discussion from turning into an assumption: we would ask for confirmation and only then agree on our next action.

There is a delay because a vehicle is on the taxiway. We are stopped and the controller knows about it. I can see the vehicle, but I do not know when it will move. I would discuss about the delay with my colleague and listen to the radio. We will continue after we receive the next instruction.

I would explain that we are holding because a vehicle is blocking the taxiway ahead, and that the controller has been informed. We do not yet know how long it will take to clear, so I would avoid giving a firm estimate. Meanwhile, I would ask my colleague to keep watch outside while I monitor the radio. Once we receive further instructions, we can confirm the route before moving.

I would start with the facts: we are stationary, there is a vehicle ahead and the controller is aware of it. Beyond that, the likely duration is still uncertain, so I would resist turning a guess into a commitment. My colleague could watch the vehicle while I listen for an update. When the situation changes, we would confirm that we both understand the next instruction before acting on it.

In this example, we planned to leave the stand, but a service vehicle was still close to the aircraft. We waited and told the ground team. I spoke with my colleague and we checked the area again. After the team said the vehicle was clear, we continued with the plan. The departure was a little late, but everybody understood.

On one occasion in this imagined example, we were preparing to leave the stand when we noticed a service vehicle still close to the aircraft. We paused the plan and contacted the ground team to establish whether the area was clear. While they checked, I briefed my colleague on the reason for the delay. Once the team confirmed the vehicle had moved away, we reviewed the situation together and resumed.

I would use an imagined departure from a stand as an example. The original intention was to leave promptly, but a vehicle remained close to the aircraft, so we paused and asked the ground team to check the area. I also explained the interruption to my colleague, making it clear that the position of the vehicle still needed confirmation. After we had that confirmation, we reassessed the situation together before continuing.

When the workload increases, I can ask my colleague for help. For example, I can say that I have many aircraft and need help with a telephone call. I explain what I already know. My colleague can make the call and tell me the answer. Then I can continue speaking to the pilots and we both know the situation.

If the workload increased, I would tell my colleague which task needed attention and what information I had already received. For example, I might ask them to make a coordination call while I continue handling the frequency. I would then expect a concise update so that I know the outcome and can adjust my next transmission. This reduces the chance of both people working from different assumptions.

I would make the handover of a task explicit rather than simply saying that I was busy. For instance, I could ask a colleague to make a coordination call, explain what has already been agreed and identify the point that still needs an answer. A brief update afterwards would close the loop. The purpose is to distribute the work without losing track of who knows what or who is responsible for the next communication.

First I would tell my colleague that I did not understand all the report. I would repeat the part I understood and ask about the other part. For example, I could ask, “Did you say the vehicle is clear?” I would listen to the answer and tell my colleague what I understood before we continue with the work.

I would identify the part I had understood and ask a specific question about the missing detail. For example, I might say, “You mentioned a vehicle near the taxiway; has it moved clear yet?” After hearing the reply, I would summarise the relevant information and check that my colleague agrees. That is more useful than pretending the whole report was clear or asking a vague question.

I would avoid asking for the entire report again if I could identify the gap. I might say, “I understood that a vehicle was near the taxiway; could you clarify whether it is still there?” Once my colleague had answered, I would restate the point in my own words and invite correction. That keeps the exchange efficient while making it clear that our understanding has been checked rather than assumed.