Reuters AlertNet - Air France tells pilots to heed safety rules-paper (http://alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/B507031.htm)

Air France management was responding to pressure from pilots' unions to reform security regulations following the crash of flight AF447 en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris in June, which killed 228 people.

Sure, management had to act...

Some egos are going to be bruised here, but it's a little late to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Perhaps post Gonesse / Toronto would have been a more timely intervention ?
Denial is only effective for so long.

You should see the commotion on french television. Pilots are up the wall.

If AF were a non European outfit we'd be saying what a dangerous airline and let's not fly with them They do have a bit of recent form.
Get your act together mes amis! A spot of standardisation and flight deck discipline wouldn't go amiss. We know you can do it. Please.
I am disappointed and astonished.

I think AF and French ATC should be told to speak english. This may seem a petty thing, but I think it is indicative of a much wider and deeper malaise. i.e the "we're special so the rules don't apply to us" attitude.
Speaking french is an obvious manefestation of that attitude - however it seems there are many others - all of which add up to make AF the least safe airline in the whole of JAR land - and indeed much less safe than a number of '3rd world' airlines.
However nothing will change.
Oh well, c'est la vie.

Speaking your native tongue and the language you are most familiar with in your native country reduces safety? That is a novel concept. Recall the terrible American Airlines accident in Cali....The Tower controller was questioning the approach that the AAL flight and the responses that the pilots were saying, but there was a language barrier outside of the standard phraseology to verbalize those questions. In the Cali case, English was the lowest common denominator....in the case of Air France operations inside France, it is not.

Your claim that this and unspecified other items "make AF the least safe airline in the whole of JAR land - and indeed much less safe than a number of '3rd world' airlines" Care to back up that claim with objective hard facts?

Speaking your native tongue and the language you are most familiar with in your native country reduces safety? That is a novel concept

No not a novel concept, because when r/t is in "local", the rest of us using standard English are out of the loop, situational awareness is reduced, especially in LVP's. Therefore saftey margins are reduced, no brainer really.

Cheers Silvertop

I'm with silvertop on that one too. Well said.

Colombian airspace sucks, a company I worked for had an RA overflying Colombia.

Fine example, both aircraft at the same altitude flying an airway, heading towards each other. If both aircraft had pilots speaking the same language a big WTF would come to mind when you hear the other aircraft report.

I believe this was also a factor in the 737 lost over Brasil.

Agreed no brainer.....

Bonjour toi même :ok:

Don't know who you are but like a lot your statements about a dying company which was MINE for 33 years.

Toronto was the beginning of the end...

Makes me really sad with my professional carreer for that old prestigious company.

mermoz92

Forever ever a professional Air Line Pilot.

PS: ils n'en piquent toujours pas l'ombre de la queue d'une en anglais, with their OPS manuals (re)written in french, and absolutely none Airbus and/or Boeing FCTM (of course in english like for the rest of the world) distributed to AF pilots...

Had a TCAS RA with an AF aircraft climbing through our level over deepest Africa in the middle of the night. They werent on 126.9 and were communicating in French to ATC. They didnt respond to their RA causing a strengthen RA for us. When asked why, the reason was "they could see us". This was post Uberlingen.

If they could see us, why on earth continue climbing through an occupied level?

Pfff...so easy....AF 447 is not due to the language barrier...isn't it?

Feathered, I can only assume you've never operated into or out of a French airport.

I'm sure someone can provide the link to a well documented fatal accident at Paris CDG not too many years ago where a taxiing aircraft infringed a runway and was hit by a landing (or was it taking off?) aircraft. The PRIMARY reason for the accident was ATC speaking French to the French (the landing) aircraft and the pilot of the taxiing aircraft not understanding what they were saying to each other.

Parlez away in your local language to your collective hearts' content at regional airports where everyone speaks that language. However, the use of French at international airports in France and French dependencies reduces situational awareness for all non French speakers to a way beyond dangerous degree. It's a given that people have died because of it, and the French refusal to do away with its use can only be explained by one word - arrogance.

It's possible our children's children might be in a similar situation in the not too distant future with the use of Mandarin. But in the meantime, it's time the French accepted that fact that Bonaparte's days of glorie are long gone and in aviation at least, the French language has been supplanted by the language of the people they've never quite forgiven for bailing them out of two world wars - Anglais.

Edited to add: Hotel Mode, I see you incident was at night. I've had exactly that happen to me - AF 747 climbing through my level about 3NM away, (thankfully in day VMC), and if they were listening on any of 126.9, 128.95 and 121.5, not caring to reply to our repeated WTF? calls.

It's possible our children's children might be in a similar situation in the not too distant future with the use of Mandarin.



They won't need to speak to the controllers, this is why we operate fans 1/a. Eventually the radio will be an emergency backup. Just think of how quickly your children can send a text message.

Exactly.......

and the text message will be translated automatically: just like on my I Phone:cool:

Ok to try to speak english in FRANCE...but...I'm flying in a french company...a small one...We are doing Post and charters...Guess Who? :) so... we can observe alldays a "no" compassion from ATC when they hear the foreign accent...We are flying altogether, then I don't understand why people fight about the language barrier...safety is first !!
fighting about the language domination is actually the main purpose...let's be honest...today there are some OACI languages, french and english languages are among them...
French interior flights are more important than foreign flights with (?) 95% of french airports...
I understand the problem for non-french pilots in CDG, because they come 2 or 3 times a month in France...( good instruction case, isn't it? ;)...)...but....do you know BDX, LYS, MPL, SXB ? I ask that to non-european pilots... ( I suppose european pilots come often to be accustomed with "french-english accent" of ATC, and the 2-hundreds words vocabulary used in the two-way communication...)
Maybe...a solution -in my opinion, crashes due to barrier language are non-existent... - may be to impose english language in CDG only...

I'm sorry for my poor english...but I did my best... ;)

Air-sol...french pilot
I'd like to get the right english translation of my post...thanks !!

....- and indeed much less safe than a number of '3rd world' airlines" Care to back up that claim with objective hard facts?

One look at their hull loss record will speak for itself...:rolleyes:

One look at their hull loss record will speak for itself.Care to post the hull loss record comparison that you are speaking of so that we can all see?

Feathered, I can only assume you've never operated into or out of a French airport.

Why would you assume that? I learned to fly operating out of (and into) French airports.

I understand that you feel more comfortable/safer when flying and talking in your native tongue. It's hardly arrogance at all--we are in complete agreement. I feel the same way.

Ignoring the ignorant "forgiven" comment, the future primary comm will likely be computer/text based rather than voice anyway. Consider the 'situational awareness' implications.

One day the French will speak english on 126.9 over africa and also when in communication with their ex colonial territories eg algeria!

2009-10-24 19:30
Paris - In a strongly worded internal memo, Air France has warned its pilots to be more vigilant about safety procedures and upbraided those blaming flight equipment for the crash of Flight 447 into the Atlantic in June.

No one knows what caused the accident, which killed all 228 people aboard and was Air France's deadliest crash. Pilots' unions said on Saturday the company is trying to distance itself from blame - and shift attention to the possibility of human error - as the investigation drags on.

"Enough Scandals and False Debates about Flight Security!" reads the memo, sent to pilots Tuesday and obtained by The Associated Press on Saturday. It dismisses calls by pilots for new safety procedures following Flight 447's crash. "It suffices simply to apply our doctrine, our procedures," the memo says.

Erick Derivry of the SNPL union said he was "shocked" by the letter and that pilots were being made into "scapegoats."

Air France said in a statement that the memo was meant to be an internal document and insisted that it "has total confidence in its pilots."

Safety lapses

The memo details the company's responses to concerns about Flight 447's airspeed sensors, known as Pitots. Air France replaced older models of the sensors amid concerns they could have iced over and sent false speed information to the pilots as the Airbus 330 ran into a thunderstorm far off Brazil's mainland.

Air France revealed in the memo that it has stopped a training program for pilots on how to manage a Pitot malfunction like that.

Planemaker Airbus told the airline that the simulation "does not loyally reproduce the chain of consequences in real situations," the memo says, adding that the exercise misled pilots into thinking such a chain of events was more likely than it is.

The memo also outlines recent safety lapses by pilots that could have posed dangers, including deviating from the takeoff trajectory and not reporting technical problems immediately. It warns against "overconfidence" and thinking that safety measures are overkill.

Derivry described those incidents as everyday occurrences in any airline and "very largely exaggerated."

Strike threat

The memo appeared to be a response to a strike threat by two unions representing a minority of Air France's more than 4 000 pilots that have demanded new safety procedures.

A pilot with one of those unions, Alter, said Saturday it was maintaining the threat and dismissed the memo as a failed effort to assuage flight staff. The pilot spoke on condition of anonymity out of concern of repercussions in his job.

Investigators may never determine what happened to Flight 447 because the flight recorders have not been found after extensive searches deep in the Atlantic.

The families of two Americans killed in the crash filed a lawsuit in Houston last month claiming the airline and the plane's various manufacturers knew the aircraft had defective parts - including Pitots - that could have caused the accident.

The Air France memo came the day before pilots of a Northwest Airlines jet missed its destination in Minneapolis, saying they forgot to land, an incident that renewed concerns about flight safety.

- AP
Source:
Air France warns pilots over safety: News24: World: News (http://www.news24.com/Content/World/News/1073/5c30a8e0738546bc94a70aa527bfd049/24-10-2009-07-30/Air_France_warns_pilots_over_safety)

Airline accident ratings (http://www.planecrashinfo.com/rates.htm)
Data for 20 Years Jan 1989 - Dec 2008

The calculated parameters are quite clever. The "Accident Rate" column is zero where the airline has an average occupant death rate per flight and less than zero for better than average and greater than zero for worse than average. This takes into account the number of flights each airline makes and the number of deaths resulting.

e.g
Soutwest Airlines # 15M flights # 0 fatal events # Accident rate -4.25
British Airways # 5M flights # 0 fatal events # Accident rate -1.48

I have no idea of the truth or correctness of these figures but someone has gone to a lot of trouble anyway.

If the figures are true and correct, Air France does not seem to come out too well to me, and that is before the Atlantic crash is accounted for.

Interesting that none of Air France's competitors are using these figures in advertising. Maybe we need government mandated inclusion of this material in all airline ads, in a similar way to fuel consumption (and safety rating?) is published for cars? I guess the public could get hung up on minute differences but some way could easily be found so that minute differences were factored out of the published figures.

I will certainly think twice before getting on an AF flight now I have seen these numbers. Quite shocking.

It's amusing how this language issue keeps popping up. Equally often another issue pops up. Last year I've been plowing European skies flying short sectors mostly 4 a day on my work days, quite a change from long haul really.

Instead of spending about an hour or so over the busy central Europe as when on the 747 I know spend all of it in the area.

What I have noticed is the horrendous amout of yapping on 121.5 and a lot of it pilots that are on wrong frequency or do not have one. In my experience majority of these French. Flying on Tuesday this week I counted 3 flights on the first sector to LTN, coming back 5 and next 2 sectors to DTM another 4 AF flights that where looking for a frequency or being searched by another AF flight with a new frequency.

I am not trying to stir up a pissing contest regarding the use of English as the language of choise in aviation, and it is, but I am wondering why the French airlines, mostly AF, are so well represented in what is becoming a very congested 121.5 over Europe.

Hi all, i know it is not that easy to know what is going on the airline for outsiders, and when we read the news with a "air france pilots are asked to fly correctly" people have to understand two ways of understanding the title :

Long before AF447 few pilot's unions ALTER and SPAF, asked AF to increase and modify its safety policy, the management never really listenened to them...instruction in the airline is 90% based on books, and young pilots look like "lawyers" studying ...the main task being if you have that scenario where do you find the answer in the book ??

Every year two simulators sessions, and until last year pilots had the all simulator session in detail in their book, so no surprise with on top of it a majority of them having a copy of the instructor leaflet on the side !!

AF pilots are asking for an external "audit" to me made, preferably by foreign pilots experts, they are asking for major changes for a long time now (before toronto), but the management never really moved its ass ..
After AF447 crash, two unions ALTER and SPAF asked that all Thalès pitot tubes to be changed on all 340 and 330, they pushed ver yhard until the management decided to do it while the same management communicated on the subject saying they did the change etc !!!
The same unions are asking to the pilot's management to resign from their seats because they estimate properwork hasn't been done...and months later that management decided to send the letter above mentionned.....so now you have more clues about that very sad story !

I used to fly in foreign airlines, did some type ratings in UK, flew with British and US pilots in the past, and i must say i'm not impressed by the management of the airline, there is a huge work for "foreign audit experts" with AIR FRANCE , and they have to go very deep inside the airline ...
Concerning french pilots and english let's face the main problem, why so few french pilots and/or people; speak and write properly english ???
Of course because the education system is to be changed ! that problem has been identified for long, sudents from the age of 10 start to study grammar, grammar, grammar, and can hardly talk despite knowing the most insignificant grammar particularity after 8 years of english lessons !!Who could believe it is a genetic problem seriously ?
English is not the issue with AF447, but seeing how difficult it is to change the education system with languages points out the big french problem...

AF needs the extern audit, french pilots are asking for it !!

AF needs the extern audit, french pilots are asking for it !!

And my friend...............you will not like the taste of the medicine they prescribe. From what I understand, it's nobody's fault. What do you think an audit is going to pull out of its hat ??? A praise for the pilots and marching papers for management??? The very one who is appointing the audit ??? Yes Santa Claus is still coming on the 25th.
As to the change of Pitot probe..........tosh ! The decision, however tardy, was made end of April and the job to last several weeks until..........!
447 crew must be turning in their grave hearing the mamothal amount of unsubstanciated manure that is coming out from self proclaimed experts.
If a sub and an oceanographic search vessel cannot find a clue, you'll have to explain how people sitting on their toush in Paris can come up with all these very interesting explainations. it's beyhond me.

The reason french speak such an appalling english is they do not give a hoot. You can blame the system, which I agree is total crap, the fact remains that the french, as a people are not in the least interested in speaking anything else but french.
I'd say young people are probably the worst. Listen to 17/18 years old speak english and compare with let's say young swedes who are fluent at 12. Pathetic. The only way to learn is...............to speak, you know, try, make mistakes, eventually looking a bit gooffy from time to time........but such an unfrench thing to do.

Years ago, an attempt was made to implement english as the official language at CDG. French ATC controlers and french pilots speaking english to one another. It was very scary and dangerous and was swiftly ditched. We all feel safer for it now.

The document starting all this commotion was " for AF pilots only ". I'd like to know how it landed in the media. I'm sure some well meaning soul who thought it would do the compagny a lot of good. Well, it's out now and who is looking like a fool ?? It kind of backfired, don't you think ??

Why is the audit necessary ? because without it , it is impossible to talk clearly about what's wrong !! i'm not saying or protecting a system i can tell you ! If you read carefully i point out that the way of instructing pilots in that airline needs to be improved a lot !!
Concerning english language, yes...they are very very reluctant to foreign languages and i was just explaining that this problem goes deep into education system, despite it would be easier to believe it is a genetic issue !!

Yep there are language issues, possible CRM issues, Toronto, etc, that need looking at, however thats not the only thing firing up AF Flight Crew at the moment. Reading the French Press it seems there is a very real danger that because there is no concrete evidence the Flight Crew are going to carry the can for AF447 - A point "Me Myself" made above. All very convenient for AF, Airbus and probably the French Government, so is it any wonder the AF pilot unions are unhappy about it.

And if you think it "couldn't happen here in the Anglo-Saxon world" then read up on the RAF's loss of a Chinook in Scotland many years ago and the subsequent findings of the Board of Enquiry and you'll get the picture. All professional pilots, and their associations, should be watching the handling of the AF 447 enquiry very carefully.

Interesting that none of Air France's competitors are using these figures in advertising.

I guess because the airlines are not silly. Using accident/crash as a weapon is, (beside the fact it is using somebody else misfortune) like throwing a boomerang, you never know if one day it will come back right to your face.

I flew in and out of CDG regularly last year and found the French controller's ability to switch from French to English without skipping a beat quite astounding! Although speaking English for over 30 years and having done all my flight training in English, I am a native French speaker and I did struggle in French airspace and on the ground to picture what was going on around me! Purely because the "trigger" words are not there. However, must say my experience of the French controllers was all positive, dunno how they do it!!!!

Focussing on the languages spoken is kinda missing the crux of the problem.

Complacency and arrogance runs through French culture and attitudes like a stick of rock - And flight crew take these traits to work in spades (yes - I have flown with French crew for many years). Sloppy, 'slang' R/T, a penchant for wizzing their hands round the flight deck like they're flying a single crew Star-Fighter, often late to work, often unco-operative, generally resentful and rejecting of suggestion; etc etc.

Although an audit will be massively critical, and I'm sure there will be a big clamp down on SOPs, I fear it will still be water off a ducks back, as they will feel it an insult to the French identity, and feel that their superior skills will allow them latitude to inject their own 'interpretations' and 'short-hand'.

Three observations on the previous postings:-
1) ATC/pilot communications in non-English is not restricted to France!
2) FANS 1 A/B (CNS-ATM) will reduce the voice communications considerably, but many aircraft will require a more robust method of contacting the pilots -Northwest A320:E.
3) Before anyone rushes to condemn the French language - as much as 60% of current English is derived from French (mainly thanks to William the Conqueror)!
That said - I agree that SA is compromised when non-English is used and the requirement for ATC/pilots to attain a level of proficiency in English, for reasons of safety, do not (in my opinion) go far enough - it should be mandatory when non-state registered aircraft are operating on the frequency in use.
Preumably Air France undergo LOSA checks?

Reading the French Press it seems there is a very real danger that because there is no concrete evidence the Flight Crew are going to carry the can for AF447 - A point "Me Myself" made above. All very convenient for AF, Airbus and probably the French Government, so is it any wonder the AF pilot unions are unhappy about it.



I beg to differ on that one. That's not the point I made and having read that "in"famous paper, I saw nothing implying something of the sort. In fact it says " Until the BEA has found something and we must get used to the idea it might be NEVER, everyone should button up and carry on with his duties "
From what I know, that letter is refering ( too late ) to very specific incidents that happened before and after 447 and where the crews got very............er............creative.
I'm sure AF, Airbus and the governement would like to get off the hook, but nothing substantiates so far, the theory that the crew was the cause of the crash. Until something does or doesn't come out, everyone should be well and truly inspired to get about his / her business and apply whatever SOP they're supposed to. In a nutshell, that's what comes out of that paper.
Leaking it out was a very stupid thing to do. AF has nothing to gain from it and pilots even less in the present market circumstances. Does " Let's keep it in the family " ring a bell ?


i was just explaining that this problem goes deep into education system, despite it would be easier to believe it is a genetic issue !!

See ? I catch you again : " not my fault " it's the education system. Thank God I know a hoodle of french people who speak english without the faintest trace of accent. I don't hear them blame the system for it even if it's dung.
They just went out because they were INTERESTED. The french are fed day in and day out with their passed grandeur and they are only too happy to swallow. You start reading in english, you start watching movies and tv in english and you go were people speak english to interact. That's how it's done and not in some posh parisian elite school or worst, some suburban war zone run down " lycee " where spelling has been downgraded to " texting ".

Sure an audit is a good thing, even better if done by KLM and Delta..........who might break this bliss of an alliance if they discover the whole shop is a freak show.
It's your expectations from an audit I question. You are very naïve in thinking pilots will come out all clean and shiny and management carrying the burden of their incompetence.
Like I've said a while back, the ventilator will spread the dung very generously and evenly my friend. What will you do then, when this audit of yours assigns you part of the blame ?? Go marching out and ask for another audit ??

If you read carefully i point out that the way of instructing pilots in that airline needs to be improved a lot !!

From what I understand, the incidents your boss is refering to were caused by blatant disregard of SOP's. I don't suppose your instructors ask you to precisely do that, or do they ??

The simple application of procedure would have meant these events could have been avoided. We do not need to modify procedures or create new ones," they said in the letter quoted by La Tribune.

This sort of statement is so typical. Don't airline management teams realise that THEY are resposible for the safety culture and flight deck discipline that exists at any one time within an airline? After moving through a few different airlines over the years it is blatently obvious that the airlines with excellent adherence to SOP's and flight deck disciplne (ie the safe ones) are the ones with skilled, motivated, intelligent management teams. And the reverse is true.
Management need their own special form of SA. Here's a parralell; maintaining a perfect descent speed, tracking and vertical profile on an approach while forgetting to extend the gear is us losing SA, maintaining excellent economic operational efficiencies and high ROI for investors while forgetting your staff training/discipline/motivation obligations, is losing SA for them.
For us and them, there is no point in getting one part of the equation right if another part fails. If we lose SA like above we are seen as having performed poorly at our job. So it should be for them. To come out with a statement that says "Straighten up and fly right boys" is to completely shift the focus away from the problem.
If we forget to extend the gear as in the scenario above, the EGPWS should sqwark at us "Too low gear", what is managements equivilent??? Maybe the unions sqwarking "We need different safety systems".
Framer

I beleive this language issue to be quite easy really.

French controlers and many of those who are writting are wrong.

Its this simple: Speak the language you wish. UNLESS the situation dictates the need for others to understand what is going on, for instance, LVP procedures in force, climbing/descending through other levels were other aircraft not speaking your native language are involved.... Don´t you agree?

So, it is not necessary to always speak in English, nor in your native language, you just have to use the brains god gave you and know when to use which. Its that simple and there is no argument to this.

By the way, for those who beleive English should be used at all times, make these considerations:

No.1, Try to imagine English was not your mother language (its very easy to discuss this when it is)
No.2, English is not the most used language througout the world. It is beaten by Chinese and Spanish (English is third in the list i´m affraid). So consider yourselves to be very lucky when English appears to be the common language.
No.3, English is not the only language considerd by ICAO.
No.4, The common language (English) is to be used ONLY when it is considered that other traffic need to know what is going on. (I deeply agree with this because it is the last barrier we have in order to block off accidents/incidents/frights...etc), but ONLY in this scenario, not always as many would like.

This is just my opinion.

you just have to use the brains god gave you

God didn't give me any brains, mine are a result of tens of thousands of years of natural selection where most advantages were obtained at a maximum of 10 miles an hour and with my ancestral feet planted firmly on the ground. That is why I am not very good at coping with complex environments moving at 400MPH and often have incomplete Situational Awareness while flying.

Its that simple and there is no argument to this.



Simple is a word that springs to mind alright.

So consider yourselves to be very lucky when English appears to be the common language.

What if some of us don't beleive in 'luck'? what if we beleive in a chain of action and consequence? Shall we sit down and consider the chain of actions that lead to this consequence? I don't have time for that at the moment.
The common language (English) is to be used ONLY when it is considered that other traffic need to know what is going on.

This pre-supposes that all operational aviation personel (PPL's, fighter pilots, wide-body pilots, follow-me car drivers, 200hr 737 f/o's) have perfect SA and know exactly what is going on within their sphere of operations.....if thats the case we don't need to transmit at all.
Regards,
Framer

"Me myself" you make it too personnal against "french frogs", i know too well how french can be when you look at them with a foreigner eye ...i'm really not a french guy defending the french nation (on top of it this is not my only nationality), i can tell you, that's why i tend to practice my english as much as i can, that's why i've worked with US and english pilots in the air force as well as with airliners ...

I was just trying to point out that french system is one of the worst to move because french are like that, they don't like people to point out their lacks, and if you do so they react as if they 've eaten four lemons !!
AF Pilots need to change things in their way of flying ...but AF pilots do what their pilot management decides 'that management is held by pilots !!) , meaning that unions said "you were unable to change the bad habits, unable to improve safety, the airline was unable to change the pitot tubes despite the fact that few airlines got into deep trouble with pitot icing (another french airline)
so the pilots managing the other 4300 AF pilots feel very very unsecure ...and what do they do ? they write a paper stating that AF pilots are bad pilots etc .....they tried to avoid the subject concerning all the signs that were announcing what happened with AF447 because as long as we don't have the recorders they will try that behaviour...
If you are an instructor and if your apprentice don't get their exams do you think you won't have any responsability if you are there for more that 20 years and collected just bad results ?

Many regard the language issue as serious. It is. Whilst you're waiting and pushing for the use of English in environments where local and foreign crews both operate - wouldn't it be worth the while for those who fly to and through France regularly to pick up some basic aviation French?

Thought not.

I've always found that communication between Frenchmen and myself is much improved when we've all had a few glasses of wine. Perhaps the "drinking and flying" rules should be reviewed when departing, arriving or over-flying France ?

AF and KLM are in the same group.
Why do results seem to differ so much between the 2 of them, it cannot only come down to cultural differences I think, no?

I still have to meet the first KLM pilot (or any other memeber of the crew come to think of it) that isn't fluent in English.

air-sol: I wouldn't call your airline a "small" one, with 17 heavy jets (soon to be 20 if I'm not mistaken ;) )!

The language issue keeps coming back because it is such an important part of flight safety. When you mention that foreign (i.e., non-French-speaking) pilots come into CDG two or three times a month, I beg to differ. Some of those in my outfit fly to CDG nearly every weekday (or night, to be more specific), and while some of them understand some basic French, some don't. Therefore I sometimes have to increase their situational awareness by translating what I hear in French on the same frequency, such as a clearance to land to an aircraft behind us on the ILS, and I can recommend that they keep the speed up because I know from the callsign that the following aircraft is an A321/737 etc. So I end up doing my PF/PNF duties and translating at the same time...

Foreign pilots routinely flying in and out of CDG (or MRS, or NCE, etc.) learn the airport's peculiarities pretty fast. But when you say that accidents caused by the use of different languages are non-existent, I think you conveniently overlook the 25 June 2000 collision at CDG between Air Liberte 8807 (an MD-83) taking off on 27L and Streamline Aviation 200 (a Shorts 330). No matter that the BEA report tried to shift some of the blame on the British crew for not understanding French (!), the accident was largely (although not only) caused by ATC speaking French to the French aircraft and English to the British one. And by the way, the First Officer on the Shorts was killed in the collision, and the captain seriously injured. So people have died because of language-induced misunderstandings and ambuiguity. And as we know, ambiguity in aviation is the mother of all :mad: ups...

The tired refrain that Chinese, or Spanish, are more used than English is a lot of tosh. Granted, more people might be speaking them as their native language, but these languages are not more widely spoken the world over, i.e. they are understood in a more limited geographical area than English.

I totally agree with Me Myself regarding the poor level of English teaching and practice in France, and the people's attitude to speaking foreign languages in general; no wonder the level of proficiency in the population at large in neighbouring countries is miles ahead of us. Back to the topic though: there is more than meets the eye to the AF safety audit, there are internal politics involved as well, and while a debate should always be welcome, it's anyone's guess what will come out of it...

Cheers :cool:

This letter is another validitation of pure arrogance. I feel very sorry for my french colleagues.

Yes they are the same group and that's why we can't ask KLM people po point out what's wrong with AF..despite the fact the are "able people", on top of it i've always thought this is one of the most friendly people on earth, just give a try to a dutch girl ;-))
I do consider that british are really what we need to investigate the system, i just have a very very good opinion of the art of flying on the other side of the channel, we could also cross the border with germany where records are excellent ..but you know what ? french like to do their own things they way they feel, and they strongly believe they are the ones who are right ....
Our president Sarkozy is just too french now, his hungarian blood has vanished away ....sad ...

AF audited by Brits or Germans....???

:D:D:D

NEVER EVER!

I teach Aviation English to French ATC and Pilots and am amazed at the high level of English which they achieve - much better than my French! They certainly achieve true ICAO level 4 and 5 and some even 6.

Nobody would disagree that everybody speaking the same language on the frequency would improve situational awareness, however ICAO recomendations allow the French (and Spanish and Italian and Russian and Chinese ....) to use their own language so just get over it.

While we are at it, the English mother tongue ATC and Pilots could make an effort to use their own language correctly using an accent which is intelligable to the aviation community and giving a thought to the tremendous effort it takes for a non-native speaker to achieve even level 4.

I think AF and KLM are in the same group. Why do results seem to differ so much between the 2 of them, it cannot only come down to cultural differences
You can attribute a lot of the difference to culture. There are some shallow aspects, like "what's the best beverage to drink with lunch?" and the language issue is also one of the more shallow ones. Where government in the Netherlands is encouraging students to learn foreign languages (in particular English), France is more concerned with supporting the French culture and language.

The big cultural difference (with a great impact on CRM) is that the Dutch (especially in the area around Amsterdam) are quite anti-authoritarian. A manager who just orders his subordinates around will be asked to motivate his decisions pretty soon. On the other hand, people on the work floor are not shy to warn when something threatens to go wrong. As preventive action managers schedule "meetings" where people can spout their issues so the manager can deal with them before they become problems.
The French culture is more one of respect for authority and good relations with the people around you. Potentially angering a colleague by saying he did something wrong is bad for the relationship. Don't dare to offend your chef! So problems often tend to simmer, unless someone finds out, leading to a French-style vocal explosion. It might require a common trip to a tavern to mend the damage to the relation over a few glasses of wine.

I think it is cultural differences
Having worked with both Dutch and French people over many years..
The Dutch realise that not many people speak their language, accept the fact and get on with trading and working in a world where English is the generally accepted language of business
( I am not saying this for any other reason other than that it is a fact of business life)
The French , in greater part, do not accept this.
They take it as an affront to, a slight on, their own language
The French love their own language (as do I) but most ( esp the (aristocracy!) will never accept the fact that the English language has surpassed their own as the major language of business communciation.
They "know" their language is better .
There is also a touch of Anglophobia about it too.
As ever, the old Anglo-French love-hate relationship surfaces whenever the issue of "language" arises .
Sorry to say, I also feel the language issue is related to the French arrogance and obsession with their mother tongue.
They just feel it is affront to the French language to replace it, or in many cases, even add to it, with English.
Just an opinion formed over many years!!

Nobody would disagree that everybody speaking the same language on the frequency would improve situational awareness

Alberto disagrees apparently.


So, it is not necessary to always speak in English, nor in your native language, you just have to use the brains god gave you and know when to use which. Its that simple and there is no argument to this.




I think correct terminology and readbacks are important in these bilingual envoronments as well. So many people read back all sorts of rubbish that is not required and add their own little tid-bits to each transmission as well.
Discipline is the key. Transmit only what is required using the correct terminology and a lot of the problems are solved.

"Me myself" you make it too personnal against "french frogs"

Well, sorry if I come across that way but I do get annoyed by " let us do things our way, not my fault if my command of english is poor ...........etc " that's all. Although, the command of english has never been the cause of a hull loss with Air France.
Obviously, as much as you like to do things your way...............it ain't working............or is it ?
You know, I really do not care where things come from............as long as they work.
You ( generic of course, don't fret ) resent having your faults pointed to you ?? Smell the coffee, nobody does !! But one listens anyway as you might learn a thing or 2.
I've had a yellow card handed to me in the sim a short while back and I didn't like it one bit. Thing is.............the guy was right............and I was wrong. You can't beat that, can you ? You just make the best of it, take the time to swallow your pride and move on.
If memory serves, I think one calls that ..........er..........humility. You guys understand humiliation.

While we're at it, you know as well as I do that there has been some cases, before 447, where things that happened were not dealt with by management. It was, with everybody's consent ( management & unions ) swiftly swept under the carpet and everybody kept on living forever after.
Well, keep on doing this and bad things happen, and I'm not thinking about 447.
This is the very and only issue. having this letter made public could have the street pundit think AF daily life is a freak show. Not the case. A lot of incidents have happened due to mechanical failures, sometimes over the ocean, or Siberia and were very professionally handled by the crews.
AF, in order to buy peace, has never been able to get rid of the bad apples and in a way, this letter is a deliberate mud sling into the union's face. This is what is at stake here.
Look, if I think about all the times I ended up having to write an Air safety Report, each time I had only myself to blame, not that I conciously disregarded SOP's, but still, it was my fault. Admitting it hasn't killed me so far and I can still walk my street with my chin up.


You can pick up any nationality for your audit, as I was saying above, the ventilator will still cover you (and management ) with a generous and equal measure of you know what for the above reasons.

Fouga is absolutly right, there is a lot more than meets the eye and there is a mamothal portion of sleezy politics in this affair............on both parts.
As always, it is the poor bystander who will be hit.
I suggest we just sit on the side and watch while the dogs get at each other's throats.
If anything, now it has been made public, this letter has only added more pressure on AF pilot's shoulders. Better not stuff up now.

Culture is a factor and a big on at that but,
It is by no means not manageable.

like Mathfox already said;
The big cultural difference (with a great impact on CRM) is that the Dutch (especially in the area around Amsterdam) are quite anti-authoritarian. A manager who just orders his subordinates around will be asked to motivate his decisions pretty soon. On the other hand, people on the work floor are not shy to warn when something threatens to go wrong. As preventive action managers schedule "meetings" where people can spout their issues so the manager can deal with them before they become problems.
The French culture is more one of respect for authority and good relations with the people around you. Potentially angering a colleague by saying he did something wrong is bad for the relationship. Don't dare to offend your chef! So problems often tend to simmer, unless someone finds out, leading to a French-style vocal explosion.

Is maybe correct now but hasn't always been the case.
Everybody here surely remembers and studied the effects of bad crew communications which was a great contributor to the Tenerife KLM-PanAm disaster in '77.

Also inability to speak English is more indicative of bad selection and subsequently bad training than purely culturally determined.

Eg.
I wouldn't exactly call the Japanese population proficient in the use of English but their Pilots sure seem to do things better than most of the other far east carriers.

Also they have adapted a more western style of working when it comes to cockpit procedures and the weight of the co-pilot in the decision loop, which isn't exactly a small feat given the importance of seniority in the rest of their working culture.

Also they have adapted a more western style of working when it comes to cockpit procedures and the weight of the co-pilot in the decision loop, which isn't exactly a small feat given the importance of seniority in the rest of their working culture.
Good point. It shows that strong cultural leanings can be overcome through aviation training. My personal opinion is that the two biggest things to sort out this decade in airline ops is A) flight deck discipline, and B) Fatigue.
Rigid flight deck discipline solves so so many of the problems out there.
You want to chop and change and mix things up a bit??? Fine, go hire a C172 on saturday, but doing that in an airliner does, statistically, and in my personal experience, increase the rate and number of incidents.

The French insist on speaking French, when the lingua franca for aviation, commerce, technology and communication is American (English). But the Americans persist in using feet, pounds, inches of mercury, degrees Fahrenheit and so on when most of the rest of the world is metric. Remember that 767 that ran out of fuel after the uplift figure had been incorrectly loaded in pounds rather than kilos (the totaliser was u/s as I recall).

Framer don´t take this personally!

Earlier you wrote:

"Nobody would disagree that everybody speaking the same language on the frequency would improve situational awarness

Alberto disagrees apparently"

On the contrary! What I wrote is that the common language should always be used when necessary (obsviously SA included), and I strongly defend this! You obviuosly didn´t understand any of what I wrote, and decided to attack me for some un-apparent reason!

I´m just pointing out what I happen to believe, nothing in what I wrote was directed to you, so please don´t take ir personally, that was not my intention.

Obviously your brain and mine are the result of evolution, but thats not what is being discussed is it?

My reply was not related to SA, but rather to the fact that you don´t approve others speaking any language other than English, correct?

Just to put it out there, I AGREE (second time im writting this), that English should be used when there could a conflict (hence creating a good SA atmosphere), but by no means should English be used at all times, its not at all necessary.

Once again, please dont take this personally, i´m not trying to argue with anybody, just defending my point of view with criteria.

Discorde said:

"The French insist on speaking French, when the lingua franca for aviation, commerce, technology and communication is American (English). But the Americans persist in using feet, pounds, inches of mercury, degrees Fahrenheit and so on when most of the rest of the world is metric. Remember that 767 that ran out of fuel after the uplift figure had been incorrectly loaded in pounds rather than kilos (the totaliser was u/s as I recall)."


The people of Gimli, Manitoba, remember it well.

The French in Canada use avoirdupois too, but our laws also allow for ancient French measurements pre-metric in land transactions. They all speak acceptable English to American visitors, but not to us English.

I think it is totally a mindset issue. Funny how the Norwegians, Dutch, Danish, etc speak English, maybe they learned it when the English and Americans were there stopping them from having to learn German! Funny how the French didn't learn the same lesson.

In Quebec, Canada, as well as in Ottawa, French speaking pilots can speak French to controllers. Ever been to Spain, or Latin America, or South America? ATC speaks Spanish. The same goes for many, many, many countries in the world. It does not affect security one bit. On the contrary. When most of the traffic speaks language "Z" and most of the pilots also speak the same language "Z", and yet controllers and pilots are both forced to speak English to each other, it does not help safety one bit.
How would American pilots feel, if say French had been the international ATC language and US pilots flying in US Domestic Airspace were forced to learn French in order to fly aircraft inside their own country?

It looks different when looked at it in that manner doesn't it ?

How would American pilots feel, if say French had been the international ATC language and US pilots flying in US Domestic Airspace were forced to learn French in order to fly aircraft inside their own country?

I think you just answered the real issue this all revolves around.
It's mostly about pride and feelings, 2 things IMHO that shouldn't enter the equation.

The other official languages can be perfectly used in communication with ATC but it should be done conditionally.
If in heavily used ,like around commercial international traffic airports or in continuously busy airspace, English should be the norm.

Nobody cares what language is used between traffic and tower as long as there is no commercial international traffic involved.

Originally Posted by Minorite invisible
How would American pilots feel, if say French had been the international ATC language and US pilots flying in US Domestic Airspace were forced to learn French in order to fly aircraft inside their own country?

Pretty miffed given the insecurity of the French about their supposed language?

But, the universe in which French pilots actually operate is one where they are required to speak ENGLISH. If pilots for whom English is not their 1st language would accept that possibly English is a more universal datum than their local Pingu in terms of safety then the aviation world would be that extra bit safer - lest of course the egos of pilots/ATC where English is not their 1st language is compromised. In which case their egos are more important?

Maybe it would be safer now if every French/Italian/German/Spanish/Greek/US/UK pilots were required to speak Contonese instead? FFS? :rolleyes:

Caudillo, if we use your logic, we'd all need to pick up some "basic aviation" Mandarin, Japanese, Spanish, Portugese, Russian, Arabic, Hebrew, 'merican:) etc. - for the two or three trips per annum each of us may do into each region.

As for the post above saying a common language is only needed when it's necessary (???): who's to dictate when it becomes necessary?

I'd like to suggest that when we're all scooting about the sky between 150 and 450 knots, even if the use of the second language doesn't cause confusion and reduce SA (which few I think would argue it doesn't ), [b]it causes unnecessary delay. (How many people have waited, waited, waited for the French language version of the CDG ATIS to do its loop before listening to the English language version - when they could be doing something far more productive in an often very busy environment?)

It's even more counterproductive when you hear ATC and another aircraft conducting a (sometimes long) conversation in French that may (how are you to know?) have some bearing on what you should - or should not -be doing.

Someone's said it already. The French cling to speaking French because somewhere deep in the French psyche they've never quite come to terms with the fact that the days when French was the accepted top of the rung 'international' language are long gone.

While I agree with most of your post, I should add that there is no wait for an English-language CDG ATIS after the French one, since they're on two different frequencies; 127.125 and 128.225 respectively - and have been for years.

But I suppose in an oblique way, it proves the point about English being the lingua franca of international commercial aviation...

Cheers :cool:

I stand corrected, FM.

First time I went to CDG, (admittedly, a long time ago), it was on the same freq. (We wouldn't want facts to get in the way of a good rant, would we?)

Really fascinating how this thread is drifting. The topic is a letter from Flight Ops management to pilots.
You guys drifted on the worn out topic of english / RT. May I rremind you that despite their sometimes appalling accent and pigheaded determination to be.................well.............french, the french have never lost an aircraft due to their sometimes shaky command of english.

What is at stake here is the fact a letter of warning meant " for your eyes only " was leaked out to the media causing a rather damaging wave for the compagny and in my view, putting AF pilots under a lot of pressure now it's been made public.
Imagine the commotion if the slightest incident occurs now.

Me Myself - you're right, there has been some serious thread creep at work; I only wanted to correct some misconceptions on both sides of the argument whenever the language issue turns up.

Back to the topic: whoever leaked the internal memo (either management or someone in the pilot workforce) must have their own agenda. Trouble is, now that it's in the open, both sides will play to the public, to try to score points and be seen to be doing something. While there is an argument for not keeping things under wraps, one can guess that nothing much will be achieved on technical matters under the media spotlight. The originators of the memo must have been incredibly naive to think that in the age of the internet, it wouldn't be leaked faster than you can press the "forward" key on your browser... unless of course that was the idea all along! I agree that this has put both sides (but mainly the pilots) under incredible pressure to deliver (or not to foul up).

Of course, in the absence of further flight safety occurences, the issue might just disappear from the public gaze, but the damage is done.

However, in due time we can expect the conclusions of the Delta safety audit to become public in the same way, and (if their track record with Korean Air is anything to go by) they tend not to mince their words.

Cheers :cool:

I think correct terminology and readbacks are important in these bilingual envoronments as well. So many people read back all sorts of rubbish that is not required and add their own little tid-bits to each transmission as well.

I completely agree with this and us Brits are probably the most guilty! I was arriving at a European airfield recently and the approach controller issued the following clearance:

'XXX123 turn right 330, descend 3000 cleared ILS Rwy X'

The Brit pilot read back:

'Turn right heading 330 degrees, descend altitude 3000feet, cleared to intercept localizer, when established localizer descend ILS'

As far as I am concerned that is not a suitable readback.

I am 100% in favour of everyone using standard phraseology in English but I also feel it is important to read back what you are told in a standard manner - understanding that English is not everyone's mother tongue and therefore not giving ones own overly verbose version of what you are told to do. Of course UK R/T is so long winded that we get used to it but that is not the universal standard and I don't think UK style RT it in a foreign land is a good thing.

Totally disagree with your disagreement I am afraid.

Normally he SHOULD say 330 "degrees"
Normally he SHOULD say descend "altitude 3000ft"

In this instance it is the controllers shortened form that is incorrect, not the verbose, but technically correct pilot version.

As regards the ILS instruction. I believe the pilot version read back is motivated by the difference between the British system, where you are habitually cleared to intercept the LOC but NOT follow the GP until specifically cleared, vs the European norm of simply being cleared for the ILS.
Many British pilots are often reluctant to follow the glide without some specific prompting from ATC (or me :rolleyes: ) the extended readback was, I feel, merely a substitute that allowed him to descend on the glide without being specifically authorised as in UK, with at least the "comfort zone" of having announced clearly his interpretation/intention following ATC's instructions.
Edited to say, I see you have edited your post, me too.
I recently landed with QNH 20Hpa/Mb out, due to (among other things) foreshortened ATC when cleared to the first altitude. Giving the QNH when first clearing an aircraft to an altitude doesn't always happen out of blighty, and can be a life saver (or loser :eek: )
As for English, I do not see any alternative to a common language (and do indeed appreciate I am fortunate it happens to be my native one) In a mixed crew scenario too, one must adopt a common language. When you have flight-deck of different nationality, mixed with CC of two different nationality, and no-one speaking all 3 languages ? talking to ATC whose first lingo is yet another. . . what to do ? but I realise I am the lucky one.

To return,briefly, to the thread subject.
Glass houses, and all that, come to mind.
Safety lapses , identified, but uncorrected, in the past are the fault of who ? the failure to stop them in their tracks is the fault of who ?
Your management should answer that one and take a hard look in the mirror before firing from the hip :=

I'm not sure it is an ICAO recommendation or requirement to use 'degrees' after a heading so I don't believe the controller was incorrect. Please feel free to correct me but I am under the impression that this is a UK-only habit and that is why controllers across the rest of the world don't use the suffix 'degrees'?

I maintain that the overly verbose 'when established localizer blah blah blah' should have been read back as 'cleared ILS'. This is the standard clearance that the controller gave and this is what they would have been expecting to hear back. The pilot reading back their own super extended version to a person who may not have perfect English outside of standard phrases isn't a good idea in my book.

As I said, I am in favour of everyone using standard English on the RT to aid SA but it should be standard and us Brits shouldn't be making it unnecessarily verbose.

PS when you say 'edited your post' was you referring to me - as I haven't edited anything?!?

'XXX123 turn right 330, descend 3000 cleared ILS Rwy X'


"330 degrees, 3000ft, cleared ILS X, XXX123"

...........I now wait to see that shot to bits ha ha. After it has been, I think we should try to drag the thread even further off track, it is good fun.

Maybe finger trouble (oops) on my part , I missed the end part initially.
Totally agree, some UK pilots should "get out more" and cleared for the ILS is just that , cleared for the "ILS "I.E LOC & GS, but the wee lambs sometimes need reassurance, us old farts know what the foreigners mean ;)

I think "degrees" "altitude" "feet" etc is technically ICAO correct, but don't have anything to hand to back up that opinion.
Think QNH on first alt is a must, acquired recently the (psychological) scars and bruises to justify that opinion too.

Sorry, more thread drift, "vive la france" I say (just to head in the "bon cap")
or is it "bonne cap" ? Duh :ugh:

More people have Portuguese as their native language than French.

Speaking your native tongue and the language you are most familiar with in your native country reduces safety?


yes because it increases the risk of aluminum showers when ATC makes an error ---:rolleyes: even in Latin America I speak English ---I don't have to:)

Hi,

Air France pilots make headline news

Back to topic :)
Or I missed something but they made headline news not about french language despite the original headline news was written in french.

YouTube - United 1448 Runway Incursion at Francis Green, RI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cofPH1y9vuw)

imagine if everyone did not speak the same language--in this case:eek:

To drag, briefly, this thread back on-topic (http://alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/B507031.htm): Pilots may disagree, but this episode reflects quite well on Air France, I reckon. Mr Pontificator over at insidetraveller (http://insidetraveller.co.uk/blog/?p=451) sort of nails it:

"A serious accident should be an opportunity for a company to examine itself from top to bottom. It is good that the current management feels brave enough to take on the pilots."

This is perhaps giving it an unecessarily combatitive spin, but overall I agree, though I would rather see it as Air France management rising to the challenge in a way not often seen at similar British institutions.

It is good that the current management feels brave enough to take on the pilots
What about taking on the pitots when it was time ... !?

Could I urge everyone who hasn't seen it to take the time to watch the link that Puglistic Animus has given us above.

First time I watched it, I had goosebumps, and breathed a massive sigh of relief when (thank God!!) the freighter pilot refused to take the instructions of the increasinly rattled ATCO.

That clip should be included in every pilot - and ATC - training course in this world.

I know this will offend some, but perhaps particularly in France.

Amen to that, if ever anyone needed evidence for mandating the installation of ground radar at major airports (if Linate wasn't evidence enough) this is it.
Also, perhaps the lady controller should be "encouraged" to be just a little bit less "go minded". :=
Thank God the dudes at the holding point could appreciate the crock of sh1t going on around them, well done guys :ok: :D

This forum is blatantly anti-french and therefore lacking in credibility.
If you insult the french, in a way never any jews, moslems or even worst, homosexuals would, fine, your posts would say forever.
If by misfortune you try to answer and to get some points equal in a factly manner, your posts get censored immediately.
For everybody to know.

I know this will offend some, but perhaps particularly in France.

With all due respect, it's not exactly the French accent that has been taped in this clip. Looks more like Level 6 natives :}

recce,
your post was deleted only because it answered a racist post that had already been deleted.

BTW, off topic posts will be deleted too. If anyone wishes to discuss language issues in aviation feel free to open a dedicated thread, but stop hijacking this one.
Thank you.

Dear Moderator

I thought you were the sleeping beauty for a momment.
I started this thread not to discuss how wonderfully the english.................speak english and the french so appallingly ( according to this thread ) but rather in the hope some people would maybe ( not holding my breath anymore for fear of chocking ) have something interesting to say about all this.
This AF management paper came in french and if anyone has the time to translate it, be my guest.
The interesting fact, as pointed by Fouga, is it was :
1/ Written in a day and age where the faintest of wispers ends up deafening the universe.
2/ After years of .............non management
3/ Dito the above + union forgetting where their right place was in defending the absolutly undefendable.

In this sad affair, both parties are fighting in public to regain their long lost virginity and this is turning into a bloody fight with the main union now trailing behind the smaller one's like a very tired seagull ( Bligh me, I sound like Cantona !! ) in claiming the heads of the letter's authors.
The cherry on the cake will now be ................a strike as advocated by more and more which, no doubt, will be the right answer for a disorientated and money losing airline.
This is looking more and more like a couple starting a fight in a posh restaurant in front of stunned customers.
How the KLM pilots can watch this knowing they risk sinking with the Titanic is beyhond me.

How the KLM pilots can watch this knowing they risk sinking with the Titanic is beyhond me.
Actually, it could be that KLM is hoping to take over AF... KLM is the older brand :) in the company :).

Actually I was hoping for a discussion comparing accident rates of KLM (http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?sorteer=datekey_desc&kind=%&cat=%&page=1&field=Operatorkey&var=5870) AF (http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?sorteer=datekey_desc&kind=%&cat=%&page=1&field=Operatorkey&var=6679), DLH (http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?sorteer=datekey_desc&kind=%&cat=%&page=1&field=Operatorkey&var=5743) and BA (http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?sorteer=datekey_desc&kind=%&cat=%&page=1&field=Operatorkey&var=5099) or any other serious discussion whether an 360° audit of Air France was warrented.
The first conclusion of my statistical analysis of accident/incident reports: Taking the Concorde out of service, was a good one! There is a second obvious one, but I am not telling you it. :E

The first conclusion of my statistical analysis of accident/incident reports: Taking the Concorde out of service, was a good one! There is a second obvious one, but I am not telling you it. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

You should probably keep it for yourself as you don't even have an idea of the official definition of incident. This is without mentioning the "value" of your database as a comparison tool. Did you hear about a BA 747 crossing the pond on 3 engines, another one loosing altitude during an hijacking attempt, more recently a 747 taking of with retracting slats or an RJ100 ending on the nose? These are few examples of incidents which you obviously didn't include, and guess what, there are dozens more for all airlines. Are you only considering hull losses ? Fatalities ? Sometimes fatalities occurs with no hull losses and vice versa.

Flight safety is not based on incident/accident history, but on its forecasting. Until accidents happens they aren't in the airline's statistics. Evaluating an airline safety is not only being a Math Fox, it's mainly having a deep understanding of the internal safety culture, procedures, training and maintenance, to name a few.

You can still post your comments on some "daily sun" kinda blog as you'll get an audience for such deep analysis.