Originally Posted by arcniz
I trained in a multi-lingual environment and am very familiar with the many ways that cultural and linguistic differences can scramble aircraft communications.
I have also read a great many 'situation' reports, and have written a fair number as well.
That said, my read of the official report referenced in this matter is that it SEEMS to be more than ordinarily focussed on delegating blame to persons other than the ATC persons involved.
Yes, Italians do speak 'funny'. A little stress might amplify that tendency. But an 8000-hour ATP has likely had quite a few chances to practice and perfect the patois of ATC-speak, so it may not be such a simple case of him speaking badly or unclearly. More likely the mis or non-communication resulted from some bad luck in the timing of the transmissions, plus poor follow-up on both sides of the conversation in clarifying the uncertainties that may have arisen.
Perhaps the answer is not to retrain the aircraft commander, who seems to have done a workmanlike job of salvaging his progressively deteriorating aircraft on a short time-line and then even polishing the success by steering it clear of the active on rollout despite lack of nosewheel steering.
Perhaps the fellow sitting in the padded chair, level at 100 feet or so and travelling at around 0 kts, should be training for a bit greater cross-cultural sensitivity in special situations when things are not going well for the folks out there in the sky.
Dear Arcniz, In response I'd like to clarify a couple of things here.
Firstly, Italians don't speak "funny". They speak English sometimes Italian English almost always with an accent reflecting their native langauge. Just like you and I would when we speak their language. It is difficult to avoid.
Also, the cockpit is not meant for practicing anything as far as I have been told. Experience can be gained but do not think the cockpit is the place for the langauge classroom. Standards should be learned in the classroom, tested in the simulator and exercised on the job. This is what I've been on my soap box about for ages. air/ground communications should be learnt by all -native and non native speakers aike-to avoid misinterpretations and confusions such as this.
I honestly feel this "language proficiency problem" in this incident is really the last of the holes in this slice of swiss cheese. Non-standard communications, (I am not a pilot but have consulted with a A320 piot) non-standard operational procedures mixed with busy work load by both ATC and flight crew, bad weather...and the holes go on...pushed this incident. Something worked in keeping it from being an accident. As you say above, bad timing and other "unlucky" factors may have helped.
I firmly agree with you that these things should occur in recurrent training so native speakers and non can be sensitive to code-switching and miscommunications exactly for this reason. You can understand because you trained, as you wrote, in a multilingual situation. It should be best practice to do so.
Eventually, around the end of 2007 when the 5 March 2008 date nears for proof of proficiency as dictated by new ICAO and soon to be adopted JAA standards, people might realize it isn't a money, but safety, issue.
Kindest regards to all,
PE