ICAO Examiner Follow Up Questions: Practice

We waited because a vehicle was in front of the aircraft. We could not continue safely at that moment. I explained my colleague what I could see, and we informed the controller. I did not know when the vehicle would move, so I said we had to wait for more information. After that we listened for the next instruction.

We paused because a vehicle was ahead of us on the taxiway and its intentions were not clear. I explained to my colleague that we could see the vehicle but did not yet know when it would move, and we informed the controller of our position. Rather than estimate the length of the delay, I said we were waiting for an update. We then checked the next instruction together before continuing.

The immediate reason was that a vehicle remained in our path, but the wider issue was uncertainty about when it would move. I told my colleague exactly what I could see and avoided putting a time on the delay without evidence. We also informed the controller and listened for an update. Once the position was clear, we checked our understanding of the next instruction together before resuming.

The last part of the message was not clear to me. I understood who was calling, but I did not hear the request. I asked the pilot to say the request again. After the pilot repeated it, I said what I understood. This helped us continue the conversation with the same information. I think it is better to ask than to guess.

In my example, I heard the call sign but missed the end of the pilot’s request because the transmission was unclear. I asked the pilot to repeat the request, rather than asking for the entire message again. Once I had heard it, I summarised the point that mattered and checked it against the pilot’s reply. That made the next exchange more efficient and reduced the risk of acting on an assumption.

The gap was quite specific: I had the call sign, but the end of the request was indistinct. I would make that clear to the pilot and ask for just the missing part. After the repeat, I would restate my understanding and listen for confirmation or correction. It is a small exchange, but it prevents an uncertain fragment from becoming the basis of a decision.

If the weather stayed poor, I would check the latest information again. I would talk with the other pilot about the options and tell the controller what we needed. We might wait or consider another place to land, depending on the situation. I cannot choose one option without more information, so I would continue checking and asking questions.

If conditions had remained poor, I would have reviewed the latest information with the other pilot and discussed the options available at that point. Depending on the circumstances, we might have requested more information, waited if appropriate or considered an alternative destination. I would not select an option from the weather description alone. I would also keep the controller informed as our assessment and requirements became clearer.

Had the weather remained poor, the next step would have been to reassess the available information rather than assume there was a single obvious solution. I would have discussed the options with my colleague, including whether waiting or an alternative destination was appropriate, and explained any developing requirement to the controller. The decision would depend on details we do not have in this question, so I would keep the answer conditional.

I asked my colleague to make a coordination call because I was busy on the radio. I explained what information we needed. When the call was finished, my colleague told me the answer. I repeated the important part to make sure I understood it. Then I continued with the next message and my colleague knew that I had the information.

I asked my colleague to make a coordination call while I continued to manage the frequency. I explained the question that needed an answer and the information already available. When the call was complete, my colleague gave me a brief summary, and I repeated the point I needed for the next transmission. That feedback confirmed both that the task had been done and that I understood its outcome.

The task I handed over was a coordination call; I retained responsibility for the frequency. I gave my colleague the context, identified the decision that needed clarification and asked for a short update afterwards. The task was not complete from my point of view until I had heard and understood the outcome. I therefore restated the relevant point, giving my colleague a chance to correct me before I used it.

I could see a technician looking at an open panel on the aircraft. I could also see some tools nearby. I could not know the reason just by looking, and I could not say if the work was finished. I would ask the technician or the crew for an update before I explained the problem to someone else.

From the picture, I could say that a technician was examining an open access panel and had tools nearby. That might indicate an inspection or repair, but I could not identify the fault or say whether the work was complete. Before passing on an explanation, I would ask the person responsible for an update. I would describe any unconfirmed detail as a possibility rather than a fact.

The observation is limited: someone is examining an open panel, and tools are close by. An inspection or a repair would be a reasonable possibility, but the image does not tell us the fault, the result or whether departure is affected. I would keep those claims separate and seek an update from the person responsible before passing on anything more definite. That distinction matters when several people are making plans from the same report.