blissbak, do not confuse the language(s) that ICAO uses in its publications with the language used for radio communications.

It is almost inevitable that an organisation which produces documents for a global audience will have to publish different language versions in order to be accessible in the common tongue of all regions. But the language used for RTF comms - so that there is common situational; awareness etc. - is something very different.

Yea that's just a coincidence that on frequency english is replaced most of all by French, Spanish and Russian (dunno about chinese and arabish yet) languages and they are among the 6 told before :hmm:
Checking out Annex 10 I can't find anything about english as a must do in the RTF so far ...

Not a coincidence - just the most common second language in a particular region.

As to Annex 10 - you need Volume 2 para 5.2.1.2. It says:

You didn't get my point, I'll do an eg. ...
French rules say that french language, except about special cases like training ,is used between pilots and controller both french and french language is listed before the english one.
On the contrary the netherland AIP is very synthetic: "The radio communication shall be executed in the English language".
Even if in Italy, where we are not on the top list about the english language, it's the one to be used mainly, and you can bet it's done 90% of the time.

That's a matter of mentality.

English for dummies
 

One more time a stupid use of this accident to support the mandatory use of the so called "language of aviation" ( defined as such only by native english speakers and certainly not by ICAO).
The captain of the Short was even unable to comply with a simple ATC clearance ( He forced the copilot -despite his reluctance- to line up behind a landing when he was told to line up in sequence - nobody in front of him !- after a departure...The ground ATC ask him before to monitor the TWR frequency and nobody knows if they were already monitoring ( hearing, listening, discussing ..) at the time the take off clearance was given to the MD82.
The copilot was killed but why the captain suicide himself some time after ?
Why the MD82 crew do not react to the "english" clearance given to the Short and acknowledge from an intersection in front of him ?
Each time the same aswer : "workload on board", so situational awareness is a kind of ghost with high and low

The so called "situational awareness" is just part of the arrogance of the airside against the "ground side"..and a lot of pilots rate themselves instant ATC expert in any occasion until to react against ATC. But here there is nobody to report !

The future "dixit" Eurocontrol and Sesar is data link : Do you envisage to print on board all messages to all aircraft on the same frequency ?

And to come back to language , which english you are talking about ? Can you give me the adress of the english language academy that define "by the book" what are the rules commanding the words, grammar and other synthax..
Why despite it is mandatory in all other aviation sector, there is no safety case about the choice of this language ?

The real problem is not safety: it is the american imperialism over the world. Dont make the mistake , "english" is the hammer but the blacksmith is american...and i am not sure they are speaking the same language !!!

Many less people are native English speakers than Spanish or Mandarin speakers... Looking at it from a global majority point of view, in aviation, these two languages should be the only finalists in a race for a single unique aviation language - but that obviously won't happen.

I've flown in France/Quebec with French on frequency, Spain with Spanish on frequency, China with Mandarin on frequency. It's a little spooky, it's difficult to picture the overall situation, but after a few flights one picks up basics like cleared to land/take-off and numbers and besides it's the controller's job to control and the pilot's job to fly.
I'd rather the locals be able to communicate effectively than stumble over their R/T making a mess of the frequency or misunderstanding an instruction.

I have utmost faith and respect for my colleagues on the other side of the radio, and if they make a mistake I have TCAS, and eyes. I probably make more mistakes on a daily basis too... Not a very popular view but I stand by it.

S.

babotika - the most reasoned and realistic post in the thread.

Babotika: absolutely. One of the Pilot job (in IFR) is to follow ATC instructions, and controller job is to ensure separation using the best communications means. Language is only one issue, phraseology is another one. In my experience of 40 years wrong phraseology has caused quite a large number of accidents , but simultenaous use of local and English on the R/T ? none that I can remember..

CDG collison or Dan air Teneriffe were not caused by bilingual use on the R/T.

Anyway , as already mentionned above, with data link coming up, this debate will die itself naturally.

Years ago. i went to convert my licences to Dutch ones. I had to resit ll the exams, but the one that most annoyed me. being already a controller based in the Netherlands) was having to take an R/T one (I failed BTW. Fascinating thing was chatting to aguy before the exam, a businessman who had bought his own plane. The only English he could speak was enough to get him round the circuit as long as nothing unusual, like "extend downind" was said. He passed. I failed.

The point is - how much use ill data links see at th bottom end of civil aviation?

I recall seeing a BAW and AFR incident at CDG. The BAW was given clearance to cross the active runway in English, and immediately after the AFR given clearance to take-off in French.

The BAW ended up expediting the cross and the AFR had to abort.

One of the causal factors attributed to the incident was that the AFR and BAW pilots did not understand/process the others clearance, and that as the controller was using two different languages there wasn't that moment of "this isn't right" which you get when you say "Cross 26L" and "Cleared for take-off 26L" immediately after one another.

I fully empathise with people having to learn a new language for ATC, but I do feel in an international environment a single language (I don't care which) and fully standard RTF would improve safety.

I remember a French Canadian controller, who told the pilot of a US N registered aircraft, that he wasn´t permitted to speak French on the radio(!) (Even though the pilot in question speaks French) because he was not in a F or C registered aircraft.

Shortly thereafter, he asked to proceed "direct Seven Islands." ATC-"The name is Sept Iles!" Pilot-"If I can´t speak French on your frequency, then it is SEVEN ISLANDS! Now, am I cleared or not?!"

"cleared as requested......."