Russian pilots to speak English [Archive]

dkz

17th Nov 2010, 08:16

Please tell me to what problems this can lead or how safety is compromised in a dual language ATC airspace. We already had this discussion on the hamster wheel-like " French ATC" thread. The safety argument of monoglots upon investigating had very little basis and it turned very ugly on both sides with the usual below the belt and nationalistic arguments.

I would say loss of situational awareness when some pilots understand the ATC and some don't.

Let's say a guy is reporting windshear in a different language and you are 3 NM beind him or maybe he's turning without ATC's approval and the ATC is trying to call him in french and you are not paying extra attention because you don't understand what is going on.

Or maybe you are on final at around 4 nm and the guy is authorizing another traffic to cross the active runway (happened to me in Spain) and i had to go around since at minimums i just saw the guy in the middle of the runway at the first intersection moving extra slowly.

The list is long and I think speaking the same language IS an increase in air safety.

Squawk7777

17th Nov 2010, 08:43

I would say loss of situational awareness when some pilots understand the ATC and some don't.

Right. So what about multiple tower or ground frequencies? Military colleagues on UHF? I am still waiting for the proof that single-language ATC is safer. What about just looking out and use common sense? Dual-language ATC airspaces have been around for a long time, where is the dreaded danger? This is usually the pet argument of monoglots.

Or maybe you are on final at around 4 nm and the guy is authorizing another traffic to cross the active runway (happened to me in Spain) and i had to go around since at minimums i just saw the guy in the middle of the runway at the first intersection moving extra slowly.

Big deal. Sounds to me you have never been to ORD. Talk to me about situational awareness when you have flown and taxied a few years out of there. :rolleyes:

WHBM

17th Nov 2010, 09:33

Presumably will also lead to the demise of the fleets of Follow Me vehicles leading Western carriers at Russian airports.

Until a couple of years ago, at St Petersburg this comprised an old-style Lada with a yellow flashing light stuck askew on the roof, leading Boeing's and Airbus's finest around the airfield.

doubleu-anker

17th Nov 2010, 09:50

"....If now even the Russians can do it (or at least will try), why can't the French?"

Quite agree.

Good on the Russians I say, who appear not to be putting national pride before safety concerns any longer. At least they seem to be making an effort. Unlike some others I could mention.

Talk about following a "follow me" at Russian airports, someone smarter than I warned me never taxi though a puddle as you dont know how deep they maybe!! :}

Piltdown Man

17th Nov 2010, 11:55

Since you've been with us on pprune all the time since 2002,
did yo not have enough time to teach yourself a bit better,
how to read and write English Calendar ?

I'm OK with English calendars, it's the Roman religious calendars that I appear to have a problem with. Good spot: one beer owed. Maybe I should have said 2011 (or even left the year out)?

PM

birdstrike

17th Nov 2010, 14:33

Squawk 7777

You may be correct in your questionable assertion that the use of multiple languages is not in itself unsafe, but one indisputable fact is that does not, in any way, increase situational awareness and can therefore only compromise, and never improve, safety.

Jetset320

17th Nov 2010, 16:41

Hopefully their English will be better than this :eek::

YouTube - Air Traffic Control: Swiss Airbus Bird Strike (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lICb8p9SvvM)

ChristiaanJ

17th Nov 2010, 17:19

jetset320,
I've heard worse.....

But it does illustrate that, once something goes wrong, and way outside standard procedures and "standard English", we will always have problems.

Not sure that our Swissair friend wouldn't have had the same problems in the UK far North or the US far South....

At least both sides (Swiss and Russian) tried to slow down and articulate.

CJ

Squawk7777

17th Nov 2010, 21:40

can therefore only compromise, and never improve, safety.

I disagree. If there is anything that might affect your aircraft, ATC is required to inform you. Situational awareness is multifaceted, yet too many people get distracted by hearing a foreign language.

Escape Path

17th Nov 2010, 23:05

Talk about following a "follow me" at Russian airports, someone smarter than I warned me never taxi though a puddle as you dont know how deep they maybe!! :}

That sounds like something my dad told me when he was teaching me how to drive! :E

Hopefully their English will be better than this :eek:

Yikes! Talk about frustration indeed. It's stressful just listening to it. You sort of want to say "HE NEEDS A TRACTOR FOR GOD'S SAKE! :ugh: THEY CANNOT MOVE BECAUSE THEY SHUT DOWN BOTH ENGINES :{ "

Thank goodness they didn't have an engine out; with the increased workload and the chap in the tower not understanding much of the out-of-standard phraseology that would have been...epic. Sorry, can't think of any other word :eek:

Hand Solo

18th Nov 2010, 03:20

Please tell me to what problems this can lead or how safety is compromised in a dual language ATC airspace.

I seem to recall an incident in the last five years when CDG ATC cleared a BA aircraft that had landed on 27R to cross 27L in English, into the path of an Air France that had been cleared for take off on 27L in French. Fortunately the technology in the tower alerted the controllers to the conflict and the AF340 was instructed to abort it's take off. I would suggest that's an indisputable example of dual language compromising safety.

GarageYears

18th Nov 2010, 03:39

I disagree. If there is anything that might affect your aircraft, ATC is required to inform you. Situational awareness is multifaceted, yet too many people get distracted by hearing a foreign language.

However, you are now intrinsically reliant on someone else for your safety, since the use of dual languages has removed the ability to understand what instructions were issued to another aircraft, whether they conflict with yours or not. That CANNOT be an improvement in safety - or do you disagree?

What is so frustrating is the unwillingness of advocates of dual-language environments to consider this may be a negative safety factor. In every discussion there is some wishy-washy babble about how this is supposedly not really a problem. How much common sense do you need to understand it patently IS.

- GY :confused:

doubleu-anker

18th Nov 2010, 03:39

And the shorts tragedy at CDG where a crew member lost his head (English speaking)

A contributing factor was an French speaking aircraft was cleared for t/o in french, while there was a runway entry/incursion on an intersection, on the same runway. This aircraft was not aware the conflicting aircraft was cleared for t/o..

The Dan Air B727 at Tenerife. Spanish speaking was a contributing factor in that tragedy, IMHO.

Flyit Pointit Sortit

18th Nov 2010, 05:08

Dual language communication is not a safety issue as ATC never ever get anything wrong and Pilots never need to know what any other aircraft is doing ....ever:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

I have submitted 3 MORs at french airfields due to loss of situational awareness caused by ATC issuing critical information in French only. (eg, closure of our 2 diversion airfields, Orly and Beauvais, due to thunderstorm activity!!).

If French was the language of international aviation, that is the language I would use as I believe that flight safety overrides any jingoistic tendencies.

Sassy91

18th Nov 2010, 05:32

well looks like there is going to be an even bigger shortage of pilots in russia when that comes in. The level of english in most companies is really questionable. I really dont know how AFL pilots manage to read those airbus manuals.

s_bakmeijer

19th Nov 2010, 18:25

i dont doubt the safety aspect of 1 language atc. its the best. but i also agree on multi language atc and here is why.

ive noticed that on my little island, there are a lot of venezuelan GA traffic, these guys are cowboys straight from a eastwood movie.
if you dare to speak english to some of them, they will answer you in english, but in reality, they did not understand a bit of it, and won't comply to what they read back.
dont ask for examples, just use your imagination.
now, the atc notices this, and will instruct immediately in spanish, and then they do comply.
so in "many" cases, i've noticed that using more then 1 language improves safety.

i just wished that all pilots would care enough for this aspect and improve their language skills. meaning learn english.
and then for the english speaking ones, no harm in learning and understanding basics of other languages spoken in the country ure working in. not all obviously. :ok:
i speak 6 languages :)

Squawk7777

19th Nov 2010, 19:36

A contributing factor was an French speaking aircraft was cleared for t/o in french, while there was a runway entry/incursion on an intersection, on the same runway. This aircraft was not aware the conflicting aircraft was cleared for t/o..

Another contributing factor that you omitted is that the Shorts crew did not maintain sterile cockpit. Read the accident report before pointing fingers. :=

I have submitted 3 MORs at french airfields due to loss of situational awareness caused by ATC issuing critical information in French only. (eg, closure of our 2 diversion airfields, Orly and Beauvais, due to thunderstorm activity!!).

Aren't you kidding? You lose situational awareness because of a foreign language? What kind of a pilot are you? I don't want to ever be in your plane. Besides, how do you know that critical information was transmitted, if you do not understand French? :ugh:

I completely agree s_bakmeijer. Although it's definitely good news that Russian ATC will now be in English, I also think that many more flight crews could make some bigger effort in 'looking over the border' and 'thinking outside the box' by at least learning some catch phrases.

Isn't it peculiar that it's mostly the British and American pilots that get all excited about the bad level of English in France/Spain etc even when these pilots themselves don't speak a single word of French or Spanish?

I'm not that fluent in many languages as s_bakmeijer, yet I do try to think outside the box by trying to imagine what it would be like if we had to speak Spanish/French/Russian/Chines over the radio and how much we would struggle...

Here's a classic joke: "how do you call someone who speaks two languages?" Answer, bilingual. "How do you call someone who only speaks one language?" Answer, American/British.

I couldn't agree more! Additionally, a person only capable of speaking one language is a monoglot. :hmm:

You are correct in your observation that it is usually the English speakers that almost act like drama queens by citing safety issues when flying in dual language airspace. This topic is continuously reappearing on pprune with the usual narrow-mind point of view. I have flown in dual-language environments where I did not understand the non-English language and I didn't feel my safety compromised in any way. Ask any other non-English native pilot who has done the same and none will act like those here on pprune. It's usually a favorite French bashing argument. :yuk:

Rick777

20th Nov 2010, 04:10

I can't understand how anyone can think that not being able to understand everything going on on the frequency would not impact situational awareness. I flew UHF only military aircraft for 16 years and was very frustrated at not knowing what was going on around me. I have flown in Central America and Europe and not been able to understand the Spanish or French. I have also spent A LOT of time flying in and out of ORD where I was really glad I understood all of what was being said.

Lord Spandex Masher

20th Nov 2010, 04:32

You lose situational awareness because of a foreign language?

No, but I don't gain it. Therefore, not having as much SA as I could have IF everybody was speaking the same language.

did not maintain sterile cockpit

This would only have made a difference IF everybody had been using the same language. The ultimate difference between not hearing a transmission, hearing only half of a transmission or not understanding a transmission is..........nothing.

Besides, how do you know that critical information was transmitted, if you do not understand French?

That's his point. :mad:
I have flown in dual-language environments where I did not understand the non-English language and I didn't feel my safety compromised in any way

How would you know? Answer this truthfully - How would you know that you hadn't missed a vital piece of information if it was transmitted in a language that you did not understand? Don't bother actually because it'll be nonsense. I'll answer for you. YOU WOULDN'T.

a person only capable of speaking one language is a monoglot

Thanks for the definition but there really is no need to state the bleeding obvious.

Squawk7777

20th Nov 2010, 08:51

BrATCO

20th Nov 2010, 09:32

Anyone,
Explain me how pilots, even with their T-CAS equipment (range around 30 miles ?:confused:), even with everyone speaking the same language can get any FULL situation awareness when the situation "spreads" over more than 150 miles around them, up to 30 planes on the same freq...
Controllers can be aware of a conflict more than 200 miles before the planes can even see each-other on their equipment.

I don't dare pretend being aware of the situation in the sectors next to mine, even though my colleagues speak the same language(s). That's why we need co-ordinations, whatever the language.

As I already said in other posts, I think my French colleagues and me are ready to speak only English on the freq (already the case more than 90% of the time in Brest ACC), but I don't foresee any improvement for pilot's awareness.

As for Russians speaking only English, I'm afraid the only result will be that some of the Russian pilots won't understand anymore (or as well) what they're requested for, as described by s_bakmeijer.
Hope not.

Lord Spandex Masher,How would you know that you hadn't missed a vital piece of information if it was transmitted in a language that you did not understand? Don't bother actually because it'll be nonsense. I'll answer for you. YOU WOULDN'T.Could you imagine that maybe a vital information (which YOU are concerned about) would be transmitted to YOU in YOUR language ?

When you hear a controller screaming : "Immédiatement, tournez a gauche 30 degrés pour évitement, immédiatement, à gauche 30 degrés !", then you may consider this info is not for you.
When you hear : " Immediately, your callsign, turn left 30 degrees, avoiding action, immediately, your callsign, left 30 !", consider you are concerned.
You will get the traffic infos in YOUR language in a few seconds... However, as you were already aware of the situation, should I assume you already know why you've got to turn ?

Weary

20th Nov 2010, 11:18

Squawk7777,

Can I ask how many languages you speak?

Weary

Lord Spandex Masher

20th Nov 2010, 12:57

...and I didn't ask you for your personal yet useless opinion. Maybe you should stick to national flying, if you get soooo scared. Your counter arguments are generic, overblown, baseless and indicate very little experience.

Oh well, you got it anyway, if you don't want opinions or comment then don't get involved in discussions. If my comments are so generic, overblown, baseless and inexperienced then you should have no problem at all in addressing them, funny that you didn't though. The rest of your extremely presumptuous attempt to discredit me is, and can only be, groundless nonsense.

All of my professional flying has been international. I, therefore, have a fairly good working knowledge of all the languages of all of the countries that I fly to and over. On many occasions I have had to translate what is going on for my F/O, ergo the F/O has less SA than I do, if nobody is able to translate then both the F/O and Captain have less SA than they could. Get it yet?

Also as I have such experience, and by no means am I the only one, I can see both sides of the argument.

BrATCO, of course I expect that. But, I have witnessed ATC, obviously stressed, attempt to transmit repeatedly to a non-national airline in his own language at high speed several times until the penny dropped and he transmitted in English. Then the message got through but...!

There are also many national airlines who employ non-national crew. Now you have a national airline callsign, usually using the national language, being spoken to, as is the habit, in the national language but with nobody on board who speaks it! Again................and the penny drops.

Not only that but even if you don't think the information is pertinent to me, and 99% of the time it may not be, it's still a little bit of gen I can store away and use if and when it becomes necessary.

There is only one solution to these problems - Chinese Mandarin, it is the most widely used language in the world.

MISSED APCH

20th Nov 2010, 13:24

Look its like this. ATC should be in english. If they arent it is to you to request that information in english. If you think its unreasonable for you to ask 30 other planes that information in english... so do they. Afterall theyre there to work it out and its what they think. The Russians arent gonna speak english and the spanish arent and french arent and youll have to deal with it sorry! Safety first is what theyll say

Witraz

20th Nov 2010, 14:07

A gentle reminder. It is the pilot community who chooses the language in which to communicate in - Not ATC. A pilot talks to ATC first in the language of their choice. Is it not therefore the pilot's community's choice on what represents a better working environment for SA and any other aspects one wants to derive from this?

BrATCO

20th Nov 2010, 16:20

There is only one solution to these problems - Chinese Mandarin, it is the most widely used language in the world.

I vote for Esperanto : no jealous...:}

Some companies use "surprising" languages sometimes : pilots from a Quebec company speak English or French, some "French" pilots (with a French national company's calsign) speak English, some "N" registrated speak French... depending on the crew's nationality, of course.
When it happens, we write a big "GB" or "F" on the strip.
This procedure won't be possible anymore when we change to e-stripping...
Just wait for it.

Green Guard

20th Nov 2010, 16:48

There is only one solution to these problems - Chinese Mandarin, it is the most widely used language in the world.
:ok:
You may be correct here, after all.

Hello also for Squawk7777...
I enjoy sometimes to communicate in some other then English language with ATC. And here is a question for French ATC.
I will put it in English somehow.

Why they do not come to SIMPLE way of saying the numbers,
(not at home but over RT)
Why they pronounce 132.985 as
( hundred and thirty two nine hundred four times twenty ten and sixteen)
cent trente-deux neuf cent quatre-vingt-quinze

Any New French Phraseology for Pilots coming from Montreal ?

(unite trois deux neuf huit cinq)
so much easier, right ?

BrATCO

20th Nov 2010, 19:37

Green Guard,
In fact, we would say "Cent trente deux, neuf cent trente cinq" ("hundred and thirty-two, nine hundred and eighty-five") just because that's the way we speak "at home".
"Un trois deux, neuf huit cinq" (one tree two, nine eight five) sounds weird. But we may have to use it with frequencies like 130.235, which can be heard 132.135 in French.

English pilots do the same : they often forget they have to speak English phraseology, which is a bit different from English language.

"2" has to be pronounced "too"
"3" has to be pronounced "tree"
"5" has to be pronounced "fife"...

I often hear readbacks sounding like "One thee thee thee thee five" for 133.225 (or was that 122.225, or maybe 133.335, or...) with a perfect English accent...:p

kwateow

20th Nov 2010, 19:50

"neuf cent trente cinq" ("nine hundred and eighty-five") just because that's the way we speak "at home".

Then I guess your home is not in France.

BrATCO

20th Nov 2010, 20:06

OOOps !:eek:
That must be the reason why my job is not at home... not easy to focus with the children around...:O

I assume this pilot will call back to confirm the freq...("neuf cent quatre-vingt cinq")

And you're right : I live in Brittany.

T21

20th Nov 2010, 23:46

Lord Spandex Masher

You say that Chinese Mandarin is the most widely used language in the world. Don't you really mean that it is the language spoken by the largest amount of people in the world? You don't hear the language much outside of China.

Lord Spandex Masher

21st Nov 2010, 11:59

T21, indeed, I was only being facetious but thanks for pointing out my error.

Nothing is going to stop people using their own language whilst talking to people of their nationality. We'll just have to live with it.

BrATCO,
Esperez que vous avez recu les gamins au lit sans probleme.

Curiosity compels me to ask if Brittany is considered to be French or not?

BrATCO

21st Nov 2010, 16:54

Technically, Brittany is part of France.

Now, if you ask a Britton, the answer could differ a bit, even though we don't ask for independence any more.

Escape Path

21st Nov 2010, 17:32

Now you have a national airline callsign, usually using the national language, being spoken to, as is the habit, in the national language but with nobody on board who speaks it! Again................and the penny drops

Over here we have some airlines who promote the use of English language (Native is Spanish) to practise once in a while. It's easy (and funny) to hear the ATC calling in Spanish the national aircraft doing RT in English. Sometimes the aircraft won't respond until they get it right (my personal favourite) and on some other times the aircraft will reply in English so ATC gets it right next time.

And then I remember the old Lufthansa joke: "I am a German pilot, flying a German plane in a German airport. Why do I have to speak English?"

People don't like to talk in other language when they can speak in their own language.

Surely Situational Awareness could be improved if we only speak one language but then again, everyone would have to learn how to speak English and not everyone can learn languages as fast (or as good) as others. So it would be a chaos (JFK anyone?) all over the planet. While SA is improved for those who can communicate effectively in English it is a major downturn for those who don't and even with the ICAO LPE in progress you still see things like the Swiss incident in Russia, the AeroGal close-call in JFK some months ago and a myriad of similar occurrences. Take into account that you will not have "full SA" if someone is out of the loop (the not-so-agile English speakers would be in this category) and then the whole thing sort of evens itself up.

So, we have TCAS as the final barrier before a collision, we have company frequencies to know about other airports conditions. We have managed ourselves through busy skies and sat our bottoms back onto ground in fair safety; is it worth the hassle of going through all of those changes when there are more urgent things that need to be changed (i.e. CRM, Runway Incursions, CFIT)?

P.S.: I apologise in advance for my redaction as English is not my native language

EP

AnthonyGA

23rd Nov 2010, 04:39

Surely Situational Awareness could be improved if we only speak one language but then again, everyone would have to learn how to speak English and not everyone can learn languages as fast (or as good) as others.

You appear to be speaking hypothetically about something that is already mandatory. English is the required language for radio communication in international aviation—or, more specifically, all international aviators and controllers must be capable of speaking English competently.

It is true that people vary in their aptitude and (especially) their willingness to learn languages other than their native languages, but this does not mean that the requirement to use English can be set aside for pilots or controllers. Instead, it means that pilots or controllers who are unable to communicate effectively in English are not qualified to operate internationally. Like good health, English communication skills are mandatory for international aviators, not merely desirable. Increasing the number of languages used in aviation reduces safety, it does not increase it, even when there are pilots and controllers who are not fluent in English.

At the same time, at least in theory, all necessary situational awareness should be obtainable through communication with ATC alone. If it is necessary to be able to understand other pilots on frequency, then either the pilots or the controllers are doing something wrong. Understanding other pilots is not a formal requirement and thus cannot be guaranteed or depended upon, even if other pilots are speaking the same language. For the sake of safety, therefore, it must be possible to develop adequate situational awareness from ATC communications with the pilot in question alone.

It's a bit like saying that situational awareness is improved if you can see the ground. Of course that is true, but since it is not required and cannot be depended upon, a pilot who cannot maintain situational awareness without being able to see the ground has a serious problem and may not be qualified for the job (at least under conditions where the ground is not visible).

As for Mandarin Chinese, there are indeed many speakers of the language, but they are almost all in China (and many Chinese are not native speakers of Mandarin themselves). It would thus be a very poor choice for an international aviation language. The most geographically widespread language in the world is English, which is why it tends to predominate for international communication. It's a positive feedback loop, so English tends to predominate because so many people speak it, and more and more people speak it because it tends to predominate.

mary meagher

23rd Nov 2010, 08:08

Spoken English is fairly straightforward. But written English is a nightmare!
I've volunteered to listen to 8 year olds at the local school, learning to read.
The spelling makes no sense at all! Thorough? should be thoro! etc etc.

Spanish is much more logical, or when you come down to it, how about Latin as the international language? it used to be, for centuries! Any Latin scholars following this thread? not likely, I surmise - but I would love to see a typical ATC transmission in Latin, just for fun.

By the way, chaps, English is not only the International Language of Aviation, it is also the international language of Science. Just have a look at the instructions written in multiple languages for your new hoover (vacuum cleaner). Most of the languages take up at least TWICE the space to explain something in a simple way. And Chinese? give me a break. How many letters in that alphabet?

Escape Path

23rd Nov 2010, 14:49

You appear to be speaking hypothetically about something that is already mandatory. English is the required language for radio communication in international aviation—or, more specifically, all international aviators and controllers must be capable of speaking English competently.

That is exactly my point. Domestic pilots who feel that learning English is not mandatory for them would make the whole "let's use English even if it's not our native language" thing very impractical (read unsafe) as I've seen some shameful pilots that think they can "defend themselves" with the sparse English knowledge they have and often make me faceslap myself.

Now try to get a 40-odd years old pilot to learn English while he has thought for 40-odd years that he doesn't need to speak English

EP

WHBM

23rd Nov 2010, 16:49

Any Latin scholars following this thread? Of course :) but I would love to see a typical ATC transmission in Latin, just for fun.
We went one better than that at school, we had the whole Roman Air Force.

Here come the Genitive Plural bombers overhead "Horum harum, horum harum".

Here's a heroic Nominative Singular fighter attacking them "Hic haec hoc, hic haec hoc".

protect essential

26th Nov 2010, 01:26

Hope the following is not too far off the thread for some, but I have grave concerns when the baseline proficiency of the language used by both operating crewmembers is not adequate (please note I didn't say it had to be English). A/C-ATC language issues will always be a problem when one flies internationally: China, Russia and most of Africa, for example.

But can we all agree that there should be a common, proficient language in use on the flight deck between crewmembers and maybe even the cabin crew (at least the Pursor)? Having spent some time at the national carrier of the country South of the 38th Parallel, it mostly doesn't exist there between foreign and local pilots. I always felt that I and the FO were never really in the same "loop" and always wondered how things would go if the "s--t really hit the fan."

Dr. Bru

4th Dec 2010, 00:34

A while back I was on approach into YUL and a storm was right near the threshold. The Dash 8 ahead and the tower were speaking in french. I could gather they were disscussing the weather but I didn't understand more then that. I feel it would have been helpful if I understood what was being said. Anyway, we went around.

LH2

4th Dec 2010, 04:16

The spelling makes no sense at all! Thorough? should be thoro! etc etc.

That is because oral and written communications use two different semiotic systems. This is the case regardless of the language.

And Chinese? give me a break. How many letters in that alphabet?

None. Chinese does not have letters, and in consequence it neither has an alphabet. It is what now people call a semanto-phonetic script, meaning that its characters convey both meaning and sound. It does indeed make for a much larger number of symbols, but on the other hand it has the advantage of permitting communication between people who do not speak the same language, as long as their respective languages share a common script.

CISTRS

29th Dec 2010, 09:49

Rather confusingly, the written form of the Chinese language is the same in Hong Kong and Taiwan (Traditional Chinese), although the lingua franca of Hong Kong is Cantonese, and that of Taiwan is Putonghua (or another dialect, Hokkien).

Mainland China uses spoken Putonghua for business, with the written form being Simplified Chinese.

Text in either form of Chinese takes a little over half the space of the equivalent English translation at a comparable text size.

PA-28-180

29th Dec 2010, 14:13

....and things got REALLY screwed up when the world shifted from the 'old' Wade-Giles transliteration" system to the newer 'Pinyin' system of conversion - which continues to evolve.
For those who aren't familiar, this is how 'Peking' changed to 'Beijing' and 'Hong Kong' became 'Xiang-gang'.......:)

BTW.....'Putonghua' simply means....'common speech'......

Mike-Bracknell

29th Dec 2010, 15:40

Getting out my crystal ball and looking to the future, as you'd climb into the cockpit you'd choose your language of choice (or maybe the RFID tag on your badge would do it for you) and all the labels on the knobs/dials/screens would be written in that language. ATC comms would be sent directly to the aircraft rather than the crew, and would come up on a display, removing the possibility of erroneous "did he say that"s.

In the meantime, if any Russian pilots want to get trained in English in return for some advantageous rates on airfreight, my wife would be only too keen to train them. :)

Captain Dart

29th Dec 2010, 23:53

If true, I applaud the Russians for making English standard.

I suppose altitudes/flight levels in feet and use of QNH is out of the question...

ve3id

30th Dec 2010, 01:32

Going into Montreal Pierre Trudeau one day, I had to ask my co-pilot if "Hoscar" is the phonetic for "O' or 'H'

Same with " 'otel"

Funny thing with language in Canada, when I did my ICAO English test I naturally passed being a native English speaker, but when I tried to ask the same person if I could be qualified in French (speaking to her in Parisian French, not joual) she asked me if I was 'expert'. So why should I have to be level 6 in my second language when I only need level 4 to qualify?

Needless to say I only have English on my licence, but it doesn't stop me thinking in French when the wx turns nasty. Merde is universal

darkroomsource

30th Dec 2010, 05:04

I would like to be asking you all a question of some level of importance in my mind. If I am being talking on the radio in what is definitely being defined as correct english, and I am having what can only be being defined as a strong accent of which it is coming from an area of the world in which we are being responsible for being answering the telephone questions from some companies that are being major corporations in the United States of America, wel I am being wondering if my being talking like this on the radio is being helpful in your attempt to be understanding the situational awareness that you are being so fond of referring to?

My second question is going to be a little longer than my first question was, in which I asked if my talking in english which is sufficient for my being able to be receiving an ICAO english proficiency level of four, so I am being apologetic in advance for being taking so much of your precious time while I am being asking this question. Have you ever been having a conversation with one of these service companies that are being responsible for being answering the telephone and being answering the questions from customers who are being having problems with their bank accounts, or are being having problems with there technological devices? If you have been involved in being having a conversaion with one of these services have you ever been finding yourself being asking the question "Does anyone there speak english?"

Point?
I would obviously be much better if we all understood everything that is said on frequency. However, some of the people on frequency might have absolutely no clue as to what is said if it's not said in their native language, even if they qualify for an ICAO 4 english endorsement.

Ideally, every one must speak perfect English in order to obtain a PPL in any nation. Specifically, they must have grown up on the west coast of the USA, so that their accent is not too hard for ME to understand, and they obviously will understand me and know to give me priority in any operation. This also would reduce the number of pilots worldwide, thus solving the "pilot shortage" problem at the same time - those of us who grew up on the West Coast would all be able to get jobs... (is there a smiley for sarcasm?)

In reality, if you're flying somewhere where the native language is something you don't understand, you must be prepared to have less situational awareness of everything on frequency, and you must trust that ATC will communicate with you everything that is important to you.

If you don't like that, then I suggest you retire, and do your part to solve the "pilot shortage" problem. (sarcasm again).

BusyB

30th Dec 2010, 08:27

A very recent incident concerned an aircraft from my company hearing a clearance for another aircraft to fly opposite direction on the same airway at the same FL. If ATC had not been speaking in English this error would not have been picked up before a TCAS incident/accident.

I find it inconceivable that any sane person can claim that two languages can be safer than one:ugh:

His dudeness

30th Dec 2010, 17:15

If true, I applaud the Russians for making English standard.

I suppose altitudes/flight levels in feet and use of QNH is out of the question...

I guess thats as likely as the british driving on the right (right!!!) side of the road... :}

I dunno if somebody has mentioned it, but english is (IMO) the easiest to learn language I have come across. And its fairly easy to get the info/command/meaning/etc over quickly.

To me, thats 2 very good reasons to make english mandatory around the globe (in aviation). I´m not a native english speaker...

PA-28-180

31st Dec 2010, 06:08

" I dunno if somebody has mentioned it, but english is (IMO) the easiest to learn language I have come across. "

Having taught English internationally since 1995, I'm not sure if I would say English is 'easiest' to learn....but it certainly is EASIER than many other languages.

The problem is training to a 'minimum standard', i.e., standard radio calls....but what happens when something NON-standard occurs?
I've personally had students that weren't even familiar with the English alphabet - and 6 months later scored an 80/120 on the TOEFL exam (Test of English as a Foreign Language).....so it CAN be done....if the relevant authorities WANT it to be done! :ugh:

Green Guard

2nd Jan 2011, 06:42

Ever wonder why people have trouble learning the English language --
THIS IS GREAT!!!
Read all the way to the end............... This took a lot of work to put together!!!
You think English is easy???

1) The bandage was wound around the wound.

2) The farm was used to produce the produce .

3) The dump was full, so we had to refuse more refuse.

4) We must polish the Polish furniture.

5) He could lead if he would get the lead out.

6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.

7) Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.

8) A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.

9) When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.

10) I did not object to the object.

11) The insurance was invalid for that invalid.

12) There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row

13) They were too close to the door to close it.

14) The buck does funny things when the does are present.

15) A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.

16) To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.

17) The wind was too strong for us to wind the sail.

18) Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear..

19) I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.

20) How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?

21) If margarine is pronounced marjorine, why garden is not jorden, and Margarete a Marjorete ?

22) W is spelled Double U, Why not Double V ? It does not look like UU !!!
Since “ W ” is “double U”, then WWW must be “6U” !!!!!!

Let's face it - English is a crazy language. There is no egg in eggplant, nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple.
English muffins weren't invented in England nor French fries in France .. Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbreads, which aren't sweet, are meat. We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand does work slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.

And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham? If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn't the plural of booth, beeth?
One goose, 2 geese.. So one moose, 2 meese?
One index, 2 indices? It seem crazy that you can make amends but never 1 single amend?
If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it?

If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught?
If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?
Sometimes I think all the English speakers should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane. In what language do people recite at a play and play at a recital?
Ship by truck and send cargo by ship? Have noses that run and feet that smell?

One good explanation about English to Russian students was: “ Well we have rules, but we more exceptions, and in any case you speak English simply so as you like it…”

How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same,
while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites ?
You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language
in which your house can burn up as it burns down,
in which you fill in a form by filling it out and in which, an alarm goes off by going on.

English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the creativity of the human race, which, of course, is not a race at all. That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible,
but when the lights are out, they are invisible.

PS. - Why doesn't 'Buick' rhyme with 'quick' ?

You lovers of the English language might enjoy this ..

There is a two-letter word that perhaps has more meanings than any other
two-letter word, and that is 'UP..'

It's easy to understand
UP, meaning toward the sky or at the top of the list, but when we stop sleeping in the morning,
why do we wake UP ? At a meeting, why does a topic come UP ? Why do we speak UP and why are the officers UP for election and why is it UP to the secretary to write UP a report?

We call UP our friends. And we use it to brighten UP a room, polish UP the silver; we warm UP the leftovers and clean UP the kitchen. We lock UP the house and some guys fix UP the old car.
At other times the little word has real special meaning. People stir UP trouble, or line UP for tickets, work UP an appetite, and think UP excuses.
To be dressed is one thing, but to be dressed UP is special.

And this UP is confusing: A drain must be opened UP because it is stopped UP.
We open UP a store in the morning but we close it UP at night.

We seem to be pretty mixed
UP about UP! To be knowledgeable about the proper uses of UP, look the word UP in the dictionary. In a desk-sized dictionary, it takes UP almost 1/4th of the page and can add UP to about thirty definitions. If you are UP to it, you might try building UP a list of the many ways UP is used. It will take UP a lot of your time, but if you don't give UP, you may wind UP with a hundred or more. When it threatens to rain, we say it is clouding UP
When the sun comes out we say it is clearing UP...

When it rains, it wets the earth and often messes things UP.
When it doesn't rain for awhile, things dry UP.
One could go on and on, but I'll wrap it UP, for now my time is UP,
so......it is time to shut UP!

Oh . . . one more thing:

What is the first thing you do in the morning & the last thing you do at night ?

U-P

PA-28-180

2nd Jan 2011, 08:57

" You think English is easy??? "

No....it's not particularly 'easy' - NO language is. However, all language boils down to, is SOUNDS. If a language is taught in the manner that the human brain 'expects', i.e., a straight forward step by step process, the same as a baby does in ANY language....then it CAN be accomplished.
The problem is that there are NO shortcuts and NO magic. Too many programs are simply training phraseology....which, in my opinion, is a waste of time and resources....as I wrote, there ARE effective ways to do it, IF the relevant authorities AND students wish it. :ok:

P.S. I've been doing exactly this internationally since 1995, so I KNOW it can be accomplished.

zondaracer

2nd Jan 2011, 10:28

Excerpt from a news article:
English words — like "clove" and "love," or "cough" and "bough" — that are spelled similarly, but sound different, often puzzle school children who are learning to read, because each word pair can be pronounced correctly only if it has been learned previously. For dyslexics, irregularly spelled words in French and English can be tricky throughout life.
In English, there are 1,120 ways to create some 40 sounds, whereas in Italian, only 33 combinations of letters are needed to make 25 sounds, according to the research.

My dad always complained and said French spelling doesn´t make sense, and I said that it makes more sense than English! French has 250+ ways to spell 32 different sounds. I was teaching English to a native Spanish speaker who couldn´t hear the difference between cheap, chip, ship, sheep. All four words sounded the same to her. It´s no wonder there are spelling bees in English. English is pretty difficult to learn

I was working with the Colombian Air Force in 2008 when they received a mandate to start using English for all ATC on Fridays and Sundays, and there were a bunch of guys asking if I had a copy of any documents with standard RT phraseology.

pacrion

2nd Jan 2011, 10:43

Dont agree with just English. If you are in France, why don't speak in French? Why English? For safety reasons? If both, flightcrew and atc are happy with any ICAO lang, just go ahead. Always following company procedures of course.

LedZeppelin

2nd Jan 2011, 10:50

PA-28-180, I completely agree that it can be done. Having worked with the excellent trainers from AFL and St Petersburg, I can say that they are among the most progressive and positively-minded professionals in their field and they are well able to train to international standards, given government support. Over to you, France.

It is important, as highlighted in Green Guard's posting, to forget the native-speaker idiosyncrasies (which exist in every language) and focus on clear, direct messages which aid the situational awareness of the listeners.

As ChristiaanJ points out, the very least that one can do is to "slow down and articulate"- something which is lost on many native speakers as well as those who have done their training in the US and who seem to imagine that speaking in the style of a Texan cattle auctioneer, or like Dean Martin after a dozen Martinis, will somehow magically enable them to be understood by the international aviation community.

stuckgear

2nd Jan 2011, 12:22

a bunch of guys asking if I had a copy of any documents with standard RT phraseology

CAP 413 Would be a good start.
CAP 413: Radiotelephony Manual | Publications | CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=3441)

Dont agree with just English. If you are in France, why don't speak in French? Why English? For safety reasons? If both, flightcrew and atc are happy with any ICAO lang, just go ahead. Always following company procedures of course.

And what about aircraft transiting the airspace; German, English, Spanish, American, Italian, along with Far Eastern carriers and Middle Eastern carriers, Hungarian, Romanian, Polish, Swedish, Norwegian, Dutch.... etc. etc. ?

zondaracer

2nd Jan 2011, 22:48

stuck gear, being an American, I gave them the FAR/AIM, that´ll mess them up... ¨taxi to position and hold¨

Also, aren´t Russian, Arabic, Chinese, French, and Spanish the other ICAO languages?

Escape Path

3rd Jan 2011, 04:16

that´ll mess them up...

Colombian AF English is rubbish anyway, save a couple of exceptions. Even their Spanish RT is rubbish, way too much out of standard if you ask me :*

Mister Geezer

3rd Jan 2011, 08:27

Native languages and ATC will always be a hot potato and a line has to be drawn somewhere.

However the use of a common language did save my bacon last year down in the Indian Ocean when descending into a island where French is commonly used. I was cleared to the same level as a slower aircraft ahead and we were both instructed to proceed to the hold. Had French has been used, would my next line of defence had been the TCAS? :eek:

Hats off to the Russians if they are making moves to introduce English throughout.

KAG

4th Jan 2011, 06:27

They'd better learn chinese if they want to stay ahead.

Anyway I can speak 4 languages and use 3 for radio communication.

When I see a colleague from UK, country that doesn't even have a space, helicopter, aircraft, satellite industry (like eurozone have, thales, eurocopter, arianespace, airbus... being mainly non-english speaking area but space/aviation world leader) complaining about poor level of english in japan, france, germany, china, russia... I smile.

20th century language (or at least the second half, first half was french) was defenitely english, not sure about the 21st yet...

Free advice for english (only) speaking people: spend more time studying (a new language for example?) than complaining about the poor level in english of this or that country on internet.

Just editing my post to say it's was too much to write UK doesn't have any aircraft industry, because RR, BA146, Harrier, Concorde, ... Immediately comes to mind, sorry about that my bad.

stuckgear

4th Jan 2011, 07:01

fair point KAG,

However, conversely, about half* the civil use aircraft in the world are on the November register.

* figure is 46.5% to 49% depending on source.

KAG

4th Jan 2011, 07:55

What about the world international airliners? I was told that more than 50% of them will be chinese (registered) by 2025... What about now? Probabely that more than 80% are not N- already. Just a wild guess, I don't have the numbers.

Of course I have no problem with a N- C150 doing touch and goes in Flint or Casper city using english on the radio, but I don't think that is the point.

stuckgear

4th Jan 2011, 08:19

KAG,

We're not really talking about C-150's doing touch and go's in Flint, or anywhere to that matter.

The civil register is that. Aircraft in civil use. That also includes as well as c-150's, commercial jet transport aircraft, both in scheduled and non-scheduled operation as well as Gulfstreams, Challengers, Lears, Citations etc. etc. All of them share the airspace internationally with each other.

Situational awareness doesn't just come down to knowing what you are doing but also with the capacity to understand what other aircraft in the same airspace are doing.

Maybe 50% of aircraft will be Chinese and on the civil register by 2025, maybe not. but thats then, not now. Maybe by 2025, the world wont exist, having been assured complete destruction triggered off by a nuclear reaction by North Korea. Or maybe not.

I really cannot be @rsed to get into some flag waving, jingoism about whether Cantonese or Mandarin should be the common language of aviation and any supporting reasons why. It's a pointless and infantile discussion.

Remove nationalistic pride or rhetoric from the equation and look at the practicality of a common language. To wit, the Russians are making a common sense move in the name of safety progression, not just within themselves but also on an international basis. Fair play to them.

KAG

4th Jan 2011, 10:14

The civil register is that. Aircraft in civil use. That also includes as well as c-150's, commercial jet transport aircraft, both in scheduled and non-scheduled operation as well as Gulfstreams, Challengers, Lears, Citations etc. etc. All of them share the airspace internationally with each other.
Don't pretend you don't understand what I mean. And don't give me any lesson in pride, keep it for yourself: you want everybody to speak your language and you insist with your C150 N registered. Remove them from your numbers, keep the international flights, and come back talk to me. Anyway whithout the world and mainly china to buy american government debt, american companies debt, american families/personnal debts, and international students/customer coming to get cheap training I am not sure many N- C150 would fly around.

I can use your language, you cannot use mine, so the same goes for your language lesson: keep it for yourself.

Maybe 50% of aircraft will be Chinese and on the civil register by 2025, maybe not. but thats then, not now. Maybe by 2025, the world wont exist, having been assured complete destruction triggered off by a nuclear reaction by North Korea. Or maybe not.Don't try any perspective trick on me please, if there is no earth of course there is no talk.

Trim Stab

4th Jan 2011, 10:26

There is a simple and fair solution:

When flying in controlled airspace (IFR), pilots should have to speak English to minimum ICAO level 4.

When flying in uncontrolled airspace pilots should have to speak to at least ICAO level 4 of the language of the country whose airspace they are flying in. This would avoid the ludicrous situation of non-English speaking PPLs, ultralight pilots, glider pilots etc being forced to speak English in their own country just so that visiting PPLs from other countries can understand them.

darkroomsource

4th Jan 2011, 16:30

So, Trim, if a pilot is born and raised in country X, pays their taxes, has never had a single violation, but only speaks the native language of X, they're not allowed to fly in controlled airspace?

Yea... no.

There is no simple solution to this problem folks.
UNLESS, we were to make it actually logical, that in order to fly in airspace over country X, you must speak and understand to a level 4 the native language of country X.

GarageYears

4th Jan 2011, 17:29

There is no simple solution to this problem folks.

Er, there is - pick a language and make that the standard.... :rolleyes: .... which of course is the sticking point of this thread.

For those advocating (ahem!) Madarin.... perhaps you would switch your computer over to use the Madarin character set... and then:

Because the Chinese language is a logographic language in which one "character" corresponds roughly to one "word" or meaning there are vastly more characters, or glyphs, than there are keys on a standard computer keyboard.

To allow the input of Chinese using standard keyboards a variety of keyboard input methods have been designed.

Keyboard input methods can be classified in 3 main types: by encoding, by pronunciation, and by structure of the characters. The following are just some samples of Chinese input methods. Many of those input methods have variations. Full Pinyin and Double Pinyin are variation of the Pinyin input method. In addition, the methods which require the user to select a character from a menu generally have sophisticated methods for guessing which characters the user intends based on context.

Different people are most comfortably with different methods and each standard has its strengths and weaknesses. For example, for someone who is already familiar with pinyin, the pinyin method can be learned most quickly. However, the maximum typing rate is limited, and learning the system is difficult for some who doesn't know pinyin. Wubi takes much effort to learn, but expert typists can enter text much faster than the phonetic methods. Because of these factors, there is no likelihood of a "standard" method evolving.

:ugh:

darkroomsource

4th Jan 2011, 17:39

Er, there is - pick a language and make that the standard.... :rolleyes: .... which of course is the sticking point of this thread.

Fine for INTERNATIONAL, but not for national flights.
Why should a language that is not native to country X be mandated to everyone who wants to fly in country X, who does NOT want to fly internationally?
If you only fly in France, you should not have to speak English to be allowed to fly.
If you only fly in Russia, ditto.
That's why it's not simple.

737Jock

4th Jan 2011, 19:25

Or why not remove head from a place where the sun doesn't shine, and simply accept the fact.
As said before it is pretty much only english native speakers that complain, and they are usually the ones that don't speak a single other language...

This Will NEVER be solved, unless we move to datalink clearances. Which in fact means you won't hear anything on the radio. Which in turn makes the entire Situational awareness argument moot.:ok:

boofta

4th Jan 2011, 23:21

Dear jock
you will have to choose a language for datalink
I suggest RUSSIAN
Nice simple phonetics and just enough alphabet
English rules, rule britannia

ReverseFlight

5th Jan 2011, 01:58

... perhaps you would switch your computer over to use the Madarin character set...
I recent found out at a trade fair that most Russians involved in the aviation and aerospace industry speak perfect Putonghua (Mandarin Chinese). So eloquent, it's like music to your ears !

I'm sure they'd have no problems with English.

DA50driver

5th Jan 2011, 02:19

If I am a guest in your country I don't care what language you speak on the radio. If I happen to speak yours I will try to use it as well.

I used to give a crap about this issue until I realized the TCAS works pretty da.n well anyway.

Just for the record I do speak 4 languages fairly well, after six beers I can do a couple more languages in a pinch. I am sick of learning though, so I will not learn any more.

Spasiba.

KAG

5th Jan 2011, 18:10

For those advocating (ahem!) Madarin.... perhaps you would switch your computer over to use the Madarin character set... and then: Mandarin not madarin (or putonghua, which is pinyin for：普通话) better say "chinese": it is not wrong to say it, and you won't do any mistake that way. Personaly I love this language, chinese characters are pure art, and chinese grammar is extremely easy. It was a pleasure to learn this language.

Anyway, we don't advocate, we just observe the world evolving. That's different. Some people adapt, some are open minded, some are afraid to lose their supposedly linguistic superiority, behavio(u)rs are like languages, there are many of them.

BrATCO

5th Jan 2011, 18:46

Boofta,
you will have to choose a language for datalink

Why choose ?
Everyone writes in one's language, google-translation, and here we go !

Trim Stab

5th Jan 2011, 20:12

So, Trim, if a pilot is born and raised in country X, pays their taxes, has never had a single violation, but only speaks the native language of X, they're not allowed to fly in controlled airspace?

Sorry - my post wasn't clear. I agree that a pilot born and raised in X, who only speaks Xish, should be allowed to fly in all airspace (controlled and uncontrolled) in country X.

However if he wishes to fly in controlled airspace in country Y, he should have at least ICAO level 4 in English (or Yish). If he wishes to fly in uncontrolled airspace in country Y, he should have at least level 4 in Yish.

This has already started to happen informally around Europe - I visit uncontrolled airfields in France, Switzerland and Italy where it is clearly marked on the airfield regulations that the local language must be used - and quite rightly so. This unfortunately does not stop some visiting pilots from speaking english on the AFIS, even at the risk of locally based pilots who may not understand them.

darkroomsource

6th Jan 2011, 00:21

Sorry - my post wasn't clear. I agree that a pilot born and raised in X, who only speaks Xish, should be allowed to fly in all airspace (controlled and uncontrolled) in country X.

However if he wishes to fly in controlled airspace in country Y, he should have at least ICAO level 4 in English (or Yish). If he wishes to fly in uncontrolled airspace in country Y, he should have at least level 4 in Yish.

So, he's flying in his own country, X, speaking Xish, and other people are speaking English on the same frequency at the same airport, and we are back to the same problem. Two languages being used at the same time.

As I see it there are three possibilities.
1. Everyone speaks the same language, the world over, in order to have any level of pilots license, and all communication on all frequencies in all airspaces is in that one language.
2. When in X airspace, everyone speaks Xish.
3. There is more than one language spoken on the frequency.

I don't think #1 or #2 is feasible.

Trim Stab

6th Jan 2011, 07:42

As I see it there are three possibilities.
1. Everyone speaks the same language, the world over, in order to have any level of pilots license, and all communication on all frequencies in all airspaces is in that one language.
2. When in X airspace, everyone speaks Xish.
3. There is more than one language spoken on the frequency.

I don't think #1 or #2 is feasible.

Agreed.

In controlled airspace, we have to accept both English and Xish. Those pilots who don't understand Xish will have to either learn Xish, or rely on the controller for situational awareness. It is not ideal, but it is the only practical solution.

In uncontrolled airspace in country X, only Xish should be used. If you can't speak Xish to ICAO level 4, then you should not be in uncontrolled airspace.

darkroomsource

6th Jan 2011, 18:13

In uncontrolled airspace in country X, only Xish should be used. If you can't speak Xish to ICAO level 4, then you should not be in uncontrolled airspace.
Unfortunately there are some airports you can't get to without flying through uncontrolled airspace.
I know that's true here in Oregon, and I'm sure it's true in some other parts of the world.

dvv

6th Jan 2011, 21:00

In X I live in, you don't even need radio to fly in uncontrolled (class G) airspace. So what are all y'all talking about here?

darkroomsource

6th Jan 2011, 21:11

In X I live in, you don't even need radio to fly in uncontrolled (class G) airspace. So what are all y'all talking about here?

same in my X, however if one has a radio, one generally announces intentions and position in the pattern

dvv

7th Jan 2011, 00:38

darkroomsource, and yet nobody (including FAA of said X) is saying that you should stay the f out of class G if you don't have a radio. Moreover — said FAA is pretty much saying that while radio is nice, you should have your head on a 360° swivel all the time — radio or nordo.

And it might be a tough task to explain Deaf Pilots Association (http://www.deafpilots.com/) that they need to understand and speak Yish just to fly in uncontrolled airspace in Y.

darkroomsource

7th Jan 2011, 03:44

OOps.
Point missed.
This thread is all about having two languages on the radio at the same time, and some have advocated having only one language at a time, indicating that is would be simple to say it is only X or Y.
I am simply arguing that it is not that simple.
You can not mandate that everyone speak the same language, because if you choose the language of the country, then international pilots must learn every language on the globe. If you choose some language Y, then you mandate that every pilot on the globe speak Y, even if they never leave their own country. OR, you accept that there will always be the possibility of two languages on the radio.
I am not saying you have to have a radio to fly in uncontrolled airspace, but rather that you can not limit people to uncontrolled or controlled airspace, just because they speak or don't speak the national or international language.

Hence, it's not as easy as saying "every pilot must speak X on the radio".

grounded27

7th Jan 2011, 07:09

You will all be able to maintain your native tongue as FANS replaces communication making pilots one step closer to obsolete.

KAG

7th Jan 2011, 10:58

I checked/counted last time from Changsha to Kunming which language where spoken on the radio between airliners and control/ATC. 95% was not in english. You don't believe me? Check it yourself. I was even told that 20 years ago english (or russian!) was much more used in chinese airspace than now...

International travel is international travel. Airspace sovereignty remains airspace sovereignty. Even some african and canadian crew are speaking french when flying within their respective country, so why not french within France, chinese within China, or russian within Russia. Oh wait, let me see, that's already how it works...

No fog, no snow, no wind, no human being on controls (human error is simply human), no engines (it will never be 100% reliable, engine is pruduced and maintained by human being, himself subject to errors), everybody speaking the same language everywhere, it would be perfect for safety I guess, but it wouldn't be aviation, it wouldn't even be the earth, it would be a world where people wouldn't even travel who knows.

One side we have ideology, excpectations, theories, the other side is called reality.

dvv

7th Jan 2011, 11:30

darkroomsource, my point is that "uncontrolled airspace" is a total red herring here.

Green Guard

7th Jan 2011, 19:48

everybody speaking the same language everywhere, it would be perfect for safety I guess, but it wouldn't be aviation, it wouldn't even be the earth, it would be a world where people wouldn't even travel who knows

Hello KAG
If everybody on this world would be speaking THE same language,
(and probably look THE same etc. etc. )
why would we need to travel at all ?

Escape Path

8th Jan 2011, 04:24

If everybody on this world would be speaking THE same language, (and probably look THE same etc. etc.) why would we need to travel at all ?

Well, business and tourism (as I don't think there would be the same things all over the globe) but that's a little drift off thread, wouldn't you agree?

Now, I'm going to put myself on the line here and discuss something I thought about when I was in flight school and I haven't discussed it with anyone yet. Here goes.

Let us all suppose we are flying in Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or any other country where English is not the standard language for aviation. Locals or those who know the local language are flying using the local language. Then someone who doesn't speak the local language chimes in in English. ATC will respond to them in English as standard. Now everyone on the frequency switches to English R/T; how does everybody knows? Those already in the frequency notice that everyone is speaking in English now, so they will start doing it as well; if someone forgets the R/T is in English now, the ATC will reply in English so the crew realises which language is being used. Those who are switching to the frequency will find out that the controller is responding them in English and everyone else is speaking in English, so they must start using English as well. Aircraft transmitting in English leaves the frequency then ATC restarts R/T in the local language via the same reasoning as the initial switch to English. Since everyone in the frequency is involved it shouldn't be easy for someone to forget which language we are all using. The "orchestra director" (so to speak) is the ATC since it will respond to all aircraft in the language used in that moment. This procedure doesn't clutter up the frequency any further by stating every now and then "attention all aircraft we are using X language now" either.

I came up with this idea when I heard controllers in Colombia would speak in Spanish to Colombian aircraft (or otherwise Spanish-speaking aircraft) using English and then the Colombian crew would reply in English making the ATC realise their mistake and retransmitting the instruction in English.

Points of "interest":
- The procedure calls for helpful and effective interaction between pilots and ATC, so it requires a remarkably good ATC-Crew coordination.
- Based on what I've read on this thread before, this procedure wouldn't be practical in uncontrolled space as some local pilots (most of them maybe?) don't speak English at all.
- All busy airports, i.e. those with permanent English speaking crews on the frequency, will maintain English R/T all the time, which is the purpose of this whole deal as those are the airports we all need to be in the same page given that there are lots of us flying in a relatively small airspace.
- The airports that will have the "hardest time" will be those with intermittent presence of English speaking crews as those are the ones with the biggest amount of "language-switches"
- Since the most amount of pressure is put on the ATC as they are the ones who are indeed "orchestrating", maybe some visual cue will be designed so they always know which language are they suppose to use. Nothing fancy really, a couple of labelled lights somewhere on the radar screen will do, a la Master Warning and Master Caution on our aircraft.

So, I shall now go over there and hide behind that trash bin waiting for your opinions/responses/whatever comes out.

Toodles chaps! ;)

KAG

8th Jan 2011, 04:40

Because this world doesn't exist.

But to answer more accurately, this is precisely the difference of culture that makes a travel interesting, at least for tourism. Automatically with the difference of culture comes the difference of language.

There is a lot of theories we can agree with to make the world better, or more simply to improve air safety travel. But we will always have to face reality. And the world is always in move, even shifting sometimes.
My point: a pilot is not here to make theories, he is here to improve safety at his own level. He flies everyday to Russia? So he has to learn russian (at least russian radiocom) if he thinks his situationnal awarness could improve. A pilot cannot change the world, but he defenitely can change himself, or at least adapt, get some language skills, this is the least we can do as we pretend to deserve above average salaries.
But honnestly, I would like to see the numbers/statistics for last year concerning crash involving language as a cause versus all the others.

WestWind1950

8th Jan 2011, 06:09

as a native English speaker living and flying in Germany, let me explain how it's (successfully) done here.

First of all, in all airspaces English and German can be spoken, even controlled airspace except above FL200... there only English is permissable (level 4 needed).

In controlled airspace like D or C, both languages are permissable. English is primary, but ATC converses with German pilots in German when necessary. I know of no situation where a problem occurred because a non-German speaking pilot needed to understand German... ATC takes care of situation awareness when needed (but this is Germany, not France :p ).

All VFR field charts are marked "en/ge" on fields where English and German are both spoken, "ge" where only German is spoken.... you don't speak German, you don't fly there.

We have many non-German speaking GA pilots stationed in Germany and they manage to fly around with no problem at all. They are permanent residents, some are simply tourists here for a short time. It works!

In a place like Europe, where so many different languages are spoken, it is not possible to learn each one just for flights to or through... thus we have the one common language, English, and that usually works fine.

Yes, I've flown to France, speak NO French, and vowed never to fly there again! At the time, they refused to speak English with me. I guess they didn't like the German registration on my aircraft..... :uhoh: (enough French bashing.... sorry, I couldn't resist).

KAG

8th Jan 2011, 06:29

All VFR field charts are marked "en/ge" on fields where English and German are both spoken, "ge" where only German is spoken.... you don't speak German, you don't fly there.
The same goes with France, at some airport, both french and english are spoken, some others french only. I am sorry to see that you as a pilot failed to understand how to find or identify english speaking airport in France, but don't use your shortcomings as an excuse for some more french bashing that's really enough.

And for the german registration and your english humour... Learn how UK betrayed France and Belgium and have a look at dunkirk evacuation (retreat), the most spectacular run away of the human history...

Turban

8th Jan 2011, 07:15

From WestWind1950

Yes, I've flown to France, speak NO French, and vowed never to fly there again! At the time, they refused to speak English with me. I guess they didn't like the German registration on my aircraft..... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/worry.gif (enough French bashing.... sorry, I couldn't resist).

To bad I didn't meet you in the air. I could have answer you in French or in English , and maybe a little bit of German if that helped.

By the way I love Rammstein :cool:

So yeah enough French bashing. Assh*les are everywhere ;)

About bad communication what don't you guys talk more about Spain huh?

It is way more difficult to understand anything there.

Like the old saying >> Speaking english like a spanish cow :D

Cheers.

a.mandon

8th Jan 2011, 10:22

"....If now even the Russians can do it (or at least will try), why can't the French?"

Why can't the Italians, the Spanish ??!!

BrATCO

8th Jan 2011, 10:33

WESTWIND1950,
Yes, I've flown to France, speak NO French, and vowed never to fly there again! At the time, they refused to speak English with me. I guess they didn't like the German registration on my aircraft..... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/worry.gif (enough French bashing.... sorry, I couldn't resist).

Never mind about French bashing...
We don't like to fight, but we love to defend... And we've got arguments.;)

I just wonder : when was "the time" you refer to ?

Things have changed a bit in the last 20 years, since I entered ATC.
To be short : English AND French can be used with any ATS in France(except a few FISOs, I guess). As said above, it's written on the charts.
There's a difference when there's no ATS at all, for obvious reasons.

A decade ago (or so), I had to land a German pilot who thought he could speak French. When I answered, he couldn't understand me. And he couldn't speak English either (he had used non-controlled airspace until he contacted me...). My aeronautical German was not good enough to work safely.:=
So, I made the rest of the traffic yield to him and he eventually landed safe and sound on the runway.
Finished well... :)

I think your "D" registration was not a problem. Had you been "G" registrated... :}