"break, Break"

[davecr]

G-XXX: "Good Morning Brest, G-XXX, FL350 direct CLM"
Brest CTR : "Break Break Air France 356 proceed direct XXX"
AF356: "Direct XXX AF356" (obviously in French so you wouldn't understand it - all this to enhance safety :oh:)
Brest CTR: "Other station try again".

Now hold on... break break what? You haven't said anything before the break break... Is it just me or does French ATC have a complete lack of understanding of the meaning of this term? I hear this on a daily basis. (and no, it's not because I wasn't listening out before transmitting ;))

I find this quite an annoying habit because:
1) Half of the time it means the controller wasn't listening in the 1st place.
2) Half of the time the a/c the controller is calling will miss the call because the controller started with Break Break instead of its callsign.

Would like your opinions :D

[Say Again, Over!]

(open sarcasm) Of course knowing where AF356 is going direct to will keep you safe... even if you don't know where they are starting from...... :yuk:

Sick of this english only bullsh!t. :ugh:

SAO

[spekesoftly]

Also best not used when there's a formation on frequency! ;)

[davecr]

Dear "Say Again, Over..",

Yes, it will. Just like so many runway incursions at CDG and near misses during take-off rolls would not have happened if everyone spoke English. Being lucky enough to have to attend ATC/Human Factors seminars every so often, I get to see ATC traces and recordings of these Language related problems. Seeing your occupation, you should too?

Stop being ignorant, speak the language we can all understand and avoid more tragedies.

Rant over :ugh:
----------------

Back on topic, please!

[ComJam]

English only please gentleman, i know it annoys some of you but it keeps us all safe!

[Radar]

davecr,

That last post didn't really qualify as a rant. You better get used to the idea of :ugh::ugh::ugh: as far as this subject is concerned.

Reminds me of a jumpseat ride into CYMX a few years back in a Swissair MD11with two french speaking gentlemen at the pointy end. At a certain stage during the approach a local calls in on frequency, using the local version of french. The controller responded in like manner. Simultaneously both gentlemen looked at one another for a couple of seconds without saying a word, then the captain turned and asked me; 'Did you understand any of that?' As if! 'Neither did we' was his closing comment.

[davecr]

Very very sad to see that the same is happening in Canada.. Only doing shorthaul myself at the moment so didn't think about the other side of the pond.

Lets just hope that someday, they will come to their senses and choose air safety over their own pride.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Sick of this english only bullsh!t>>

Well, we may all be sick of you!

[Moira]

Ok, I get the point of the English speaking part of this forum, I can imagine it is annoying - or even unsafe - not to understand what others are saying ...

But guess what language such terms as "Pan" and "Mayday" are derived from?

And as far as I know, ICAO rules still allow the use of the language of the country overflown.

[davecr]

That doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the discussion, Moira...

If they want me to say "Chimpanzee, Chimpanzee" instead of PAN, PAN, I will gladly oblige, as long as it is an internationally agreed term that EVERYONE ELSE on the frequency understands. Just as I would like everyone on the frequeny to know when I'm crossing an active runway, because pilots and controllers MAKE MISTAKES.

The western aviation authorities are acknowledging human error as the biggest factor in accidents, but for some reason ICAO is failing to see that understanding what other pilots and ATC are saying can, and HAS, saved many many lives.

[Moira]

Let's just say that for someone who DOES have some knowledge of French, it is often easier to understand a Frenchman speaking French, than a Frenchman attempting to speak English. (with due respect to those who do have proper command of the English language).

And yes, I know that is completely off topic too

[merlinxx]

Who applies ICAO English as per the requirements? If you don't, learn:ugh:. Check the first publication of ICAO Doc 7300 signed in 1944, which language was it published in? The French (and Spanish) version were only agreed and published in 1968, known as the Buenos Aires Protocol.

I rest my case.:ok:

No rant, just a bit of historics for those who don't read original ICAO conventions.

[davecr]

Moira, I do see your point there. I would understand if the local small GA airfields would still be allowed to use their native language - but a big international airfield like CDG is no place for 2 languages. All AF pilots speak "good" english (enough to make themselves understood and be understood by others), they just prefer not to. Again, this only implies one thing: Rather proud than safe (thanks guys!).

[SINGAPURCANAC]

My two cents,
I worked with French ATCOs for one year. Great experience.

At first I must say that they could eat and drink a lot.( Not more than me but very close to my average results):ok:
Also l'equip were excellent in terms of friendship and so on:ok:

General aviation knowledge- good,in some cases excellent -if they were able to explain it on english:{
Use of english- I will quote my German instructor:
IN FRANCE,EVEN SMALL CHILDREN SPEAK FRENCH VERY WELL!:E

It is easier to learn some level of french rather than... like
Decolage approve ( sorry for incorect french speling)....

But anyhow, we should respect them. They like their language,culture,country and nothing wrong with this. Until they start work in international aviation.

[ILS 119.5]

"break break" to me is a waste of time if all the controllers said it to pilots flying around the LTMA it would double r/t worklooad and therefore become dangerous. I think it should be taken out of the std phraseology book.

[Atcham Tower]

Agreed! Many years ago, I was working at a busy light aircraft field and used "Break, break" in a transmission. The first aircraft addressed screeched to a halt just short of an (inactive) cross runway. It took me a few seconds to realise that he had taken it as "Brake, brake!". I've never used it since!

[Say Again, Over!]

I apologize for my tone. I believe strongly that the safety of unilingual control is a myth but I used words that were inappropriate.

Firstly, I accept that understanding what the aircraft you're looking directly at will do adds a measure of safety however, how can you be sure ATC was talking to him?

In a terminal environment, traffic sharing the same airspace can be split into three or four frequencies... do you demand to know where everybody is at any given time? While you're on downwind, someone might be overflying 1000' above you. You might have another 1000' below. Do you demand that ATC tell you what they were told and what they read back on another frequency?

I presently work in a bilingual environment. If I have to choose between having a clear chanel of understanding between myself and pilots or having all pilots understand.... my choice is clear.

What would you really rather have? A controller that can control effectively, using all the tools he/she has at his disposal (yes, including language?) Or would you rather think you have the whole picture by hearing people speak broken, unintelligible english?

I do find it so arrogant that some would think that people in the backwoods of China, or the middle of France or Québec should be required to speak english to fly... just so an english only speaking pilot might (or might not) have an idea of who is where.

SAO

[126,7]

I do find it so arrogant that some would think that people in the backwoods of China, or the middle of France or Québec should be required to speak english to fly... just so an english only speaking pilot might (or might not) have an idea of who is where.



I suppose the ICAO level 4 requirement is also arrogant.....Even if they'll be flying in the backwoods of the world and tomorrow to Heathrow.

[Say Again, Over!]

It appears I keep putting my foot in my mouth (or my keyboard...)

Of course not!! is the answer to your question.

English is not THE language of aviation but the common language of aviation. As such, if you're required to speak english to get services, let it be a proficient version thereof.

If I fly to Heathrow or Dallas or even Calgary, I accept that I'll have to use english and I do use it. But why, because you speak english to your controller do you expect the Japanese (insert any other language here) to do so as well? Can you imagine the number of incidents that happen daily around the world because two people sharing one tongue and able to understand eachother perfectly in it use another language to do business?... only because someone speaking english is flying in the same bit of airspace as them?

Seriously now. Really. Do you really think that a russian controller speaking english to a russian pilot is safer because you can partly understand what they are saying? I'll take the controller who knows what the pilot is doing over that any day!

Cheers,

SAO

[davecr]

"I believe strongly that the safety of unilingual control is a myth"

I am truly horrified that any pilot/ air traffic controller could even think this. I can show you many (MANY) ATC traces to prove you wrong. No, I don't always have to know who you are talking to. Yes, I'd like to be aware of my surroundings and when a/c are getting cleared for take off/landing. You do not have to speak perfect english to be understood, as long as you take the time to learn your standard phraseology. That's what its there for!! Have you never heard of the concept of a safety net? Shows you how different CRM courses are over there..

("AFXXX, cleared for takeoff runway 26" - how difficult is that?)

If you want to speak your native language, go fly a cessna to a little regional airstrip. Don't do it at an international airport.

:oh::oh:

[coz96]

Agreed! Many years ago, I was working at a busy light aircraft field and used "Break, break" in a transmission. The first aircraft addressed screeched to a halt just short of an (inactive) cross runway. It took me a few seconds to realise that he had taken it as "Brake, brake!". I've never used it since!


So what exactly does "break, break" even mean? I understand a single "break" between instructions to different aircraft, but what does the double break at the beginning of a transmission even mean?

[Knackers]

Can anyone enlighten me why there is 2xBreak instead of just one like I seem to recall the yanks use? Too smooth for European use?

"Break" is used when you're passing a long message to a pilot and you want to ensure that he/she's receiving it. I'd use it when passing, say, an ARFOR or long NOTAM. I wouldn't want to get to the end only to find that the pilot sez "say again all after ARFOR"!! Also it gives the opportunity for another aircraft to get in with a more important call such as MAYDAY.

"Break break" is used when changing from one aircraft to another. For instance, you acknowldege an aircraft and then move immediately to a second aircraft with an instruction instead of taking you hand off the mike key.

[Atcham Tower]

ICAO phraseology nominates "Break" to indicate a gap between transmissions. It used to (maybe still does?) nominate "Break, break" for the same meaning, but in busy traffic situations. The logic of this escapes me because it's an extra syllable! Anyway, I thought it had died out - in the UK at least - like that other odd little phrase "That is coco", for "that is correct".

[FrenchATCO]

Hi Davecr.

I'm a french ACC controller at Paris ACC and your post is interesting : some of us in my team recently asked about this expression because we had opposite views of the use of it... But finally after a check in the icao rules none of us was right ! For sure i must admit it's something we never learned and finally all trainees use it in the same way the fully qualified controlers do.
That's true in your example the controller should have said:

" G-XXX , break break , AF 356 direct...."
and then "G -XXX, good day,pass your message".

In fact we never say G-XXX before break break BUT in most cases we remember who called us and we don't ask "station calling ?" , we say "G-XXX pass your message".

But finally you're right and I try to explain to other how to use this expression correctly...

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

The common language thing has been argued on here again and again, studies have found again and again that two languages on the one frequency does reduce situational awareness of some pilots and has been one of the main contributory factors into at least one major accident, but more likely multiple accidents.

95% of the worlds aviation community realise this, whereas the other 5% will continue to argue their case and will never admit defeat.

I would suggest that next time you are flying in Quebec or France and you hear a waypoint in a french R/T call that you are also flying to, request the information of that flight, that is, what level are they and when are they getting there, and explain that you are asking for this information because you were unable to understand the previous call. If enough pilots did this maybe the practice would reduce. Probably not, but it might make the point required.

Singapore whatever your name is, it's not about a lack of respect for a culture or a language. It's purely about safety. Maybe they should have made everyone learn Swaheli, and then made that the standard aviation language. The point is it is safer for a pilot to hear on his frequency all calls and know what is being said, for example XXXX cleared to land RWY30 Left. This will certainly get his attention if he has also been cleared to land RWY 30 Left. Not a great help though if that call is made in Russian or French and the other pilot doesn't speak those languages.

As I said before, this has been argued on here over and over again, and the minority will never concede their way is less safe than the rest of the world so I guess I have just wasted my breath. :ugh:

[Caudillo]

This may well be inapplicable to say, long haul guys, those who fly outside of europe, etc etc - but how about this? Many of us here fly from the UK to Europe. We all know where local languages are most often spoken. Take Spain or France, many of us fly there a great deal - how about the 95% of us who do realise this, if we are serious about safety, make some effort to understand some aviation Spanish or French whilst we continue pushing for English-only? Not a bad idea is it?

[Jerricho]

I have a question regrading multilingual frequency use.

Why only YMX ACC? Why not YQM, YQX, YYZ, YWG, YEG, YVR?

I'm familiar with the Official Languages act, and what it says. I find it curious though, especially when you look at the %ge of the population in the Provinces that are "Francophone"....especially New Brunswick!

[Canoehead]

Three quick comments:
1) "Break break" is something out of an old B movie, when 'radio communications' was an oxymoron. Never had to use it in all my years.
2) Bilingual com.: Although it seems ridiculous to the casual observer, it has worked for the last 30 years, without problem, in certain 'distinct' parts of Canada.
3) Jerrico: Where on earth is YMX ACC?
Addendum: C'est beau Felix...

[davecr]

Canoehead: "Break Break" is quite common on French ATC frequencies, although it is not often heard in other parts of Europe (the exception being very busy frequencies around LHR/LGW/AMS etc).

FrenchATCO: Thank you for your reply, very interesting. I would be much happier if the callsign was used before the Break Break, because if it isn't I have no idea that my call has been heard or understood. This could cause me to call again causing confusion and blocking the frequency when there is no need to do so. In my mind, you could just as well have said "break break" to another aircraft which happened to transmit at the same time.

[Jerricho]

Aww crap......I meant YUL.

Sorry, all them French places sound the same :E

Yeah, that doesn't look right, does it. Still, the answer to my question is?

[Lon More]

G-XXX , break break , AF 356 direct...."
and then "G -XXX, good day,pass your message".
Surely "G-XXX , Stand-by, AF 356 direct...."
and then "G -XXX, go ahead".

would be more correct?

[Canoehead]

It has just occurred to me that I've yelled "break break" on several occasions.......usually after about an hour on position with my relief nowhere in sight! :)

[Say Again, Over!]

Davecr,

You fly to France a lot? Here it is in french:

"AFxxxx autorisé à atterrir piste ZZ."

Voilà! How difficult is that? :)


AirNoServiceAustralia,

Sorry but your request that the controller let you know where everybody is that doesn't speak your language is not only childish but itself even more dangerous. I keep reading on this site about how frequency congestion is an accident waiting to happen and you propose to add to it to make a point? I see you're truuuuuly concerned about safety.

I KNOW: Next time you fly into Heathrow, or Sydney, request to know where everybody is. As you arrive, demand to know where all the departures are and where they are going. After all, they might fly close to you and, never mind another language, they're not even on the same frequency as you! That has got to be more dangerous, right?

Is that where we are headed? Working Heathrow and all international terminals on ONE SINGLE FREQUENCY so that everybody knows where everybody else is?

Toronto, has two parallel ILSs worked on two separate frequencies. Should we revise that? Being on different freqs has to be even more dangerous than speaking two languages, right?

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Canoehead.... Je pense que je te connais.... initiales?

And for ANSA:

Canoehead... I think I know you... initials?

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

You are not listening Say Again.

Going into Sydney there will be no need to ask what the aircraft aroud you are doing, because they are all speaking a language everyone can understand. That along with referring to the TCAS, allows the good pilots out there to maintain a level of situational awareness that is broken down where calls cannot be understood by all pilots in that piece of sky.

As I said before, you will argue this no matter what, so there is no point even trying. The bottom line is, whether you think situational awareness of pilots is important or whether you think pilots should just blindly only listen to calls for them and nothing else, you won't change your mind because this for you is not about aviation and the safety of aviation, this all comes down to being French (sorry French Canadian) and being allowed to speak that language if you choose. The reality is the rest of the world has accepted that English is the common international aviation language and is the common denominator of all units all over the world.

The thing that amazes me is you object to a pilot querying where another aircraft is due to the call being made in a language he can't understand. I would have thought that it is his right as a customer whose backside is on the line if it all goes bad to ask such a question. If I get asked such a question I will always workload and frequency congestion permitting, answer the question. Won't you?

[Piper19]

I want to visit some nice little airfields in france with my Cessna. But how big was the dissapointment when I saw the sentence "french R/T only allowed" in their AIP. I will not visit these airfields because I find it unsafe to fly in such an environment. Such a pity :(. I do speak dutch as native language, also french and english, but I find it normal to speak english over the radio and I don't understand why the french refuse to do this.
I also work as engineer on some french airplanes, and I also don't understand why they write technical problems in french. Impossible for my english colleagues to understand (thus fix) these problems.

French and German people are terrible on that, they translate airplane manuals, maintenance manuals etc... in their own language.

[LH2]

Just to set the story straight:

but a big international airfield like CDG is no place for 2 languages. All AF pilots speak "good" english [....] they just prefer not to. Again, this only implies one thing: Rather proud than safe.

Just for info, this is nothing to do with either AF pilots or CDG controllers. A few years ago, after that famous incident which very nearly resulted in a catastrophe, one of the safety recommendations put out by the BEA (French AAIB) and accepted by the DGAC was to make Charles de Gaulle English speaking only. Unfortunately some fringe extreme right group (not even the FN :rolleyes:), and some minority labour union caught onto that, kicked up a stink which reached the popular/populist press and from that point on it was all down to politics, bugger safety and everything else.

So please, whatever your thoughts on the issue of multilingual R/T, and however much you may love to hate the French, blame the politicians and other uneducated opportunists for this particular issue, not French pilots, nor ATC, nor the aeronautical authorities.

Now I'm outta here. Bye and happy rants :}

[Say Again, Over!]

AirNoServiceAustralia,

I am listening... are you? :)

I do indeed believe that a pilot's situational awareness is extremely important. Please do not make me say things I'm not. As far as my being only concerned about my right to speak French and not safety, well I could turn that right back at you.

If you re-read my previous posts, you will see that I argue about the safety of having a clear pilot-ATC channel. I think THAT is safe more often than relying on a pilot's SA, even though I agree that it is important. As a controller, my SA is actually important too! I'm willing to trade a bit of yours for a bit of mine.

My point about Sydney was obviously poorly made. Are departures on a different frequency than arrivals? If not then never mind. If they are re-read my posts about two airplanes in close proximity on different freqs.

One thing we agree on though: the point as been made again and again and some people will never agree.

I apologize for hi-jacking the thread. This is my last post on the issue.

I'll now go back to almost killing people by using two languages. :E

If you're ever on the other side of the planet, our side, let me know. I'll do my best to use english then we can duke it out in some parking lot! ;)

Cheers,

SAO
CYOW TCU

[Barf]

There appears to be a lot of confusion out there regarding "Break, Break" together with quite a few incorrect interpretations.

ICAO Annex 10 is very clear on this.

"Break" should be used to indicate a natural break or separation of information being passed in a message. It is analogous to the term STOP in a TELEGRAM.

Knackers use of the term to allow the 'sharp end' to catch up is a good idea but is still technically incorrect since Knackers chooses when to insert Break, rather than insert it at specific points in a long message.

Atcham Tower is also incorrect in asserting it means a gap between transmissions. Break refers to the message content and is used within a transmission. If you need to put a pause in a transmission you should use "Standby".

"Break, Break" should be used to prioritize calls in a busy environment. It informs ALL listeners that you are stopping talking to one aircraft and will start-restart talking to another immediately, without as Knackers correctly says, breaking transmission. Break, Break is a wakeup call to the 'sharp end' to alert them to a possible call.

Since "Break, Break" is used to interrupt one transmission for another it implies that the controller will revert to the original aircraft when he is finished with the second, without the 'sharp end' having to call again, i.e. the 'sharp end' should be listening out for a resumption.

If Canoehead thinks it is out of an old B movie then clearly he has never worked in a busy environment.

"Standby" is used to temporarily break off a transmission, but not to immediately call another aircraft. It is used to insert a delay in communications while the controller does something else such talk to the supervisor, tie his shoelace, finish the crossword etc.

Whilst some can think it OK to use "Standby" instead of "Break, Break" there is a subtle difference. "Standby" implies a break on indeterminate length, such to the extent that the 'sharp end' may feel he has been forgotten about (as if!) and can call again. "Break Break", implies 'I will get back to you straight away'.

But I stand to be corrected (as I am sure I will be)!

:)

[Canoehead]

My dear Barf: I've been as busy as the next guy, however, never, ever felt the need to use break break. As you say, it is like writing stop in a telegram.

[Atcham Tower]

Barf, you are right about Annex 10 relating to the use of BREAK. However, CAP413, the UK RT Phraseology manual (downloadable off the CAA website) says that BREAK indicates "the separation between messages". BREAK BREAK is still in use - theoretically - and indicates "the separation between messages transmitted to different aircraft in a busy environment."

As a UK controller, CAP413 is what I am supposed to adhere to.

I don't use BREAK very often but it's useful in certain circumstances such as "Read-back correct, break, Ryanair 449 enter the apron via Uniform, Stand 3."

This would happen when an aircraft has requested and received his airways clearance but I have just become aware that an inbound has vacated the runway earlier than expected and is eager to know where he goes next. (Why did I use Ryanair as an example? :))

[Barf]

And therin lies the rub Acham T. We should all be singing from the same hymn sheet but everone has a different version. There is nothing like non-standard standards! ;)

[Atcham Tower]

Definitely! But will it ever happen?