Originally Posted by Merue
I understand.
We have a real problem in CDG, because a lot of atc are much too young and suffer a lack of experience, and nothing is done to make the others stay.
This field is huge and complicate, but we still perform either approach control or ground and tower control.
Because our beautiful administration is unable to make any decision about the future (eg. separate approach and tower like in London, global approach with orly, or even Paris center...).
Even if this topic is not pleasant for me to read, I mostly agree with all your comments.
I am of the "old one ATCOs" who stays 26 years in CDG, and what I have experienced here is that 99,5 % of the runways incursions occurred in a single language environnement ( 100 % in US...!!!! even in the Niagara falls case on the 23/04/76)...
Then all pilots involved as the main cause of a runway incursion have always very good reasons to have done what they have done wrongly, including mainly a "Cockpit workload" that have lead them not to respect ATC instruction -even not listen to it - but that has left enough room to monitor the frequency for hearing ( not listening, its a full time job) instructions send to other aircraft...for the so called "situational awareness...
The use of English was described in ICAO annex 10 §5.2.1.1.2...as "something adopted, waiting for the set up and adoption of a better spoken expression ...”
From that time,is there something changed in a language that has never been builded up and certified - vocabulary, prononunciation..- By an Academy? (Complaints from UK ALPA in PPRUNE about the use of "so call English" in Africa and Far East?)
The Kent Jones - seems not to sound French...-study on the non scientific use of English in ATC (but for political reasons) is very clear.
And the only official serious study done in that field by bi-lingual experts ( R.sinclair-J.chouinard-Darrel.V.Heald ) for the Canadian minister of transport has lead to the conclusion that the level of safety required by ICAO do not request that individual ATC instructions should be understood ( at leat interpreted) by other traffic on the same frequency.
Then and finally why only non native English speakers should have to support the cost of learning a foreign language? The only safe aviation language should be building up, and learned by EVERYBODY in the loop so that each party should take care of the other party with the same level of skill. An update version of Esperanto could reach the requirement. (But may be, checking at the European statistics, Brits are, let say
, too lazy to learn a second language...
In fact,the generic problem is not the use of English in aviation; it's the aggressive domination of the US totalitarisme, with the little poodle barking behind...Let's speak english or we will send you a carpet of B52'
PS/ Stop to report stupid things about the streamline accident in CDG : At no time the enquirers were able to determine if the SH330 crews was monitoring the frequency at the time the T/O clearance was given to the MD80 crew, with at the same time, having no cockpit workload to give them room to do the ATC job…
But may be we can look why , when told – even by error – to line up behind a departing, the view of a landing A/C can replace in the mind of the Captain ( not in the F/O one’s) a departing one.