Runway incursion incident at CDG 10/01/06? [Archive]

brain fade

11th Jan 2006, 09:58

Shuttleworth

Thanks for that. There was so little heard on the freq that I was beginnining to think I'd imagined it. The AF said nothing (as far as I could tell anyway although there may have been a French language tx that I missed). As the Tower controller stopped the AF he also told the crosser to 'expedite crossing'. I didn't hear anything from that a/c either but I'm sure they had other things on their minds!.
Although there was about 2000m at the time, when we taxied past the tower the top was very definately IMC

I agree it is shocking. Everyone knows that dual language ops causes problems (deaths actually). I go to CDG a lot so it could be me next. Last time I think only one poor chap was killed. This one could have been a heck of a lot worse. Those A340s use a lot of runway and this one would definately still have been on the ground at the crossing point (unlike many a/c that are airborne by then). Nasty.

What will it take for them to speak English only?

FLEXPWR

11th Jan 2006, 11:00

Hi there,
Just looks like another incident, once more caused by language differences.
I know the French like very much to speak French anytime they can, and on their on "territory" they just feel they are entitled to do so. Actually they are. I don't know what it will take to get all pilots to speak english but I think most french do not want to speak english not so much because of a language pride, but because many are uncomfortable and actually do not know english that well.
I remember once I was on stand in EDI waiting for a clearance, when I hear a french voice from a B737 Charter flight calling for DEP Clearance as well. The controller replied no flight plan had been filed, and that they would have to contact their handling agent. No reply. The ATC asks: "who is your ground handling agent in Edinburgh?" and the pilot to reply: "Errrr...Yes."
Of course it is just a little anecdote, but it goes the same way for runway incursions, landing clearances etc...
It can become very frustrating when ATC speaks a second language on the air, and if ATC makes a mistake, the pilots don't get a chance to spot it unless they are fluent and alert for that specific call.:(

Arkroyal

11th Jan 2006, 11:09

I am not at all surprised by this incident, as CDG is THE place in europe where the hairs on my neck (the few left) stand on end frequently.

My friend John Andrew was killed by the previous screw-up, and it's only a matter of time before he's joined by more.

Kalium:And I thought the CDG controllers would have learned after the Liberte/Streamline collision.Dream on:yuk:

captplaystation

11th Jan 2006, 12:08

I used to operate a lot ( ie 10 x / week) into CDG and in spite of a liason with a cutie in the tower ,I have to say that in comparison with most major E uropean ATC they were crap;as the Concorde accident proved they don't spend enough time looking out the window ,they rely (and don't understand the limitations of) on ground radar and generally their finger is somewhere other than on the pulse. I have landed there and taxied almost to stand before being given a retrospective clearance to do something I now couldn't do etc etc, I once saw a very nasty airmiss on radar whilst visiting the " room in the clouds" they inhabit, and no-one bloody batted an eyelid, seemed they were well used to it.I still transit their airspace periodically and the scares ( whilst a little less scary with TCAS ) are just as frequent as I remember 10 years ago. Using one language would help, but the major problem is the mentality that thinks setting up a conflict, which will be later resolved ,is more smart than doing it in a slightly more methodical prudent way.Oh ,and I can't see that having one controller doing ( as they do sometimes after 2200) tower and Departures ( inc from RYR Paris BVA) can be in any way safe.

PhoenixRising

11th Jan 2006, 14:07

What will it take for them to speak English only?

Pigs to fly. It won't happen. They experimented with English only for about a week several years ago and it was a disaster. If my memory serves me correctly the AF pilots threatened to go on strike unless French was reinstated.

TheOddOne

11th Jan 2006, 15:03

At least that proves the value of opposite direction runway inspections - if things have gone wrong, the driver has the best chance of getting out of the way.

Maybe in this case. LHR have done it that way since an incident in the '70s but at LGW we do it with the traffic due to the layout of the RETs, only being able to vacate to the north etc etc. It's all been risk assessed, method statemented and safety case analysed. The subject comes up every couple of years and we re-examine it but at present on balance we regard it as the better of the options.

Years ago, it wasn't uncommon to have Airfield ops people who had 'shared' the runway with an aircraft (myself included) but I think that we're so much more aware of the runway incursion issue now that the chances of it happening within our culture are vanishingly small.

The worst aspect of these cases isn't just that they happened, but that the individuals and their respective organisations, have a 'denial' culture that prevents them from sharing this safety-critical information. What if the circumstances surrounding this latest runway incursion are waiting to be repeated at another airport, where a disaster could be prevented by sharing the experience?

Re - Speaking French in France. Of course both the CDG controllers and the Air France pilots are perfectly capable of speaking Aviation English, so there's no practical excuse. It must be chauvanism. It's a French word, after all! I know of a Belgian lady (former controller, pilot) who was contracted to teach Aviation English to all the Ground staff at a French airport; they were then banned from using it by their Senior Mgmt. Crazy!

The Odd One

PBD 1

11th Jan 2006, 16:12

I too remember John from Streamline....I also remember one of the subsequent reports one entitled "Prevention of runway incursions at CDG" This 90 odd page document made no reference to bilingual operations at this airport or the constant TCAS alerts from multi runway ops. I can still vividly remember one Icelandic guy on his way to Amfou one day after a rarther busy first couple of minutes "For the love of god in English PLEASE".

tribo

11th Jan 2006, 17:23

From 2001:
http://www.imperatif-francais.org/dossiers/dossiers.php?id_dossier=204

Airbrake

11th Jan 2006, 18:24

Not so long ago a french ATCer was repeatedly calling a French callsign with no luck. He then tried it in English and got a reply straight away because it was a UK contractor operating it. CDG is truely another accident waiting to happen it's just a matter of when.

250 kts

11th Jan 2006, 20:07

Maybe you guys should just refuse to fly there. I guess the situation would change fairly quickly when no foreign operators were flying to CDG.

bgt66

11th Jan 2006, 20:42

hi,
just to be accurate : in french RAC, language for tx is pilot's choice, so if you want every pilots to speak english at CDG, it's possible : you have to ask AF's (and other french companies) pilots, not french ATCos, to speak english.
... and for Streamline accident, difference of language appears not to be a cause, but possibly could have been a last chance to detect error and avoid the accident.

straightnotlevel

12th Jan 2006, 12:53

just one occassion at CDG when on short final 27L cleared to land on 27R !!! everyone has a horror story of CDG ATC.

LGW Vulture

12th Jan 2006, 14:18

Maybe just maybe, if the mountain won't come to Moh'd ..... how about if all foreign pilots operating into CDG or French airports spoke fluent French????

..............quietly ducks for cover........:uhoh:

Arkroyal

12th Jan 2006, 20:24

how about if all foreign pilots operating into CDG or French airports spoke fluent French????

how about if all foreign pilots operating into FRA or German airports spoke fluent German????

how about if all foreign pilots operating into PRG or Czech airports spoke fluent Czech????

etc.

quietly ducks for cover

Better be good cover numpty:=

Merue

12th Jan 2006, 21:52

I could have this story wrong and if so please disregard. It seemed to me like a near miss tho', partially caused by dual language ops at CDG.

Anyone know more?

Good evening,

I would have been happy to give you some more details, but unfortunatelly, as an atc in CDG, I do not speak english.

Everything I read in this topic is sad but true. Can I suggest you pilots file some incident reports when you have some problems in CDG? So that we can make things better in the future.

brain fade

12th Jan 2006, 22:20

MungoP

13th Jan 2006, 02:34

There are extremely few ( I can only think of 'fatigue' as another one) recurring dangers currently out there waiting to get us in modern aviation.... Local language use when non-national a/c are on freq has proved lethal in the past...as has the use of very poor English...an easy problem to address, and it needs to be addressed now. If the aircraft that collided with the Streamline 330 had suffered a major accident killing all on board maybe...just maybe, the French ( who in my experience are the worst in Europe for this ) would have modified their work practises....the sad truth is..I doubt it.

admiral ackbar

13th Jan 2006, 09:49

Just out of curiosity, how does YUL handle this?

priscilla

13th Jan 2006, 14:26

What about an "english for dummies" language that will be learned by all the native english speaker...
Usually english pilots just use their usual phrases, or vocabulary...as they were speaking to another native...They don't realise how it's difficult to understand for us.
In France we usually learn lists of vocabulary (aeronautical, medical...). Why don't we use the same list in every countries? English speaking pilots will have a chance to be understood if they use "standard" vocabulary..

Merue

13th Jan 2006, 16:20

Merue

Just for the record I have no complaint against CDG ATC. In fact I like the way they work.

This thread is not meant as an anti-CDG thread at all. I posted it as I saw (heard) something alarming. Luckily no one was hurt but it could have been another Tenerife.

I know Air France would prefer 'English only'.Shall we wait for the 'Big One', or stop it now?

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.

A7700

17th Jan 2006, 15:00

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.

MungoP

17th Jan 2006, 16:56

7700
"too lazy to learn a second language..."
What absolute Bullsh*t.... what about a 3rd language and a 4th...5th 6th ?
I'm flying in Afghanistan at the moment...should I be fluent in Pharsee and Pushtu ? If the international radio language had been decided on as being French I doubt that we'd be hearing these protestations from 7700...the fact is that English was chosen because it is overwhelmingly the world most spoken and understood language...and therefore fewer people would have to learn a new language... a safety factor in itself...
Way too many people have died because of inadequate communication due to language difficulties...I, together with my crew and the passengers and crew of a Fokker 100 came within seconds of a major disaster due to a controller mistakenly clearing the F100 fro an approach...in the local language...
A pilot being subjected to local language communications between controllers and other aircraft may as well be on the wrong frequency....we all need to be in the loop...

ElNino

17th Jan 2006, 17:42

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'

I find it very worrying that someone who controls at the main airport I operate to uses such a pointless and irrelevant argument to justify a dual language strategy. Denial is ridiculous, a problem very much exists. Not to mention to appalling radio discipline of all too many AF crews.

ATC Watcher

17th Jan 2006, 18:09

This debate is like the phoenix, it dies and is reborn every 9 months or so, everytime with new people and everytime using the wrong arguments to justify thier views.

For info : Once more : the Facts :
ICAO is NOT manadating English only , quite the opposite in fact. ( read your Annexes)
Situation awareness is NOT required in IFR, and could even be dangerous if you modify a clearance because of what you percieved to have understood.
Causes of the CDG collison between the Short and the MD was NOT dual language use , but disorientation of both ATC and Crews as to where both a/c were ( which one was behind which ) combined with a conditional line up clearance (in English) to the Short that mistook a landing a/c for the departing one.( see the report)
CDG controllers are rather for English only, it is AF crews and Unon (SNPL) who theatened to strike if that measure was implemented.

If you want to justify better English understanding between crews and ATC,
then review for instance the Avianca 707 crash in JFK in Jan 1990. ( avail from the NTSB web site) The CVR transcript will give you plenty of material to debate this very important safety issue.

If you study carefully most accident reports you will find that lack of proper Phraseology is the key, not dual use of languages.

FlyVMO

17th Jan 2006, 21:59

Situation awareness is NOT required in IFR, and could even be dangerous if you modify a clearance because of what you percieved to have understood
Err..where to begin with this one...?
I was under the impression that controllers and pilots were [I]both[I] human, and prone to making mistakes. All transmissions being in a common language allows one to catch potentially deadly mistakes made by others-either in giving a clearance or reading it back. Please note this does NOT mean we as pilots are going to "change" a clearance. It means if we hear something that sounds wrong we'll ask for confirmation. Maybe Im just misunderstanding you, but I can't help feeling that your statement that SA is unneccessary under IFR is a little bit self important. Are you going to tell me controllers don't make mistakes? We all know (I think) accidents occur as a result of a chain of events-i.e you mentioned disorientation-every opportunity should be used to break that chain when one starts.
I appreciate that learning English is not easy, but then I don't think its too much compared to how much other material you have to know to be a pilot/ATCO. I would venture that English is the closest thing we have to a common language in aviation, making it the most practical solution at this time. Simply-fewest number of people to learn a new language. And yes I did learn another language (german), unfortunately I've forgotten it from lack of use (admittedly a sin almost as great as never having learned it).
If anyone has a better solution I'm all ears, but please be practical.

vespasia

17th Jan 2006, 23:22

Totally agree with Brain Fade on this one.:ok: I'm lucky enough to have English as my first language and I know that for non native english speakers this adds another dimension to training BUT what do ATCOs and pilots perceive as most important - their own language or SAFETY? I'm an ATCO and I love the job and if the rules changed tomorrow I'd learn French, Japanese, Russian, Spanish or whatever I needed. I simply cannot understand the blinkered approach which thinks that this is not a problem which needs urgently addressing. Maybe if you flying guys overwhelmed CDG with MORs we could start to get somewhere? ( definition of MOR - event which did, or if not corrected, would have affected safety. )

junior_man

18th Jan 2006, 01:15

Everybody not speaking the same language removes a barrier that could prevent an accident or incident.

It is nice to hear the controller clear somebody to land on the runway you are holding in position on, or hear another guy cleared for the same approach as you.

National pride isn't a reason to reduce safety.

BTW, same dual language problem in YUL as well.

ehwatezedoing

18th Jan 2006, 03:54

BTW, same dual language problem in YUL as well.
So quote us a incident or accident report related to it.
Because I'm not aware of any.

I have to admit, it's not the same level of traffic as CDG.

junior_man

18th Jan 2006, 04:11

Less safe may not mean an accident, but less safe is still less safe. Removing situational awareness by not using the same language just as a matter of national pride?

I think it is a matter of is it more safe to use a different languages or more safe to all use the same language?

Maybe we should start using regional slang as well.

Yessir, it's raiinin laaake a cow peein on a flat rock. Rough as a stucco bathtub too.

Or would you prefer some standard format perhaps that all can understand?

BTW, I am from YUL. Not just some Yankee.

Gretchenfrage

18th Jan 2006, 04:41

"Situation awareness is NOT required in IFR"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This statement falls into the same category as "even a grandmother can fly one of our products...."

Jeeeeeezzzzz.

Just READ your statement again, very slowly and then think again.
GF

ATC Watcher

18th Jan 2006, 12:23

Gretchenfrage, do not take out remarks outside their context, we are discussing R/T dual language issues here.

I maintain my remark , which is valid in IFR , in R/T procedure as defined by ICAO . You might not like the idea of it , but it is so much a fact that all the future communications plans (including ICAO FANS) will replace R/T by data link , where , each aircrfat will receive its unique clearances, without having any posibility to " read" the clearances to other a/c in its vicinity.

But even today,in large ATC units, with multi collapse/bandoxed frequencies , vertical sectors splits, etc.. you only hear a fraction of what you were hearing a few years ago.
Basing your situation awareness, and acting upon it , based on what you hear on the R/T can be as dangerous as using a TCAS display to spot other traffic.

( the underlined words above are the key words )

junior_man

18th Jan 2006, 12:56

Well, loss of situational awareness in IFR is a red flag for CRM. Situational awareness is always required. Stuational awareness is knowing where you are, where you are going and what is going on around you.
Now, perhaps you are just refffering to knowing where the other aircraft are? Yes, one doesn't keep track of where everybody else is enroute, but then, I am not usually talking to the tower or ground control enroute either.
When on the ground such things as hearing somebody else cleared to land on the runway you are holding on, or cleared to cross the runway you are taking off on IS important.
And no, you generally don't go off changing your clearance without asking, but sometimes the controller can be very glad you asked.

DW11

18th Jan 2006, 13:15

Basing your situation awareness, and acting upon it , based on what you hear on the R/T can be as dangerous as using a TCAS display to spot other traffic.

The alternative being a 737 and A330 playing chicken in Chicago.

junior_man

18th Jan 2006, 15:01

I think you mean BOS. Everybody is lucky the 737 crew saw the 330 and took evasive action. The problem there was two different frequencies for intersecting runways, so nobody could hear the other crew getting the clearance. That situation has been rectified so that you wil be on the same frequency and will be able to hear if to aircraft are given takeoff clc on intersecting runways. The use of different languages would negate this.

Also an incident in PVD a few years ago where one crew got lost in the dense ground fog and taxied onto the active runway. Another crew was cleared for takeoff but knew the airplane was lost in the fog and wisely declined to T/O. Avoiding a collision on the ground between a 737 and 757.

Paying attention to what is going on around you is good airmanship.

DW11

18th Jan 2006, 16:10

junior_man,

I did indeed mean BOS.

empati

18th Jan 2006, 16:19

My situational awareness at CDG is less due to dual language. In Scandinavia we keep it english (most of the time), even at small airports. We, too, try to protect our own language, but everybody speaks at least 2-3 foreign languages. It's increadible unprofessional at an international airport as CDG to speak french!! I otherwise like the way CDG ATC do their job.

Regards, Empati

ATC Watcher

18th Jan 2006, 17:43

Junior man , you are of course right regarding " situation awareness" as a whole.
I realise my statement can be understood differently of what I meant :
I should have written : " Determining the position of other aircraft based on R/Tto obain situation awareness is not required in IFR .. "
It was obvious to me we were debating this fact and not the overall " situation awarenesss principle (i.e knowing where you are, etc.. )

For the rest I quite agree with what you are saying.
An I also would prefer English only at International airports , and that include CDG.

My point is that the present ICAO rules allow otherwise, and as my first intructor told me : " you do not have to like the rules, you have to follow them "
For info , the French pilots , and the French CAA ( DGAC) argue the same safety argument to maintain French on the R/T . saying that the chances of misunderstandings between French Pilots and French Controllers is far less if both use their mothertongue.
This same argument was used in 1976 to impose French on the R/T in Quebec , by the way..

JP4

20th Jan 2006, 08:33

(But may be, checking at the European statistics, Brits are, let say ;), too lazy to learn a second language...
Are the french known for being good in a second language?:confused:

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'.
How do you understand the fact that in Marroco for example, everybody is using english on the radio, the Royal Air Maroc pilots included, but the french airlines and charter continue in french... Same problem over Switzerland.

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….
What about the controller workload when, at night in CDG, there is a single controller for multiple control positions?
Of course the only risk for a controller is to drop his pen on the floor or may be fall from the height of his chair! Obviously not the same in a cockpit !
With the number of days you're working in a month, your control should be perfect Mr A7700.

acm

20th Jan 2006, 09:09

If you are clever enough to hold an Airline Pilot Licence, you should be able to learn BASIC Aeronautical foreign language. (line up, landing, take off, and hold short clearance to name a few) In fact this should be a requirement to get an ATPL, instead of learning Morse code!
ICAO official language are English, French, Spanish, and Russian. Full stop.

So stop being arrogant with your xenophobic attitude toward french ATC. They have their problems. UK and US and others ATC have their problems and their incidents as well.
How about Madrid or Spanish ATC speaking Spanish ?
How about Quebec ATC speaking French?
How about Geneva ATC speaking French?
How about Russian or former Soviet republic speaking Russian?
Finally how about Inverness with their Scottish accent? (or Savannah for the US?)

As somebody mention earlier on, dual language never kills anybody so far. Stupidity and error does.

Say again s l o w l y

20th Jan 2006, 09:37

What nonsense. Having more than one language on R/T is lethal. It doesn't matter if we have to speak French, English or Swahili, the point is there should be one language.

The Streamline accident is a classic example and having flown many times with the captain from that flight, the reason was a lack of situational awareness, coupled to a stupid mistake.

I have always hated operating into CDG and the number of times I have come face to face with another a/c (usually a French Post 737) on a taxiway is staggering. I speak French and have usually picked it off the R/T, but many of my colleagues didn't hear the potential problem because they don't speak French. If it had also been a low viz day on any of these occasions...............

There is a perfectly good answer to this. ALL R/T should be in English. Why English rather than French? How many a/c are on the FAA register? It's a large % of the world's fleet. So in this case sheer numbers skew the argument.

Tacan400

20th Jan 2006, 10:14

Faire de la systeme ADS-B, tout de suite, s'il vous plait! Or as we say in Australia, get ADS-B in place, quicker than a bloody blow fly on to a sheep's arse, please!

missy

20th Jan 2006, 11:12

Seems like everyone has an opinion on this one!!

Can't believe that the CDG is still operating English/French combo dialect especially after the collision a few years back.

ICAO are mandating minimum English speaking requirements. Not sure of the implementation date but it fairly soon (before 2008 I recall).

I remember a safety specialist from Europe visiting Australia and in particular was interested in Australia's Safety Management System. He seemed impressed with the level of reporting and the fact that Australian controllers (generally) put their hand up if they have an operational error. He acknowledged that most errors went unreported and further that as a safety specialist "what can I do? I am only one man"!

Big Kahuna Burger

20th Jan 2006, 13:00

It would seem that by all accounts it was luck that they did not collide. But only time and the investigation will prove that either way.

Lets asume that the Air France A340 was carrying 250 passengers and the BA 320 around 100 passengers. This means that if this runway collison didnt have 'luck' on its side there would have been 350 plus people killed or badly injured.

Tenerife MKII, but for altogther different causes. French ego.

So if the death of 1 person 10 years ago was not enought to stop the French persisting with this murderous rule of French language, would 350+ deaths have been enough???

Lets hope that this thread is never revisted in years to come with someone saying 'we told you so'

CDG is downright bloody dangerous

jeff748

21st Jan 2006, 17:48

Here in Canada, we have a number of airports in a specific region (National Capital) and an entire province (Quebec) that operates bilingually.
It causes difficulty at the best of times.
I recall a flight into CYUL (Montreal,Trudeau) with a bilingual francophone Captain that looked like a baby sucking a lemon ("Tabernac") when he heard a female AF pilot calling departure in French. When I quered him (French Nationals speaking French in Quebec) his reaction was: "They're French... I'm Quebecois! When I am flying into CDG I always speak English. You never know what those French are going to pull on you!"
...can't please everyone.
I have also heard Quebecois pilots flying into an airport manned by Francophones in the Montreal sector, (CYFB) but outside of a designated "bilingual" area, trying on initial contact to speak to the tower controller en Francais, with the controller replying, in English, "'dat 'day speak Hinglish 'ere only". They barely made it in!
Regardless, one of the largest tour operators in Canada, Air Transat, won't hire a pilot unless he has conversational level French, even if the guy/ girl has 10,000+ hours, but they will hire a Francophone with 3000 hours (glider licence an asset). I'm sure the French is used widely at their Toronto and Vancouver bases...
Pilots should be hired strictly on merit and flying ability. English is the language of aviation worldwide. Nothing replaces experience... except in Canada.
If I recall, the "Danger- Hold Short- Runway" signs at CDG are in English.

MungoP

21st Jan 2006, 18:17

Interesting article on Yahoo news site today....750 Million people around the world use English as their 2nd language...add to that the populations of the USA, Australia, New Zealand, several African countries and the UK who all use it as their first language and we have something like 1.25 Billion of the worlds population speaking English either as their first or second language....reason enough one would think for it being the international radio language...next would probably be Spanish followed by Russian...yes Chinese would be widely spoken but Canton or Mandolin ? and anyway it's spoken rarely outside of the Chinese mainland...

Capt Pit Bull

22nd Jan 2006, 10:14

ATC Watcher,

I should have written : " Determining the position of other aircraft based on R/Tto obain situation awareness is not required in IFR .. "

Sorry, I can't buy that.

I've averted 2 serious loss of seperations (1. a/c cleared to same level, 2. a/c cleared through my level) by having SA regarding their location relative to me, and talking to ATC pdq! If they had been talking in french I wouldn't have caught either event, resulting in an airprox at best.

Every part of the system has the ability to add safety.

CPB

JP4

22nd Jan 2006, 14:11

Every part of the system has the ability to add safety.
CPB

This sums it all! I like it.
Now, how to convince the French that they should just keep french for making love and use english in aviation :)

FLEXPWR

23rd Jan 2006, 20:07

JEFF748,
You have a very good point, and tell me if I am wrong, I understand you would prefer to speak french in CDG yourself, as you would expect others to speak english when they operate in your area. I am fully with you, and not trying to give credit to the french (quite the opposite) the major difference is that as a Canadian, even in french speaking territory, you would have learnt english from your youngest age, I presume.
The "France's french" for many still think that the universe is revolving around France, therefore others should learn french and not the other way around.
As mentioned a few posts above, when I fly over Spain, they speak english, even between spanish operators (except, maybe, the odd single piston from a nearby flying club), when I fly to Italy, everyone speaks english, even the proud pilots from Alitalia! I am thankfull that they do, it makes my life easier, and I do appreciate they make the effort. I don't think it is harder for the French to learn and speak english, not harder than the Spanish nor the Maroccans, Dutch, Germans, you name it. They all make the effort but the French. Are the French using their right because it is a right after all, or is it because maybe the Spanish, Dutch, Italian, German, are all wrong because they are not using their own language? Mmmmm....

quickturnaround

24th Jan 2006, 08:04

Every AF pilot speaks English as I noticed at AMS,BCN,LHR,ATH,FRA etc, etc, etc.... The habit of speaking French is folklore and we can do without that in aviation.
Let them speak French on the company freq if they want, but stick to English in normal RT. It will make aviation a lot safer!!!!!

QTA

alexban

24th Jan 2006, 11:20

We received a notice at our base office regarding a rwy incursion at CDG ,happened few days ago.A 747 Cargo was cleared for take off when an MD80 crossed the active rwy.The 747 had to abort the take-off run.
Do you know anything about this? Once again,the language problem? I wouldn't be too surprised.

Seloco

24th Jan 2006, 14:41

Several years a JAL 747 suffered severe structural failure of the rear pressure bulkhead, causing significant loss of control. The pilots managed to keep it in the air for about an hour while they worked out what to do with the situation. Sadly, the aircraft finally crashed with the loss of all but one on board.

I recall that one of the amazing things that came out of reading the ATC transcript of the event, apart of course from the supreme airmanship exhibited by the flightdeck crew, was that during almost all of that horrifying time the Japanese crew spoke to the Japanese ATCers in english. Only right at the end, when all was apparently hopeless, did ATC ask whether the crew would find it easier to start communicating in Japanese.

Truly extraordinary professionalism.

JP4

24th Jan 2006, 16:12

English is not my "first" language. And here is what I can say about it:
If you are "educated" in english from the beginning during your pilot training, then it's most of the time natural to stick with english even when you have problems. Your QRH is in english, the courses and the manuals too, and if you have to say "turning inbound to establish on Ils 31L", you won't find quickly the words in your mother tongue, even in emergency. So it's only a question of education. I've heard that Air France years ago asked Boeing to have the cockpit indications translated. All their books, courses and procedures were teached in french...:mad:

Merue

24th Jan 2006, 17:28

the Japanese crew spoke to the Japanese ATCers in english. Only right at the end, when all was apparently hopeless, did ATC ask whether the crew would find it easier to start communicating in Japanese.

Truly extraordinary professionalism.

:confused: Is that a joke? Truly extraordinary ridiculous you mean...

I personally agree to speak only english on freq, I would find that safer.
But NOT in emergency situations of course!

av8boy

24th Jan 2006, 18:05

As a long-time ATCer, I respectfully submit that we should all use Latin.

Now, my Latin is bad, but I'm thinking in terms of something like,
"Volo cursus terci zerum zerum, contineo terci millepeda ad ratus, sino IAM terci duo adventus." Very roughly translated that would be: "Fly heading three zero zero, maintain three thousand until established, cleared ILS (or IAM "instrumentum adplicitus machinationis" in this case) three two approach."

"Go around" could be "cedo et volo" or even just "fugio."

Except in Canada. In Canada they should just continue to speak Canadian. And Australian. Australian can continue to be used in Canada. But not Australia.

Who's with me? :)

Dave

First segment

24th Jan 2006, 18:06

Merue,
just think please of multinational crew composition/maybe Cypriot as example/. I consider speaking english as essential as knowing QRH drill especially in emergency. If you use english 99% of your flight time it shouldn´t be that difficult to find words also to describe your action in emergency to ATC.Could be more demanding during that time in the cockpit when for example sharing flight deck Hungarien and Sweedish.I did my personal expirience. I was happy I learnt my english the way I did, not native of course:) !

I am always happy to hear english regardless of any accent, it makes me staying in the loop and feel comfortable. It is matter of safety not of some doubtful pride.

Hope didn´t bother that much;) , bye everybody, F.S.

YourFriendlyATCO!

25th Jan 2006, 23:54

Surely SA can be even more important during an emergency. Other aircraft can try and assist any way they can, or can keep an even greater look-out if things are really going wrong (like an emergency descent due to decompression).

AF pilot's English, on the whole isn't great. However, the pilots who seem to have the biggest language barrier are the Americans!! Ha ha, oh well

brain fade

27th Jan 2006, 00:51

Is there any BENEFIT from dual language ops?

skydriller

27th Jan 2006, 16:14

And a Welsh Flight from CDG gets in the Local Press... :eek: Beware lots of careering, juddering and even booboos, when seconds from death etc..

Cardiff-bound flight in runway 'near miss' (http://tinyurl.com/aqxh6)

Apparently the Pilot thought it was a "Close Shave".......Any more cheese Gromit?:}

Regards, SD.

jeff748

27th Jan 2006, 19:52

As somebody mention earlier on, dual language never kills anybody so far.

Although a number of things went wrong, a contributing factor in that fatal was that the Columbian controller spoke only 164 words of English.

If we go back to the beginning, Wilbur and Orville spoke English.

We can also thank them for the creation of hand signals, but that's another can of worms.

MungoP

28th Jan 2006, 00:30

"Dual language never killed anyone so far..."

Did someone really say that ? Whoever it was probably resembles a 6ft tall bird with its head firmly buries in the ground...the use of poor English has very definately killed many people and only the French would try to oil their way out of any responsibility for the CDG Streamline collision by stating that the Streamline crew might not have heard the take-off instruction to the other aircraft even if given in English...pathetic comment... I know without any doubt whatsoever that I'm alive today along with probably 100 other people for no better reason than a cloud was no bigger than it was.... had we not popped out of it when we did we would not have missed colliding with another aircraft that had mistakenly been given an approach clearance...in Spanish.
Is that acceptable to you 'dual' language supporters ?....
It's certainly not to me.

f320

29th Jan 2006, 08:47

May we just consider that Tenerife accident occured with ATC and Pilots (KLM and Pan Am) speaking English ?

Dual language operations are not a problem if everyone works properly in a safe environment.
Maybe focusing on this small part of the incident will be the best way to avoid the good questions...

MungoP

29th Jan 2006, 09:07

F320
Tennerife.... As far as I remember the 2 aircraft were not communicating directly with each other...the controller had a very difficult to understand accent ... this was one of the accidents I was referring to above regarding the use of 'poor' English.
The very near-miss that I suffered was during a period when I had already queried an instruction to another aircraft ( I speak a little Spanish )... I was assured in English that 'all is OK'.... another rapid instruction to the other aircraft in Spanish was beyond my level and I just had to believe 'all is OK'... then we came out of the cloud...
Give it up... there is a major safety risk in the use of two languages... we may as well be on different frequencies.

missy

29th Jan 2006, 12:17

On different frequencies, do you mean like Boston?

MungoP

29th Jan 2006, 14:23

Not a clever or a valid response Missy...at very large airports more than one frequency is inevitablle but you won't have two frequencies giving take-off and landing clearences for the same runway at the same time !

If ATC or another pilot is screwing up...I want to hear about it. Maybe from now on...every time we hear a French controller give an instruction to another aircraft in French that involves our route or runway we should ask for him to confirm that it does not clash with our proposed intentions... see how long they'll put up with that.

missy

29th Jan 2006, 21:55

MungoP, I was referring to this incident...
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=179775&highlight=Boston+US+Air

Runway safety is paramount. Practices that do not afford the greatest protection should be eliminated.

As at March 5 2008 ICAO language proficiency of flight crews, air traffic controllers and aeronautical station operators come into play whereby those requried to communicate in a language other than a mother tongue or native language shall be formally evaluated.

Try this link for further information:
http://www.icao.int/cgi/goto_m.pl?icao/en/search_icao.html

MungoP

30th Jan 2006, 01:26

Missy...
Interesting link that... Sorry if I'm getting a bit Peeed with some of the replys here but some of the inane inputs here trying to argue against the obvious have been getting to me...:}

ATC Watcher

30th Jan 2006, 06:13

This starts to look like an Allo-Allo ! episode.
So I will say only once :rolleyes: before I start :

The obvious is of course a single use of one language on the RT , and that should also obviously be English.
The obvious thing is to have English only at all international airports ( and that includes CDG !) and even at regional airports as soon as one international , non native aircraft is on the frequency. ( as practiced in Finland for instance )

Now that makes a lot of sense, but unfortunately, the ICAO rules are saying otherwise, and so far no real safety case can be made to oppose dual languages on the R/T .
Tenerife was no dual language, and accent did not play a role at all. Everyone understood everyone else perfectly, the problem was more a crossed RT call, and that one could have helped preventing the collision. Many changes were made by ICAO after TFN, but sadly the technical solution to prevent double transmissions on VHF ( i.e. CONTRAN) has never been mandated. but that is another story.
CDG : sorry , not even a contributing factor, just a possible way that could perhaps have prevented the collision, and for this it is part of the recommendations of the final report ( sadly ignored by the French DGAC to this day )
Cali : no way, the mistake was done much earlier on.

Now the near totality of the runway incursions and collisions are in pure English R/T environment and most of them are in the US. This is not a political statement it is fact.

On the ICAO language proficiency mandate of March 2008, it is for ALL languages spoken on the RT , not only English . Although I agree that that will definitively raise the English level of many Crews and controllers worldwide, this mandate will also limit the mobility of staff as now, level 4 will be required in the second language(s) being legally use on the RT.
So there is still a long way full of hurdles for the UK controllers to work in Aix en Provence ..

So , unfortunately, dual language on the R/T are here to stay I am afraid .

Finally for Capt pit bull , you do not have to buy anything from me because I sell nothing. If you want to see a confirmation of what I said , check ICAO Annexes under IFR rules. It is all there. There is a difference between what is required and what would perhaps make sense for some . A bit like ETOPS..:E .

f320

30th Jan 2006, 08:25

All correct, ATC Watcher :ok::ok::ok:

ElNino

30th Jan 2006, 11:34

CDG : sorry , not even a contributing factor, just a possible way that could perhaps have prevented the collision

A missed opportunity to avert the accident sounds like a major contributory factor to me.

ATC Watcher

30th Jan 2006, 13:16

OK, let' s agree on a contributing factor , I have no real problem with that.
But the English clearance given to the Shorts was : " line up and wait number 2, " .The subsequent take off clerance in French to the MD could have been understood to be from another intersection , as everyone was confused as to who was at which intersection.(dixit both captains and the controller in the report )

The controller got it badly wong , that is for sure , but if the MD TO clearance would have been in English I personally doubt it would have made much difference, but we can debate this at lenght...

Anyway the BEA recommendation after this was for English only at CDG, at to this date the DGAC failed to implement this more than one day on the pressure of the Air France Pilot Unions. (CDG ATC was rather in favour of the recommendation if my memory serves me well..)

Say again s l o w l y

30th Jan 2006, 13:39

ATC Watcher,

How on earth could you say that the dual language was not a contributing factor in the Shed accident?

When you are cleared to line up, you expect to have the runway to yourself. Not only that, if the take off clearance had been in English, I can pretty much guarantee that the Shorts Capt. would have stopped short and queried it. He is a very careful chap and only survived the accident as he was leaning forward to try and look up the runway when they were hit. Unfortunately the FO wasn't so lucky.....

We can never say for certain if a single language would have prevented the accident, but I'll bet money having one language cuts the chances of something similar happening again. A change I think should be made as soon as possible.

f320

30th Jan 2006, 16:22

Maybe we are forgetting one element :
In those accidents / incidents, at least one aircraft was able to understand both languages used by atc, (especially when English is used by french atc ;=)) )

At CDG, the MD80 and the Airbus had pilots who were able to understand the clearances given to the Short and BA aircraft. And they did not realize something wrong was going on.
Why do you really think that the other aircraft would have been able to get the informations in time to avoid troubles??? Maybe, as Native Englishmen, they are better pilots ?

In Tenerife, Pan Am and Klm speaking English collided. Should they have used Dutch ?

The real problem is not RT but taxi. You'll get the same problem, all around the world, as long as taxi will take you across the active RWY.

Say again s l o w l y

30th Jan 2006, 16:52

The same argument could be used to justify only having one pilot on board instead of being multi-crew.

It's better having everyone listening and able to understand rather than a few. It only needed one person to stop and think and the whole accident could have been avoided.

An accident is always a chain of events, one link missing and it breaks. Why not give everyone a chance to hear potential problems?

flash8

30th Jan 2006, 16:59

Even slight misinterpretation of English can cause devastating consequences.

Look at Tenerife, not the obvious one but a little known one of the Dan Air 727 CFIT back in early 1980.

There were of course other factors (and I am well aware of them), however the controllers inability to articulate correctly rather critical information (misinterpreted by the crew) led to around 150 people losing their lives, instead of enjoying what was going to be a summer holiday in the sun.

Words (or lack of them) can kill.

brain fade

30th Jan 2006, 18:17

F320/ ATC Watcher.

I repeat. What is the BENEFIT (if any!) of Dual language ops?

If there are none, and its known to be a hazard (which it is), then why do it?:confused:

ATC Watcher

30th Jan 2006, 18:59

Brain fade, I am not a pro dual language person. Quite the contrary if you knew me. I just been there so many times and have learned by now that the case is lost and we have to accept that it will most probably be with us until data link replaces RT in some decades.

The " benefits " as you call them are mainly economies in the training issues' If you take Russia, China, South and Central America for instance, , an " English" rating is paid extra, and it is cheaper to train locals in their own language.
The second aspect is the safety one, as in areas where English is hardly used ( see examples of areas above) and badly practiced , it is beleived that doing RT in their mother tongue will increase safety and avoid misunderstandings.
These are old issues dating back from the 50s, and every attempt to modify them has miserably failed so far.

Flash 8 , I am also very well aware of the DAN Air 727 crash in TFN , and dual language was not an issue, bad English was, but that is a separate issue, common until early 80s, especially in Spain. But you have to recognise that after Franco death and the de-militarisation" of ATC there, the situation improved considerably.

Mike Jenvey : yes, not everyone, there were so called " sabotage " attempts on that day that no-one calling himself a professional should be very proud of.

sky330

31st Jan 2006, 05:39

I am not advocating dual langage just the opposite in fact, but would like your opinion about the tendency to use more and more datalink for communication.

Eurocontrol for one would like to see CPDLC implemented, it sure lower the risk of mis-communication but what about situational awareness....

brain fade

31st Jan 2006, 12:27

ATC watcher. I understand what you say , BUT!, everybody at CDG can speak English (well ATC English anyway).........so.......why not simply speak it at CDG as they do wherever they are going to or have come from!

I mean they can speak French no where except CDG!

ATC Watcher

31st Jan 2006, 14:29

Brain Fade: it is not that simple. the French AIP ( like most AIPs over the world exept those from English speaking countries ) specify which language is to be used on the RT . It is not up to the controllers to decide . In France controllers have to use French is addressed in French. Same for many other countries.
As I said many times already, the problem can be solved overnight in CDG if every pilot contacted ATC in English, as there controllers have to reply in English. It is very much a pilot initiative . The problem in CDG is that it is the home base of AF and the majority of AF pilots are very much opposed to this.

Again same thing for Mexico , Rio or Athens if you want big examples.

Sky 330 : data link is a separate issue that would need a lot of debate.
Basically in the " situation awareness" meaning determining the position of other aircrfat around you based on what you hear over the RT ( I have to be careful now..:rolleyes: ) you definitively will loose this with DL but ,as I said before, it is today not required to do so anyway. The interesting thing with DL, is that you could add a small sofware like you have in mobile telephones today, allowing you to choose the language you want to have the end result on your displays.
So in fact it could solve the dual language issue once and for all :E

Grandpa

12th Feb 2006, 20:35

Say again s l o w l y

12th Feb 2006, 22:51

No one is arguing that problems arise elsewhere, the issue is that there is a guaranteed potential for problems that could be fixed easily. If this helps prevent one accident then it's a good thing.

Changing procedures to ensure there are NEVER any incursions or mistakes anywhere should of course be done, but which do you think would be easiest to implement straight away?

It would be one step along a long and difficult road, but it's a step worth taking, especially if the only reaon anyone can come up with for NOT doing is to assuage ego's. Not a brilliant piece of active safety management IMHO.

ZBMAN

12th Feb 2006, 23:37

I agree with brain fade, I fail to see the benefits of dual language R/T. And shock horror... I AM french!! Knowing what's going on around you is paramount and is a safety net. Fellow controllers need to understand that we, pilots, need to construct a mental image of what is going on around us, simply because it helps prevent gross misunderstandings.

Basing your situation awareness, and acting upon it , based on what you hear on the R/T can be as dangerous as using a TCAS display to spot other traffic.
I'm sorry but this is nonsense. As pilots if we feel there is a disagreement between ATC instructions/clearances, we will querry ATC unless safety is clearly being compromised, and immediate action is necessary. And your comment about TCAS shows that you have very little understanding of how it is used in day to day operations. I also fail to understand how using the TCAS to spot other traffic is dangerous. It does help to gain visual contact with what's around us and no pilot with an ounce of professionalism would rely solely upon it to comply with visual seperation clearances if this is what you are implying.

I do not understand why my french counterparts are making such a fuss of this issue. If there is a chance that english only R/T would be beneficial to safety then it has to be implemented, and we, the french must set our stupidly chauvinistic issues aside. As for the french speaking canadians fighting to keep french R/T, well, I would hardly describe the language they speek as french in the first place ! "quebequois" and french are very different both in pronounciation and vocabulary.

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.
This illustates the typical french mentality regarding the use of english. They would be quite happy to learn a language that isn't spoken anywhere or by anybody (esperanto), as long as it is not english!! Sorry but this is sheer stupidity:mad:.

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'
I am afraid this is another typical example of the kind of attitude many french people have. It must be some kind of inferiority complex since we are no longer the world power that we used to be (have we ever been one in the first place?). But to ignore the fact that there is a safety problem at CDG on these grounds is criminal, and has already played a part in one death. Even the BEA, which is not always, well, independant, shall we say has concluded that english should be the only language at CDG. The failure to recognise our errors is present in all levels of society, and the belief that we are right and the others our wrong is already leading the country in a brick wall, so I have very little hope of seeing english only R/T in major airports in France anytime soon:yuk:. As we say in France "droit dans ses bottes, quoi qu'il arrive";)

I don't hear the Dutch, the Germans, the Scandinavians making much fuss about english R/T. Even some spanish airlines are implementing it! I don't see why we couldn't.

PAXboy

13th Feb 2006, 02:19

Non pilot speaking.
brain fade asks:

I know Air France would prefer 'English only'.
I know dual language ops occasionally kill people.
I know CDG ATC know dual language ops occasionally kill people.
Shall we wait for the 'Big One', or stop it now?
History says that we WILL wait for the 'Big One'. It is very rare for human beings to learn hard lessons from soft experiences.

ATC Watcher

13th Feb 2006, 08:59

ZBMAN, nice to see that with RCC forums close, the best are coming to PPRuNe , but here the rules are slightly different. But you will find out. welcome all the same .

Just replying on the technical stuff, not the political ones you (and A7700 ) made.

I'm sorry but this is nonsense. As pilots if we feel there is a disagreement between ATC instructions/clearances, we will querry ATC unless safety is clearly being compromised, and immediate action is necessary. And your comment about TCAS shows that you have very little understanding of how it is used in day to day operations. I also fail to understand how using the TCAS to spot other traffic is dangerous. It does help to gain visual contact with what's around us and no pilot with an ounce of professionalism would rely solely upon it to comply with visual seperation clearances if this is what you are implying.

TCAS displays :

Unfortunately I do Know quite well how TCAS displays are used in day to day operations by some crews and this is what I mentionned this. I am glad to hear that you personally will not use it to spot " electronically" what you are supposed to spot " visually" in order to perform visual separation, however you asume others do like you and I can assure you otherwise.
The ICAO ACAS rules are clear on this point, but nevertheless ,for instance, Agencies like the FAA still beleive you can safely do intrail climbs/descent with the device, so it is not surprising, some pilots believe this is open field.

For your info, TCAS is not ADS-B and azimuth detection is quite poor.

On the dual language use , if you had read my posts correctly, you will see that I personally also think it is high time to use English only everywhere there is international traffic . I was just quoting existing rules to explain why States do not do this.

We agree that Separation is ground based at the moment, right ? .
ATC is based on a set of rules and on the asumption that everyone follows the rules as written. A pilot in IFR expect this from a Controller, and controllers expect this aslo from pilots. Monitoring instructions given to other aircrfat are not part of those rules.
If you modify your instructions based on what you hear on the R/T not made for you, you even act against the rules, and this can be dangerous, as you do not have the global picture.
As to spotting potential " ATC errors" on the R/T, this is also not required by the rules.( although it makes sense, we do all agree on that )
That is why a lot of States in the world ( including France )do not plan to change their ways.

A final remark : The French language used in Quebec might slighltly differ from Metropolitan French , but the R/T phraseologies are using the same words. ( Tabernacle !!!)

ZBMAN

13th Feb 2006, 10:34

ZBMAN, nice to see that with RCC forums close, the best are coming to PPRuNe , but here the rules are slightly different. But you will find out. welcome all the same .
I sense some irony in what you say, am I wrong?;)

however you asume others do like you and I can assure you otherwise.
I can assure you I do not assume others will do like me since TCAS procedures are very clear, and also very strict, especially after what happened over Germany!

For your info, TCAS is not ADS-B and azimuth detection is quite poor.
Thanks but I know how TCAS works:8(I think!:ouch:)

If you modify your instructions based on what you hear on the R/T not made for you, you even act against the rules, and this can be dangerous, as you do not have the global picture.
Read my previous post again. No respectable pilot would "modify" ATC instructions, just because he feels like it. If there is a problem we seek clarification. We don't think we know best and we realize controllers have the best view of us all of what is going on. My point is english only R/T would help us get the global picture as you say, thus improve safety.

From what you say I think we both agree that that english only should be used at major airports. I only disagree about some of the things you say about the attitude of pilots with regards to ATC instructions. Just to make sure you know that the vast majority of us will not try to screw you up:). And if we do, it's not on purpose!:}

ATC Watcher

13th Feb 2006, 15:39

Just a little bit of irony, but very pleased nevertheless to have you on board ;)

The high standards you regard TCAS operations is laudable but unfortunately not what I see in everyday ops.

If you want to test this, Ask around your colleagues if " monitor vertical speed " is an RA for instance , or ask yourself if you never heard the sentence " We' got them on TCAS" after being given traffic information, or even while performing visual APP, just to name a few of the most common problems .

As to the dual language, indeed we agree " sur le fond " but , the battle is lost, you and I know it.

brain fade

13th Feb 2006, 23:30

ZBMAN

A good post. Your objectivity does you credit.

rvator

15th Feb 2006, 20:02

While waiting to go off on 27L this morning ATC cleared an AF A340 to go- in French naturally. Then it cleared another (British) a/c to cross the same runway (in English). I missed it myself actually but my trusty FO picked it up. Next thing the Tower chap told the A340 to stop, in French. He must have been at a good speed by now. When we took off a few mins later there were two huge black skid marks freshly painted on the runway.
I could have this story wrong and if so please disregard. It seemed to me like a near miss tho', partially caused by dual language ops at CDG.
Anyone know more?
Actually, you DID sum it up the right way !....Fed up with that sort of "French cultural exception"....literally...as we can say it in French !........:mad:
..."THEY" refuse to consider that dual ops language is unsafe !....
Please insist for unique language....in the name of flight safety.........and may be we'll defeat some sort of archaic lobbyism down here !...:suspect:

Hairbusson

19th Feb 2006, 03:58

Hi guys ,

Being a french native speaker I do use french R/T procedures when operating into "french speaking airspace"
I agree it is not easy for those who do not speak the language and whish to follow what others are doing.Nevertheless it always comes down to France and french while there are many other places in the world where another language is used (South America>Spanish, Brazil>Portugueuse,China ,Former USSR etc...) and does not seem to ever come in the complaints ! Would it somehow be the old English-French rivalry ?
I operate often into China or Thailand I simply do not understand what they say and quite often have to ask them to say again several times.I am not the only one but I see no complaints about that part of the world only about France ! Why ?
I have been into the UK many times and there there is no care taken when issuing clearance during busy times throwing VOR phonetic names through the air and it is expected that everybody understands and reacts in no time . Same applies to the US where "fly heading North and speed south" (HDG 360 Speed 180 ) is not an uncommon practice there again although it is English none native speakers will not understand what's going on . But that's no problem the English native speakers will feel very confortable in that environment,so pardon my french ;-) but we should all pay a little more attention and not always focus on the French and its dangers while the other 80% of the planet speak also their own language including the "english speakers" JOYEUX LANDINGS !

Loose rivets

19th Feb 2006, 05:15

It seems odd to me that this is all still going on.

Having mentioned the Queen hosting the French at Windsor Castle, I was amused to note that a professor of French was seated center stage...well almost.

In 1980 ish, I overshot CDG in the early hours, having suffered an hydraulics failure. On the downwind leg, I explained the problem and at some stage requested facilities to cover the landing. I asked if my wheels could be monitored for fire, though I can't remember the logic to this now.

We popped out of cloud at around 200' and landed with no flaps or steering. We used all of the runway trying to keep straight with breaks only working on one side...and no form of anti-skid of course. On stopping we got out expecting some kind of reception. After rushing to pin the U/C we looked about us. Nothing. Nada, Zip as they say.

The next bit is the stuff of Peter Seller's films. After flashing lights at the tower. ( the wing was raining hydraulic fluid, and I was not willing to power the A/C up) still nothing...not for a quarter of an hour. Then a CV ? splutters up, and out gets the tallest policeman that you have ever seen. He buttoned up his tunic and put his hat on. He then asked, in quite good English and in the most serious tone, why I had parked there.

In Toulouse, there were students from many countries, including China, India, Africa etc etc...they could all speak quite good English. The course was a total.....words still fail me after several years, but rip-off comes to mind. "Praaaase t/de booooton" and "You have to ANNNUNCE!!" (An amalgam of ‘announce' and ‘annunciate' I suppose. ) Some of my colleagues were even shouted at. ( they wouldn't have done that to me twice!) This course cost multi thousands, and awkward questions were fended off with dismissive noises and shrugs.

If they did not want a world market for their aviation product, and were just dealing with visitors, that would be fine. But they are selling aviation in every form. To not speak the international aviation language is just blatant arrogance, and plain b00dy dangerous in the field.

RoyHudd

19th Feb 2006, 18:00

Cracking country for wine, women, countryside and cuisine.

Sadly France is 3rd world for aviation.

I have operated directly for Air France out of CDG and ORY for TLA at the time of the Concorde accident. The nationalistic attitudes towards non-French crews, English language, and all-round cooperation were LAMENTABLE. Sadly, arrogance seems to be a trait which manifests itself most strongly in aviation. As a fluent French-speaker, I have a reasonable insight into this malaise.

The bad experiences of French ATC are many, during my aviation career. For example, I formerly worked for Streamline, and once found myself vectored onto final approach at CDG, despite the Flight Plan giving Le Bourget as our destination. With no other traffic in the sky, so no big risk. But the attitude of the CDG controller was that no blame could be attached to himself, once I convinced him that our headings were obviously in error.

Recent experiences with French ATC make me beware of their non-professionalism, and most importantly, the prevalent attitude of avoiding responsibility. Near-miss with 2 military jets in formation over the Bay of Biscay being the latest dangerous incident. No agreement to report the episode, simply a nonchalant attitude that the military 2-ship had "probably forgotten to utilise their transponders." Very sad.

I despair.

Ignition Override

20th Feb 2006, 04:15

Roy Hudd:
Several years ago our 100-seat jet was mysteriosly vectored to final approach at Hurlburt AFB, instead of Eglin AFB (VPS, with Fort Walton Beach terminal), by Pensacola Approach Control. THe north/south runways have the same alignment. There are several military bases in the area, but civilian traffic goes to just one AFB. We had numerous small deviations around some smaller cloud build-ups.
Luckily the layouts/ramp parking areas of these two bases are opposite.

Can the International Federation of Airline Pilots tell the AF pilots that safety must come first, and no more excuses?
How about ICAO?

FougaMagister

20th Feb 2006, 09:34

Very interesting to read ATCWatcher and ZBMAN cleverly contribute to this thread in Shakespeare's language when they are both French (then again, so am I...)

Having been trained from scratch in English (not only in the UK, but also in the US, South Africa and Ireland), it is patently obvious to me that there should be one (and ONLY one) R/T language whenever commercial operations are involved. As has been mentioned before, the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages, and national pride should have nothing to do with flight safety. Full stop.

One quick anecdote: while ferrying a light aircraft from England to southern Germany three years ago, I contacted Paris Info in French when mid-Channel and the lady ATCO kept replying in English! I assume it was because the aircraft I was flying was G-reg. Then again, when I transferred to Lille Info, the ATCO there was only too happy to carry on in French. My route then took me into Belgian and Luxembourg airspace, where ATC talked to me in English, then back into French airspace (French spoken with Metz ATC), then into Germany (English again).

Inconsistent or what?

Lon More

20th Feb 2006, 10:38

Fouga, as you pointed out, my ex-colleague ATC watcher is French, furthermore he has been extremely active in the field of aviation safety, probably to the detriment of his career.
Multi lingual ATC is lethal (The Trident/DC9 accident over former Yugoslavia as an example). I was forced to do it early in my career and was surprised that my poor French did not increase the number of airmisses reound EBBR.
I also had a considerable fright, years ago, at Caen, when cleared onto the runway, in English, I heard someone cleared to land, in French, and stood on the brakes just as another aircraft landed in front of me.
I feel the problem is that when a reasonable standard has been reached in a second language the brain tends to compartmentalise and it is possible to "divorce" the consequences of instructions given.
Mode S and data linking should go some way to solving the problem

Eva San

20th Feb 2006, 12:08

Cracking country for wine, women, countryside and cuisine.
Sadly France is 3rd world for aviation.
The bad experiences of French ATC are many, during my aviation career. For example, I formerly worked for Streamline, and once found myself vectored onto final approach at CDG, despite the Flight Plan giving Le Bourget as our destination. With no other traffic in the sky, so no big risk. But the attitude of the CDG controller was that no blame could be attached to himself, once I convinced him that our headings were obviously in error.
Several years ago our 100-seat jet was mysteriosly vectored to final approach at Hurlburt AFB, instead of Eglin AFB (VPS, with Fort Walton Beach terminal), by Pensacola Approach Control. THe north/south runways have the same alignment. There are several military bases in the area, but civilian traffic goes to just one AFB. We had numerous small deviations around some smaller cloud build-ups.
Luckily the layouts/ramp parking areas of these two bases are opposite.
Well it's nice to see that nobody's perfect even the mighty US Air Force...
EHHHMMM, or should I say that this proves without a doubt that The USA are a third world country for aviation ???Let me think :}
Recent experiences with French ATC make me beware of their non-professionalism, and most importantly, the prevalent attitude of avoiding responsibility. Near-miss with 2 military jets in formation over the Bay of Biscay being the latest dangerous incident. No agreement to report the episode, simply a nonchalant attitude that the military 2-ship had "probably forgotten to utilise their transponders." Very sad.
I despair.
First, the way to have the controller to report this is very simple just say Airprox, but maybe you were too busy to bother with all the paper stuff ?
Second, if you're fluent in french perhaps you should take a look at the "RCA4compatibilité CAM/CAG" and you'll probably realize that filing an airprox with military jets probably would make you feel better but that's pretty much it... And there's no need for the controller to try and avoid responsability as when not in contact in controlled airspace the responsability is on the military side...

Eva San

20th Feb 2006, 12:36

Perseverando88

20th Feb 2006, 18:37

In the interest of safety controllers should say, at peak-busy times ALL STATIONS ENGLISH ONLY. Good controllers should do this more.
It is a good compromise.

In my humble opinion the CDG controllers are better than the controllers in BCN,MAD or FCO in general. Their English is better and they are more organized.

forget

21st Feb 2006, 16:17

TODAY - 21 FEB.

FAA Backs Research, Development in International Use of English in Aviation

EGG HARBOR TWP., N.J. – The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently signed a cooperative research and development agreement with Ordinate Corporation, of Menlo Park, CA, to support improved English proficiency in aviation worldwide.

All International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) member states must adopt and controllers and aircrews must conform to and achieve new English language proficiency standards, by March 2008. Imposition and enforcement of the new ICAO provisions will improve aviation radio and telephone communications in English and therefore enhance aviation safety worldwide.

The goal of the five-year agreement is to create a standard Aviation English Test. Ordinate Corporation has developed a completely automated method for testing spoken language. The FAA Academy provides leadership in training and developing the FAA workforce and the aviation community.

“This is another step in FAA support to ICAO member states, air carrier operators and air traffic service providers to help them meet the ICAO March 2008 English language proficiency requirement,” said Graham Elliott, manager of the FAA Academy’s Aviation Language Training Program. “The research is to develop an automated test that both supports the ICAO in establishing a global standard, and also applies U.S. technology to the otherwise long, arduous and costly process of testing many tens of thousands of pilots and controllers.”

“This agreement is a unique, creative arrangement,” said Deborah Germak, manager of the FAA’s Technology Transfer Program. “Ordinate has agreed to reimburse the FAA Academy for the FAA’s direct expenses for this effort, and it will pay the FAA a percentage of the gross sales of every Aviation English Test sold.”

These funds will be used for further research, test improvement and training program development.

The FAA’s Cooperative Research and Development Agreement Program is based at the William J. Hughes Technical Center, near Atlantic City, N.J. The FAA Academy is located at the FAA’s Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City.

ATC Watcher

21st Feb 2006, 18:51

Forget : the title of this press release is a bit misleading.

The ICAO 2008 mandate is aimed at improving English where it is spoken ( e.g everywhere upon request and also in the USA) not to replace national languages where they are spoken.
Ironically, as I said earlier , the ICAO 2008 proficiency checks are for all languages spoken on the RT , not only English, so it could, in some States, re-inforce the duality, not eliminate it.

Even more worrying , the implementation and actual proficiency testing is left to each State, ICAO not having the authority nor the ressources to do so.

arc-en-ciel

23rd Feb 2006, 22:57

France is a country of compromises, you will never get the things change from one day to another.:{
For instance using native language has good operational & safety arguments, as well as using common language has.
This topics highlights that runway incursion is the main danger we all face:\ , to reduce the level of stress of our non-french speaking pilots flying into CDG, we could just change the terms of "autorisé à l'attérissage" & "autorisé au décollage" & "autorisé à traverser" by "cleared to T/O" & "cleared to land" "clear to cross", this 3 little sentences would made it clear for everyone, as for the rest, approach for exemple, it is an absurdity to try to get a situation awarness in such a hight density environment:ooh: (it is dangerous and it is not a pilot's task).
To avoid mixing french&english this could end into speaking english ONLY on TWR frequency, as communications are short & easy & usually standard at this stage.
Would every one be happy by that solution?:rolleyes:
On the other side, it would be helpfull from native english speakers, to speak proper english and use good DICTION on frequency, thanks for thinking of others trying to pick U:bored:
Happy landings

Johnbr

25th Feb 2006, 01:14

I cannot really understand all the fuss over a simple fact:OF COURSE,it it safer to fly in an environment where everybody can understand what's being said over the damned radio!!!! Jesus,it's abslolutely ludicrous to try"and deny it! Í wasn't born an english speaker,(although my dad was) and I've been flying for 28 years,both nationally and abroad and I have witnessed too many near misses,incidents and so on due to language barriers.I have had the opportunity to help both pilots and atc with the use of english all too often in my own country.Why can't the french be like the portuguese and the germans and speak english in aviatio?Apart from the fact that it would require less people learning a foreign language,english it's,by far,the easiest to learn.

brain fade

25th Feb 2006, 02:44

I repeat my earlier post.

What benefit is there from dual language ops at CDG?

Anyone?.. French or otherwise?

Lets hear it!

JP4

25th Feb 2006, 06:39

What benefit is there from dual language ops at CDG?
Anyone?.. French or otherwise?
Lets hear it!

None except to be sure that the french themselves understand each other!

JohnBr, I could not agree more with your post!

But ok France have always been "a little" different. A while ago they had yellow front lights on their cars when the rest of the world had white ones. They change their mind about those.
They had to form the "19" to get an international phone connection while the rest of Europe was forming a "double 0". They changed their mind about it as well.
They still have a different television standard as the rest of Europe and they still speak french with the ATC.
Let's hope they will change their mind about the latter too...and until that "historic" moment, I hope there won't be another deadly accident due to lack of ATC understanding!

Golf Charlie Charlie

25th Feb 2006, 12:13

They had to form the "19" to get an international phone connection while the rest of Europe was forming a "double 0". They changed their mind about it as well.

Sorry for quick thread creep, but the UK had 010 until a few years back, and the US still has that absurd 011 for international connections.... Carry on...

JP4

25th Feb 2006, 12:53

Sorry for quick thread creep, but the UK had 010 until a few years back, and the US still has that absurd 011 for international connections.... Carry on...
Is UK in Europe? :ouch: Ok just kidding sorry I could not refrain myself!;)

ATC Watcher

25th Feb 2006, 19:00

And of course everyone in the UK drives on the right side of the road like the rest of Europe :E :E :E ( not to mention the euro )

P.S. Brain fade ,on the advantages, I replied earlier on to your question, it is not because you did not like the answers that you have to keep on asking for new ones.
I though chauvinism was a French speciality, but you ae not too bad either.;)

brain fade

26th Feb 2006, 01:45

ATC Watcher

Your 'answers' only explained why it would not change.

I repeat.

Who benefits from dual language ops at CDG?

The Air Liberte crew?

arc-en-ciel

26th Feb 2006, 08:50

ATC Watcher
Your 'answers' only explained why it would not change.
I repeat.
Who benefits from dual language ops at CDG?
The Air Liberte crew?
an ATC message in your native language takes about 8 seconds, if said in english by non native speakers it takes 12 to 15 secs.
It's already so hard to get space to speak at CDG that it would reduce traffic to speak english . Anyway with AF doing well year after year CDG will soon be an AF airport only;)

JW411

26th Feb 2006, 10:10

"CDG will soon be an AF airport only"

God, I do so hope that you are right and the sooner the better. It will be a huge relief to many of us.

Sheer rack

26th Feb 2006, 10:53

I repeat my earlier post.
What benefit is there from dual language ops at CDG?
Anyone?.. French or otherwise?
Lets hear it!
Going quite often to CDG, the only benefit I can state is for Air France crew.
How could they run the ATC in another language?
How could they ask for the " national preference".
How could they say:" if you're not happy, stay in your country" REAL
How could they complain?
When flying out the French border, they change and become nice and gentle.
I really admire the way french controllers deal with such behaviors.

Johnbr

27th Feb 2006, 18:49

I'm still amazed by the posts in here....I've been flying to CDG at least twice a month...I can see no problem with the ATC english whatsoever...The only problem happens when the french PILOTS speak in french!!!When you hear'em in,say, NY or MIA or RIO Brasilia,they speak such a nice and educated english!!!!!And when they get to french airspace they forget all about it and start speaking.....FRENCH!I've got nothing against the language,quite the opposite,but I feel a lot more confortable when I'm in NY airpace with everybody SPEAKINg THE SAME LANGUAGE!!!So I would know instantly,for example if someone has an emergency,and I'll be put on hold,ordiverted,and why,and for how long...Isn'tit nice for us,up in the skies to know such things?BTW the atc in france is as good as any,no compaints about it...I think the french pilots are good as weel...they could be only a little nice towards all of us,and let us understan WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON AROUND US!

hugofly

28th Feb 2006, 22:39

Johnbr, you are finally pressing your finger on the origins of the problem.
The ATC in CDG will answer in English, if addressed in English and in french , if addressed in french; not by choice but by regulation, like in many other countries where native language is authorised.
And we all understand that the CDG ATC personnel would gladly apply an "English only" rule if it was implemented.
And many previous posts show that their control of English and airspace is usually not questioned.
So, why not change the regulation? even the BEA has concluded that English should be the only language in CDG.
Why not? because (mainly) of Air France crews, they've been threatening of strikes at every occasion the "English Only" project was put on the table, even AF managers found the project smart and full of sense, but quickly backed up to keep peace in the house.
So, AF being a big company in France and also the main operator in CDG, a strike would result in a lot of money evaporating.
In result, the authority and the politics are not keen on addressing an issue which do not weight much, compared to the prospect of AF crews striking.
So, gentlemen no need for "they... French" or bird names, in general that is easy and wrong.
You should point your fingers towards the AF crews, who are holding all of us (ATC, you, me) hostages of this dual languages aberration in CDG.
The day they will accept to set aside french for communication, the "English Only" project will be months ahead.
But no need to convince anybody on this thread, it is on the AF crews that the pressure need to be set.

arc-en-ciel

1st Mar 2006, 08:09

Johnbr

2nd Mar 2006, 15:37

arc-en-ciel get this:

You're coming in to Gru(Sao Paulo Intn'l) from say,Paris,and you have only the regulatory 30 min holding fuel.You've been cleared to 10000 heading to STN Vor,and you're passing 13000 on your way down,out of the blue you hear this:
-"Pan Pan Varig 2675 solicito retôrno Guarulhos,qualquer pista dvd problemas hidraulico.Proa Santana para orbita e procedimentos.Solicito interdição da pista dvd quando trem e flaps em baixo não ter condição de arremeter.Não terei como livrar a pista após o pouso.

The Atc ,then,will go asking how many souls onboard,endurance etc,etc...,so you won't be able to talk maybe,for a long period,bearing in mind there will be others up there in the area.

Have you any idea at all,what'sgoing on???Do you have any clue of what's gonna happen to you and maybe a few other traffic?I'll tell you...The situation up here could render the airport unavailable for at least 60 minutes...wouldn't be nice to start preparing your flight(FMS,Fuel calculations,let your guests informed,airline ops etc..)to a diversion to (most tipically SBGL,Rio Intn'l) and save yourself some fuel,(remember,you're probably flying a 747 at 10000,which means a LOT of fuel)????
The english version of that will be something like this:
PAn Pan,Varig xxxx,request immediate rerurn to Gru,hydraulic failure,need 1 holding pattern over STN for procedures,also request interdiction of field due to,after LG and flaps down will be unable to go around,also will be unable to vacate the runway after landing.
Wouldn't be helpful to know this facts "pronto"?

arc-en-ciel

6th Mar 2006, 06:31

well, sorry i understand a bit brazilian, but anyway if I am holding close to minimum fuel, whatever there is an aircraft on emergency OR NOT, and I understand OR NOT other traffic, I will work on my alternate.
and when getting close to "minimum fuel" i will call it whatever is on the air on frequency. then ATC will take me in charge.
as simple as that. it is atc purpose no manage theses situations. they might say "all stations, consider alternate, airport could be close after RGXXX landing"
cdg atc is able to manage dual language ops in one of the busiest airport in the world, why can't sao paulo controllers :rolleyes: ?
I don't mind atc speaking native language worldwide, mid-air collision is nowdays of marginal event (due to TCAS and radar coverage improvement).
The only dangerous factor in dual language is runway incursion, so speaking english only with TWR only would be a safety improvement.

sem rancor;)

FLEXPWR

6th Mar 2006, 07:36

Arc,

Good for you that you can grasp a bit of Brazilian, not me. English isn't my first language either, and I make a point of speaking english only on the radio, although I know enough french and italian too. I do not believe just by changing the hold-short calls and T/O and Ldg clearances will solve any problem on the long term. Today everyone can see what a disastrous situation it can be with runway incursions. Tomorrow language barriers will trigger new situations that we have overlooked for years, maybe because the accident is still too weak to be noticed, or because the traffic has not grown enough yet to reveal the next flaw in dual language operations. Runway incursion is not the ONLY safety factor concerned by language differences.

What Johnbr was referring to in his example (stop me if I misunderstood) is not the problem about the controller who should be able to manage the dual language situation: it is the bloody pilot who elects to speak brazilian, and leaves all other foreign traffic out of the loop!
Another one could be an aircraft on fire on a taxiway, and the pilot calls to stop right away, calls emergency services and firetrucks in his/her native language, while another "foreign language" (english) is on a crossing taxiway in poor visibility. Not aware of the situation the "english" aircraft end kissing the native and burst in flames with it.:ouch:

Feel free to send donations for this script. I should be writing scenarii for Hollywood! :}

By the way, congratulations on the french language from which we inherited the PAN-PAN, the english language traded it for a few other ones that the French are using everyday: barbecue, bazooka, blue-jeans, caddie, chips, ketchup, jogging, jackpot, laser, and many more. :E :E

Johnbr

6th Mar 2006, 11:54

Amigos,

I'm not,in any way,excusing my country's atc,pilots and everybody else involved in aviation for the same difficulties we have with dual language over R/T !!!Sao Paulo area has the most crowded skies in all of Latin America with 3 major airports in it,and YES,it annoys me very much,that almost everybody here elects to speak portuguese in the area.It has nothing to do with CDG,or french,even less with this crap of national pride or identity or culture.Maybe,if we change the topic's name to,lets say,"dual language hazards"we could have some objectivity in this discussion.Dual language ops is dangerous,and I think it is worth the discussion.To be fair to french ATC,they speak very good english,and I wouldn't say the same about some controllers down here,as I've mentioned before in this forum,I've had too many opportunities to help fellow pilots to understand clearences given down here.I firmly believe that the issue here is safety and not winning the argument over french or english or "brazilian",So let's keep our minds open.

P.S. It's been a lot of fun,but still....pointless,hasn't it???:hmm:

brain fade

7th Mar 2006, 01:55

Pointless.

I suppose the dual language discusion here is pointless.

I have no way of knowing how the collision was averted that day at CDG.

CDG controllers are OK in my book.

But perleeeeease.

could be my neck next.:sad:

missy

7th Mar 2006, 09:55

Of course this discussion is pointless as it is in English. A more effective discussion would be half in English and half in [insert another language].

FJP

7th Mar 2006, 14:38

:ok: "Dual language never killed anyone so far..."

Did someone really say that ? Whoever it was probably resembles a 6ft tall bird with its head firmly buries in the ground...the use of poor English has very definately killed many people and only the French would try to oil their way out of any responsibility for the CDG Streamline collision by stating that the Streamline crew might not have heard the take-off instruction to the other aircraft even if given in English...pathetic comment... I know without any doubt whatsoever that I'm alive today along with probably 100 other people for no better reason than a cloud was no bigger than it was.... had we not popped out of it when we did we would not have missed colliding with another aircraft that had mistakenly been given an approach clearance...in Spanish.
Is that acceptable to you 'dual' language supporters ?....
It's certainly not to me.
:ok: I'm impressed with so many professional opinions. I believe we all aggree but in CRM terms and Situational Wareness, just very few make the point quite clear. We are professionals of the sky: we pilots, controllers, and the others: We ALL, but ALL, should be a Team for a better and safer sky. Better Safe than sorry.... Quoting with my deepest respect FSF.
Let us all, identify the problem listenning to all parties and understand eachother: We may want to say just the same!!! Keep focus, In my my environment, read, arround me 25nm lateral, 10000 ft above or below, same quandrant, I would like to know who's arround - Passive Monitoring- (Remenber very old days of ... Copy trafic information?,-?, )This would, reduce my stress, my fatigue, -Increasing my Wareness- and be nicelly achieved using only one language! And upon deciding which one stick to Doc, 4444 and standard praseologhy! do not invent and do not be shy to ask your other pilot, " What did he say" just before you press the mike .... for... say again congesting the frequency and extend non relevant talking, as we hear all the time.... eg Thank you Mum ... Bye Mum etc thank you sir etc etc. be standard, polite and down to business.
In the time frame deciding which lunguage etc Please use english as in my opinion it will enhance safety.
I'm from Portugal working in Spain and speaking french ,but only at leisure times will use other languages. To add or subtract FRACTIONs all must have same denominator so ENGLISH for time beeing is the best choice.,...just to avoid misunderstandings....
So, be clear - brief your crew- and learn with others and your onwn experiences. Exercise DISCIPLINE!
Pilots controllers two way comm I fully support and Request English no doubt. Full stop.
PS: Respectfully, would friendly accept arguments from professional controllers!
All the best Merci, Thanks, Sallamat, Jingueia, Obrigado, Kopunkap, Dankenwell, Afarostopli, Gracias, Graziemile, Shucran, to you all, keep, it up.
FJP

FJP

7th Mar 2006, 15:18

Risk factors are well known:

Huge trafic leading to saturation of Airports (departure, arrival, taxi).
ATC workload..........

You meet it in many places in the world and not only CDG.

Runway incursion at LAX are also frequent.

I have evidence of ATC mistakes in JFK, where dual language wasn't a factor, and still aircrafts were cleared at same time to land/take off/cross the active runway.

The way people here turn it to focus only on French language use in RT is appalling, it seems they fancy all problems would be solved if only these bloody Frenchmen would leave their mother language in the dustbin and speak English, the one and only aviation language.

Then French speakers stand up and instead of a discussion about safety we have a chauvinistic exchange which leads nowhere.

I found very interesting to read the Canadian post which depicted the economic importance of language in Quebec: priority seems to be given to pilots fluent in French to be hired in the Belle Province airlines.

Seems you hit it: the very same people who argue for generalisation of English in non-English speaking territory, would next complain about bad English speakers - sorry I did it myself when flying in USA! - .

Why don't we adress first to risk's factors and struggle against airports saturation or ATC workload...........not to speak about pilots hours of flight and sector's numbers.
:ok: :ok: Hei Grandpa, Congratulations,

Pilots Flying hours in our days, The joke of regulations of, - THE AVOIDANCE OF FATIGUE IN AIR CREWS-, Finnally I heard someone With same concern also.
Where can we Discuss this?
Risk factors, so many... Good job! Who cares not certaainnly the legislators whom it looks they see nothing!!!
I did like your comment.
PS To come back to this forum topic, English is my bet. I also take this opportunity to salute mr ATC watcher your comments when integrated and revised, UPDATED are great! Good Joob!
We pilots should visit more often your room and consoles as you controllers shoud once in awhile fly with us to make a better team You and Us.
Regards to ALL.

FJP

7th Mar 2006, 16:01

To everybody, we all have on each side on the mike some interesting (or not?) stories about incidents. The question is should we make a generality out of it ? Can a personal feeling be turned into an indeniable truth ... To some, it looks like Yes. To me...what do you think ?

As a french controller answer in a english speaking forum, do you think that I'm the one to convince about the importance of English ? Same for all the other frenchs in here...
So when a Mr IknowAllAndIDoEverythingBetterThanTheOthersEspeciallyTheFren chs comes into a forum like this one, of course you can expect some chauvinistic reactions and even silly ones ! But where does that get us ? Pretty much nowhere, so could we stop this childish play and try a more subtle approach?

If you really think that dual language operation is a hazard then stop coming in here to waste you time in trying to convince some people who are almost/ already on your side and go for the real target : pilots using french in R/T and the french civil aviation authority...

:( :ok: We listen, Talk and we professionals must understand that sometimes he "SYSTEM" works agnaisnt all of us.
Being a Pilot I concurr with your notes. Wheather deviation is not required anymore!!!
Let'us be practical, positive honest and respect you controllers at CDG! I do. I believe now that you may be undergoing yourselves a lot of pressures.
As a Professional, Knowing that ATC Watcher dedicates a lot of himself to aviation flight safety standards makes my day.
And by the way HE is Fully right about the TCAS... We have it on TCAS what is that??? And I hear it a lot! See tandard Fraseologhy.. " Copy the Trafic, looking out or .... Is on TCAS, makes my stomach burning and
Well keep it up
Positive and towards a better safer skies.
Regards to all.
FJP
:ok:

handflying

10th Mar 2006, 19:53

I am allways happy when another flightcrewmember points out to me during briefing allready: "hey guys...guess what...i'd like english only today!!" That has been responded sometimes by: "ok happy with that...for the briefing and flight in airplane but the minute we walk out of the airplane either you talk to me in the language of the company (not an english speaking one) OR you don't talk to me (mostly us) AT ALL during layover!"
Usually that calms his fever a bit as worried about having to pay his "pints" (our half liters) alone (with his pounds), eat his "ounces" (our kilos)steack alone, measure his fuel uplift in "gallons-imperial or US ones" (our liters) alone, or drive his rented car on the (w?)right side alone trying to convert the 50km/h into miles...
Can't they do like anybody else?

I speak allways english only on the radio though...for everybody's interest. (except 12345)

Caraman

12th Mar 2006, 22:34

I have also flown into CDG a hundreds of times, I recognize the problems of languages differences.

But it's the same in Madrid. I promise you all.

However, writing a report will not solve anything in my opinion. I have filed that kind of reports too many times with no result or action taken. :mad:

Well, how to solve the problem then? I guess that there is no solution, the french will keep on speaking french. And the pilots cannot just stop flying into CGD because of our opinion since our companies would sack us if doing so.

I guess we have to live with it. But hey- keep writing all your reports and with the help of god and the good frech wine, perhaps there will be a better world even in the aviation business at CDG. :(