In the interests of promoting transparency, fairness and good practice to protect all those involved in aviation, ICAEA encourages aviation English training and testing providers to follow the five principles of ICAEA’s Code of Professional Practice.

Avoid using “ICAO” in company, product and service names, and, professional titles (e.g. referring to a provided test as “an/the ICAO test”, raters as “ICAO raters”, teachers as “ICAO teachers”, or similar).
ICAO does not provide Aviation English testing services, rater or trainer accreditation, or, language training accreditation. In this case, using the ICAO name or logo can incorrectly suggest an organisation’s services have been approved or delivered by ICAO.
Avoid presenting and/or publicising an assessment service, such as a test used for LPR licensing purposes, as ‘valid’ and/or ‘reliable’ without providing clear evidence to support this claim.
Validity and reliability cannot simply be claimed. Good professional practice in language testing requires that any claim of validity or reliability is supported by evidence (e.g. in the form of reports after test trials have been conducted and analysed).
Avoid presenting and/or publicising an assessment or training product and/or service as compliant with ICAO Document 9835 or any other local regulations, such as EASA FCL.055 in Europe.
ICAO does not authorise Aviation English training products or services.
Compliance can only be authorised by an approved regulatory organisation which manages and oversees standards.
The information related to language training in ICAO Doc 9835 and Circular 323 is intended as guidance material. It therefore is misleading to claim a product or service is compliant when it was developed following recommendations rather than requirements.
There are many recommendations for best practice in the design, development and delivery of Aviation English training in ICAO Doc 9835 and Circular 323 – with a range of different recommendations for different settings and needs. Claiming a product or service is compliant with ICAO Doc 9835 because some recommendations may have been fully or partly implemented but not others is subjective, and a misrepresentation of the aims of the guidance material provided by ICAO.
Avoid including a national aviation authority or agency logo and/or reference to regulatory approval as an endorsement of the quality of a product or service.
CAAs normally audit and authorise operation of ATOs and other organisations following their own local rules and regulations. This kind of authorisation only means that an organisation has fulfilled the requirements to operate according to specific criteria. It does not mean this is a recommendation of good quality.
While a CAA may approve an organisation’s test for assessing pilots or controllers for licensing purposes in line with the ICAO LPRs, this approval does not automatically apply to other training services/products that the organisation provides. In such cases, the inclusion of a CAA’s logo, or statement of approval on other training services/products offered by the organisation is misleading.
Avoid certifying raters and/or interlocutors to be qualified to rate and/or administer a test based on generic training, without specifying the test that the raters and/or interlocutors are trained for.
Rater or interlocutor training, even when based on the ICAO LPR Rating Scale, needs to be tailored to a specific test instrument. Test takers interact differently with different test tasks on different tests. How tests produce samples of language for rating purposes also differs. Raters and interlocutors need specific training on how to deliver and rate the test they are required to administer. This type of training is therefore not interchangeable or transferable.