Airbrake,

Here here. And Blatantly biased in their favour. The Brits, Germans, swiss and Dutch are excellent, and all credit to them.

We all know which airspace we would choose if we had to put out a MAYDAY!

They're/their/there

O dear,,, very weak comeback They're/their/there

It sounds the same on the radio, spelling grammer is not the issue for safe flight!

the issue is they will reply with unreadable check your radio,,,, nope,, check your ICAO Level6! would be my responce! you cant speak the lauguage so get off the ATC,, I could not care a monkeys if they can spell half the words!

No one asks you to spell MAYDAY when decening like a love sick bird with the wings on fire.

VERY WEAK KICK THE TIRES

But its you that can't spell - or is English not your mother tongue?

Zero.

This subject is too serious for petty attacks on individuals to derail it. However, when an individual contributes to a thread using the written word, they tend to be taken more seriously if they can be bothered to use a spell checker and show some awareness of Grammar.

If English isn't your first language then disregard this!

Yes I cant spell perfect English, freely admit that,,, no i don't work in a Library so don't really care, I can speak ICAO level 6 and thats what I need when talking to ATC,, and thats what they need talking to me,, if they cant spell perfectly I don't care!

Again,, very week argument, this thread is about ATC issues, one been that they cant speak english well enough, we are not texting each other in the flight deck nor do I want to become pen pals with them. :ugh:

Zerotohero,

Thank you very much for your consideration with us. Your words can give me a clear idea the kind of person you are.

Fortunately, There are a lot of pilots quite different from zerotohero. I will give the best service I can every day, though nowadays are very difficult days for us here in Spain (worst in 30 years), ATC situation in Spain is an European experiment will expand in a lot of countries in the next months/years.

Best Regards and hoping someday you will change your opinion when good times come again, and hoping you will never be in the same situation we are now.

We will meet in frecuency,

Cernicalo.

Quote from Zerotohero:

Cercicalo wrote: "As maybe we talked each other in AGP, Could you please, write all the phrase: "Controllers on the job... training monitored"

Zerotohero wrote: "lol,,, when I hear that in Spain I cant but help write down idiot in training when copying down the ATIS."

Oh my god.... I hope speaking much better than writting :confused:

A couple of remarks, while we're still off-topic.

While not disputing your assertion (and it works both ways too: I was spared a non-entirely unjustified telling off because the controller did not have the required fluency :E), I believe the pilots hold most of the responsibility on this one, as it is them who initiate communications. I know Spanish controllers will reply in English to the very few and very commendable local pilots who use that language. Funnily, they seem to communicate better than when a native speaker is involved :)

As for the comments about spelling...

It is my opinion that you should. For a start, not spelling correctly is a sign of a lack of education (some also say a lower middle class origin, but I won't go there :bored:); it also shows a lack of commitment to making oneself understood, and is disrespectful to your audience, a significant portion of which are not native speakers and thus will find your misspelled prose more difficult to follow than would be the case otherwise.

Mind you, it doesn't help that five of the six previous posts (Airbrake's excepted) contain spelling errors of one kind or another. :ok:

Although your argument is well founded LH2, I can't understand why you expect foreigners to spell correctly when half the 'educated' Brits posting on this site can't!

We are moving again in the old language/cultural debate ( also open in the French ATC thread).
A correction : No it did not, read again the report : a badly issued ATC conditional clearance ,combined with a poorly understood intersection line up caused this collision. (For memory : The T/O to the MD80 was in French but well before the conditional line up clearance issued to the Short, and both captains reported that none was monitoring the calls made on the R/T to other a/c due heavy workload at the time )
But there is indeed a recommendation in the report to study the use a single language in runway ops in CDG , but it was not a cause , even less a "key cause" .
In fact and this is "fortunately" or "unfortunately" ( I leave to you to choose the correct adjective ) there is no recorded accident where using a local language in addition to English was an issue.
Do not come with rumors and urban tales,( like Zagreb etc..) the fact is there is nothing in the ICAO accident database. This fact was even used by the Canadians to allow French in ATC in Quebec in 1976, and it still is in force today.
Cultural differences and lack of understanding each other are the problem, not the dual language.
Declaring an emergency for instance is seen in many cultures as an admission of failure. That has killed a lot of people. Dual use of language none.
Therefore ICAO has ( correctly and wisely in my opinion ) opted for the mandatory proficiency language training ( the famous level "4" ) instead of banning dual languages use.
For the Spanish or French ATC, yes they are very different from the UK, but who says the UK way of working is the one that everyone else in the world should use ?

ATC Watcher I normally agree with you. But I do not see the clear link between language proficiency training and the issue of dual language use. I would suggest that the latter was simply a bridge too far for ICAO mostly for political reasons. Arguing that they are acting wisely is putting it a bit strongly, at best they are acting pragmatically.

I am also surprised by the lack of any record of problems. You are saying that the controller in the trident midair with the Yugoslav DC9 spoke English at all times? How about the Canary Islands DanAir 727 where the controller ended up with him entering the hold the wrong way and hitting the mountain. He never used Spanish with the Spanish inter island turboprop that he was trying to put in front?

Turbulence reports in French are another bugbear, surely letting other pilots know might be helpful?

I do agree with your point about cultural differences. But some of them are not just national. They are also between controllers and pilots unfortunately.

You must have read a different report to me. I read this one, which has in the conclusions:

http://garychapelhill.files.wordpres...pg?w=180&h=142

Lederhosen : don’t get me wrong : I am not denying the fact that language issues were contributing factors to some accidents. They indeed were in a few, but they never were any CAUSE of an accident since ICAO started its database.
Zagreb, Cali, Tenerife, Dan air and KLM/Pan Am, New York/ Avianca etc.. are examples of this, but as contributing factors . The causes , all of them of these accidents were elsewhere.
Singleling out one contributing factor out of its context is unfortunately often done and generally lead to the wrong conclusions. Take Ueberlingen as a good example :the report has 2 immediate causes and 3 systemic causes, but has 21 contributing factors , each subject to a Recommendation.
But the failure of any one of those contributing factors ( say the lack of refresher safety training for controllers, or staff shortages, ) cannot be used to say it caused the collision, or was a " key issue " .

100% please : same comment as above You perhaps read too fast, again the question was about causes, not contributing factors.If you really read the BEA report , not only the last pages, and have access to the interviews of both Captains (unfortunately not in-extenso the BEA report ) you will see that dual language played in fact no role in that collision. But , as I said before, a single language could perhaps had alerted the Short crew that an aircraft was taking off on 27 had they be monitoring/ listening out on the frequency the other calls ( which they were not) , and previous incidents , (some of them mentioned on the report ) indicate that situation awareness would be greatly enhanced in international airports OPS should a single language ( i.e English )was used. Hence the recommendation. Unfortunately the implementation of that recommendation by French DGAC in CDG only lasted 2 days as Air France pilot union strongly opposed it and had it cancelled.

That is largely correct, except that in my recollection (I might be wrong), it was a minority ATC union who were the most vocal in opposing it, and eventually got the support of the right in the Assemblée. In the end it was the politicians who killed it--being helpful as always, aren't they? :hmm:

In their defence, the SEFA (France's government-owned pilot school) train their students to do all their comms in English.

and flight crews monitoring the frequency which a lot do not do (from personal experience).

ATC watcher, you previous input into most debates on pprune have been constructive and helpful!
Unfortunately, I’m losing respect for you. Please reread you comments and reconsider you arguments. I feel you’re making a fool of yourself!

ATC Watcher,

You are totally wrong to claim that the mixed use of French & English did not play a significant part in the CDG fatal.

As HundredPercentPlease has already pointed out it is stated in the report as a contributary factor and the following is a direct quote from the report.

They were then transferred to tower listening frequency. He (The Shorts Capt) heard a message in French which he did not understand, and the instruction in English concerning them “line up and wait, you are number two”

The message in French that the Shorts Captain did not understand was the Take off clearance to the MD80 and he thought he was number to an aircraft that had just passed them on landing I believe, he then moved forward towards the runway.

Mixing languages causes confusion, degrades situational awareness, and played a part in the death of the Shorts 360 First Officer. None of this is up for debate.

Non-spanish speaker..
 

but I have worked for a spanish lowcost for two years.


I can honestly say that ATC-Watcher has a point.
The "incidents" I have had were not related to the dual language being used but poor ATC work. But since my spanish improved during my two years there, I was able to interpret instructions to other traffic and act accordingly, sometimes against ATC instructions. MAD, BCN, BIO, AGP, etc...

The situations where I followed ATC instructions to the letter, is when I had the most incidents.

Most ATC in spain are very pleasent to work with and nice to chat with, when on the jumpseat, but their training is lacking.

I also feel that the spanish pilots are to blame, not for speaking spanish, but for accepting non-standard instructions, which leads to ATC expecting everyone to follow these instructions. And when they do not, confusion arises...

(please, I am not a native english speaker, so don't kill me for my spelling erors:))

68+iou1 and Airbrake : Do not let your emotions and beliefs alter your judgment. Look at the facts to make your opinion, do not look for some facts you like to confirm a pre-conceived belief.

Airbrake : In an aviation incident or accident everything is up for debate. Nothing is black and white . They are generally no “good guys” and “ bag guys” but a lot of pre-conceived ideas , not always delivering very good advice. This is what I was trying to explain in a few lines. A one day lecture would be more appropriate though.
For the sake of the argument, on the CDG collision just ask yourself, ( as we did during the investigation ) if the take off clearance to the MD80 had been in English, should this had changed anything ? If you think it did, send me a PM , I’ll send you the reasoning why it did not.

ATC Watcher,

That is not the point.

Do you think safety would be:

• Improved
• No different
• Made worse

If all pilots on a frequency could understand all communications?

To the non-French/Spanish operating in their airspace, it appears that the preservation of their language is a higher priority than flight safety. And that has to be wrong, however long the lecture.

They don't. At least pay attention. Ever since this argument came up, I have watched my captains, later my copilots and the majority do not pay much attention to transmissions that do not start with their callsign and trigger their attention ("cocktail party" effect) in English-only environments. I have seen this on both sides of the Atlantic. To summarize:

No different if you look at Europe and Canada. Worse if you consider Latin America.

that depends. In the US, Southwest usually gets priority handling, in Germany LH or AB, in France AF, in the UK (depending what airport) UK carriers over foreign carriers. I have seen it all.

It is more an issue about the quality of an ATCO (or system) than the languages used. As ATC Watcher has pointed out correctly, no dual language or non-English transmission has directly lead to an accident. With every accident there are always lots of ifs and it is easy to blame it on a foreign language that one doesn't understand. Let's not start talking about UHF traffic that we cannot hear, that fact usually gets quietly ignored. :ooh:

100% Please: Politics and Flight safety do not mix well . I grant you that one without a wink.
But the problems with Spanish and French ATC are not language-based.

Regarding your question : if all pilots on a frequency could understand all communications : would that improve or make no difference. The obvious fast answer would be “improve of course “ . But can you scientifically (as opposed to emotionally ) prove it ?
That is much more difficult, and we tried but , especially for en route ATC ( as an IFR environment ) you will find that evidence does not support clear safety benefits there. In a VFR/VMC and ground movement International airports , there are clearer benefits. Now the politicians argue Nationalistic claims, and some pilots Unions argue that safety is enhanced when pilots and controller speak in their native tongue (e.g. . eliminations of ambiguities ) That stand was perhaps valid in the past until about a year ago . Now the argument is gone since we are all supposed to be English level 4.

I personally think that Spain and France will introduce soon English only in International airports and en route ATC. Not really to improve safety , as the authorities will argue it was never compromised because of it, but to allow mobility of ATC staff around Europe.

We’ll get the safety benefits for the wrong reasons, as always.

Now it is time for a Cognac . Cheers :ok:

ATC Watcher - I hope so. And, enjoy! :)

Squawk777, I think you missed the point. To say that speaking in two different languages is just as safe as one because you know some of the world's most gash pilots is not a convincing argument.

The "local a/c getting priority" issue was not in question - understanding what on earth is going on is. I speak good French, but in Spain I might as well have a SELCAL.

Iberia Primadonnas
 

Back to the topic:

Impressed yesterday afternoon with the patience shown by the MAD 36R TWR controller when verbally abused by a succession of Iberia Primadonnas & an Air Europa at the holding point. One even made an insulting remark in Spanish that "the foreigners should go to the back of the queue". Pity though that the controller was eventually bullied into doing just that, explaining somewhat unconvincingly that the Iberia's and Air Europa had CTOT's to meet :mad:

Barriers
 

I followed this thread with interest as I have operated in Spain for both UK and Spanish airlines. I happen to believe the ATC in Spain is not as bad as this thread makes out, but I do pay extra attention to TCAS targets and the airspace around me as I believe we all should. However my main point is that the "them and us" mentality is growing and someone or some organisation or union should get pilots and controllers together for on the job appreciation of what each other does. I have always been surprised how little understanding and actual experience the two branches of aviation have of one another. With the bitching and moaning expressed in these posts I strongly suggest the time is right for if not a "love in" some kind of formal joint experience activity.

^^^Excellent first post (even if it's after being a member since 04)

Ispra : absolutely ! IFALPA and IFATCA should perhaps take the lead on this.
9/11 killed the ATC familiarisation flights, now 10 years later it is time to re-open the subject.
Joint activities should be initiated . The joint simulators sessions for emergency training ( like those by Lufhansa- DFS in Frankfurt) or joint 2-3 days CRM-TRM training sessions ( like IranAir-Iran ATC does), or social events : ( get together evenings ) are the way to go.

ATC Watcher, basic one-day fam-flights are still possible with some companies. The problem stems from lack of financial support and lack of time for the controllers (who have to use their valuable OFF days for this). What has had more impact since 911 is that when flying as regular pax it is (with some small exceptions) no longer possible for ATCOs to simply identify themselves and make the ride up front as so often used to be the case. I remember the days when I used to make around 60-80 flights per year and probably spent 90% of the time at the pointy end.

Even that depends, over here in germany it is still possible for a local (german employed) ATCO to identify himself and ride up front. Well, except for flights into the UK and USA.

What ever problems the ATC are having there cause is not being help in the eyes of the travelling spanish public with incidents as I was a party too yesterday in MAD. Delayed flights one can live with there a way of life nowadays, But Seven published gate changes over the 6 hour delay must be close to a record.
The sight of 100 plus paying passengers some with small kids moving like sheep from one end of Terminal 2 to the other only to have there hopes dashed normally well after the ETD with a further new gate location, It had to be seen to be believed, Take my hat off to the Captain though came out to the gate finally on arrival and faced the crowd, :D My personal observation on yesterday Never have so many un necessary runway changes been initiated by so few to get there point of view across. :ugh:

Oddly enough, this "dangerous dual-language" ATC discussion seems to be the pet argument by monoglots. Having talked to bilingual pilots that fly into dual-language airspace and that do not understand the non-English/foreign transmissions, there doesn't seem to be the hype and hysteria as compared to certain other individuals. :suspect:

Another fact that I have brought up and no one really seemed to put any attention to is the use of UHF transmission to our military colleagues. It seems to me that the "dangerous dual-language" ATC argument is just directed at a certain country/culture to satisfy someone's needs. :ugh: :hmm:

And it's 7 7 7 7, please ;)

The airport company issue gate numbers to airlines and their passengers, not ATC. ATC pass the allocation to inbound pilots but it's not for them to decide who gets to park where.

So the JAL crew coming into Paris/Madrid after a 12 hour flight have the same level of situational awareness as if they were flying into London/Amsterdam?
Wake up and smell the roses!
It is a safety issue!

Is there not a fairly simple logistical issue here? Surely it's easier for ATCOs and pilots to learn 1 additional language for consistency of communication than it would be for all pilots to learn all languages for the destinations into which they might fly? I don't care whether it's Mandarin, Esperanto or Klingon but I'd like to think that those who work in the industry could take the shortest route to maximising safe instruction and advice.

UHF, CPDLC, etc...
 

UHF for the militaries;

CPDLC (yes, we need a readback, but when freq. is busy sometimes we get it after they start turning or descending);

and let's not forget my favourite: when there are aircraft released in one airspace to the adjacent airspace's controller. (For the thick ones out there, that means controller from sector A talking to an aircraft in sector B, therefore the only ones aware of what's going on are the controllers).

I am not shutting down the whole "using one language" based on these above, but seriously, awareness nowadays is overrated (read above, it happens more often than you think and you don't even know).

I understand that using two languages, in some situations, can be pretty bad (runway, ground movement in busy airports, small/busy APP/area sectors, etc..). But IMHO that is when there is already a bad judgment call. Bad calls can happen in any language.

Once a pilot told me off for giving a freq. change to another aircraft in another language...the aircraft was 100 NM away and increasing quickly. Now, if that would have been a vital instruction, it would have been said in english and, when applicable, TFC INFO would have issued to really put the awareness in there.

A bit of trust for some of us, please, we're not all dumb. And also, yes, sometimes you just don't need to know it all. If you would, we'd call you about it.

That's a lot of wisdom for a 10 year old!

Andrijander wrote:Oh dear. Who goes first?

Spanish Pride
 

Really impressed by Spanish ATC today... Outbound a slot of 1 hr 10, then a slot of 2 hrs 30 on the return. So the end result is our next two sectors are cancelled and 300 people who are in the Adriatic (no where near spain) have their holidays wrecked.
Congratulations.. You may be facing a pay cut, but you are killing us and our customers. We will lose our jobs and those associated with our industry.
I have listened to Spanair's, Airberlin's and Easy's all getting frustrated by your inability to provide the service we pay for, well done! You are achieving nothing but you are threatening our jobs, our passengers and your jobs in the long term!
Get back to doing your job as well as we do ours, be Proud to be Spanish, be Excellent!
Then respect will be restored!

They'll be putting themselves out of a job soon. If you have to follow "standard routing" including the entire SID/STAR as we did today....... why do you need controllers? The whole thing could be controlled by a computer.

Have to admit it's now becoming a royal pain in the ar$e to fly through France / Spain. Last night back from Germany....... direct DENUT - close to 250nm. The reason of "sector overload" is BS. They've managed for the last 10 years and we now have considerably LESS traffic than a couple of years ago. I think the airlines should get together and ask our new super coalition to ask the French and Spanish governments what the hell's is going on. They could even play the green card. :hmm:

A4 :mad:

For those who do not know me: I am a Spanish controller, but do not work in Spain.

2 things; just to keep them into consideration.

Directs at night are many times more feasible than during the day. Everywhere (coming from someone who, if allowed, can/will give you directs of over 300NM everytime). Less TFC and no military areas are normally the rule at those times, therefore the availability (both factors outside our control).

Where I work, our busiest day we managed aprox. 5100 flights in 1 day. This month, we are consistently managing between 4500 and 4900 flts/day. Not too far off our busiest (the 5000 was pre-crisis, so we could say we're back where we left it...or almost).

I do not know how good or bad was ATC in Spain (or France for that matter, since it seems they get the stick treatment often around here too), say, last year compared to now. I would think it has gotten worse for what I can read here in pprune. I also happen to read other pages, closer to the Spanish aviation sector, and they go along the same line (funnily enough the ones complaining there about the service "hitting the fan" are the very same controllers you are ranting about).

But I do know that if you ask the spanish government you're not gonna get the truth. Since you're pilots, how about you ask the Spanish pilot association (COPAC)? Maybe you'll be thrilled to know they just announced the creation of a technical committee including controllers and pilots (since the regulatory bodies which have to take technical decisions on operational areas seem to, consistently, forget to involve the operational players when taking those decisions). I think you'd get a better insight on what's going on. If you really care that is; if this is just a stress reliever: just disregard all after my introduction.

BTW, FPL adherence is coming, wether we like it or not. I must say where I work we don't like the idea (if there's space and you fit get in, we say). Unfortunately neighbouring centers do not think in the same way and these days we're getting a lot of...let's call it "peer pressure". Most of the time you guys up there don't know (maybe except after reaching your RFL, when it differs from FPL, and you're asked to go back down to FPL...or you're not allowed up altogether). But we can only take so much and for that long. I know first hand that, as soon as feasible, things will change in central europe too.

But then again at the end of the day, ATC is just the tip of the iceberg of ground support. There's lots happening beneath the surface. If you care to look, you'll see.

A.