French ATC
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: minnesota
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i tried finding www.cfpilots.com! doesn't exist when i type it in. is there another address?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Geneva
Age: 51
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quebecer
I am an air traffic controller having spent some time in Ottawa, Toronto, Geneva Switzerland and presently in Bahrain. I have worked with french in Geneva and shortly after I arrived there the management changed the "rules" and said we could no longer use french on the frequency in the upper airspace. The pilots got along just fine, Air France made up for 20% of the traffic and no problems at all. Speaking any other language than english in ATC is a "convenience". Have I seen situations where safety was compromised for using other than english. ABSOLUTELY. Now I cannot speak for all gulf countries but all R/T in Bahrain is english. The arguement used by many that "at least if we let them use their own language they can communicate better".. Sorry that's a load of crap. If you cannot speak english you should not be flying. Some say pilots don't have situational awareness. I disagree, most do have a real good idea what's going on. I was even thanked by a BA 747 crew for speaking english in Geneva. He said it was the first time he had heard ATC in Geneva speaking english to Air France and thought it was a great thing for safety. After all, what does it hurt us to speak the same language?
I am an air traffic controller having spent some time in Ottawa, Toronto, Geneva Switzerland and presently in Bahrain. I have worked with french in Geneva and shortly after I arrived there the management changed the "rules" and said we could no longer use french on the frequency in the upper airspace. The pilots got along just fine, Air France made up for 20% of the traffic and no problems at all. Speaking any other language than english in ATC is a "convenience". Have I seen situations where safety was compromised for using other than english. ABSOLUTELY. Now I cannot speak for all gulf countries but all R/T in Bahrain is english. The arguement used by many that "at least if we let them use their own language they can communicate better".. Sorry that's a load of crap. If you cannot speak english you should not be flying. Some say pilots don't have situational awareness. I disagree, most do have a real good idea what's going on. I was even thanked by a BA 747 crew for speaking english in Geneva. He said it was the first time he had heard ATC in Geneva speaking english to Air France and thought it was a great thing for safety. After all, what does it hurt us to speak the same language?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" tried finding www.cfpilots.com! doesn't exist when i type it in. is there another address?"
It's a Canadian website, hence the normal domain is .ca - www.cfpilots.ca works!
It's a Canadian website, hence the normal domain is .ca - www.cfpilots.ca works!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, there has been an incident, where French control at Ottawa of a landing Metro landed (or overshot , cant remember now) overtop of a positioned AC regional jet. The regional jet pilot was cleared to position to hold and a Metro had to overshoot. The RJ captain reported that the Metro was being handled in French and that he had no idea what was happening. The TSB investigators cited bilingual control of the aircraft as a contributing cause of the incident however that finding was dismissed by the higher up politically correctors.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 43° 40' 47" , -80° 25' 28"
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to add another fact to the discussion, I've just come across a reference to a study Transport Canada did, investigating the safety issues surrounding bilingual ATC. This study took place between 1976 and 1981 (sorry, can't find the report, but could probably get it from the people involved or the TC library).
Transport Canada regs still allow bilingual ATC, so I guess they decided there was no significant danger (your starter for ten: define 'significant'...).
Transport Canada regs still allow bilingual ATC, so I guess they decided there was no significant danger (your starter for ten: define 'significant'...).
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Not a huge sand box but very nice winters anymore
Age: 57
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not so sure that report would still be valid. The amount of traffic has to have gone up quite a bit over the past twenty or more years since that report came out. Maybe TC needs to do another one without any political influence.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Geneva
Age: 51
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
French in Canadian ATC is still used because it would be a political nightmare for anyone who tried to remove it. The only way it will ever happen is when an accident happens that is 100% blamed on the fact that all parties involved were not using one language. A couple years ago a plane almost landed on another in position at YOW..how much more of a close call do you need??? I speak both fluently, I feel sorry for the poor guy who will be involved in that accident when it happens.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grouchy, why don't you tell all the findings and the causes of the incident you are refering to.
Basically french was not the cause of this incident as you seem to imply. The report states: "A risk of collision occurred as the result of an ineffective controller handover procedure..."
Amongst the 18 findings of the report only one mentionned the fact that the RJ crew did not undestand french and it is in 13th position. Hence, your assertion that it was remove for political reason is absolutely false.
If you want to check, page 22 of the report as para. 2.5 Language of Communications covering this part which according to you was not in the report.
EuroATC, you should also reread the report if you have it.
Because, both of you, are guilty of intellectual dishonesty.
Basically french was not the cause of this incident as you seem to imply. The report states: "A risk of collision occurred as the result of an ineffective controller handover procedure..."
Amongst the 18 findings of the report only one mentionned the fact that the RJ crew did not undestand french and it is in 13th position. Hence, your assertion that it was remove for political reason is absolutely false.
If you want to check, page 22 of the report as para. 2.5 Language of Communications covering this part which according to you was not in the report.
EuroATC, you should also reread the report if you have it.
Because, both of you, are guilty of intellectual dishonesty.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not guilty of intellectual anything.
I gave you a 6 or so sentence response to what is actually a very long report that I read an even longer time ago.
As the captain on one of these aircraft is a very good friend of mine, I was in the loop, if you wish, the day it happened and read his report before it was even submitted to the safety board. He told me and I read if first hand that his main cause of this incident was the bilingual handling of the 2 a/c in question.
If the politically correctors chose to bury the facts as far down as number 13 I have no control over that. That's the way they operate in Canada.
Just as an aside, why was it the RJ crew not understanding French, rather than the metro crew not monitoring and maintaining a listening watch in English that you refer to in number 13?.
I gave you a 6 or so sentence response to what is actually a very long report that I read an even longer time ago.
As the captain on one of these aircraft is a very good friend of mine, I was in the loop, if you wish, the day it happened and read his report before it was even submitted to the safety board. He told me and I read if first hand that his main cause of this incident was the bilingual handling of the 2 a/c in question.
If the politically correctors chose to bury the facts as far down as number 13 I have no control over that. That's the way they operate in Canada.
Just as an aside, why was it the RJ crew not understanding French, rather than the metro crew not monitoring and maintaining a listening watch in English that you refer to in number 13?.
Grouchy, unilingual English radio communication is not a guarantee against the type of incident you describe. Stick USAir 1493 into your search engine and see what you come up with, then tell me if I'm wrong.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How did I get on the wrong side of this argument?
The original question wasn't getting any responses so I thought I would respond, don't shoot the messenger.
As hard as you try you will not change what has already happened.
The original question wasn't getting any responses so I thought I would respond, don't shoot the messenger.
As hard as you try you will not change what has already happened.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Not a huge sand box but very nice winters anymore
Age: 57
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pigb,
Unilingual French radio communication is not a guarantee either.
This incident describes what can be a major contributing factor to an incident/accident.
Why is it that the only people who have their head in the sand over these issues are the ones who are politically motivated and not flight safety orientated?
Unilingual French radio communication is not a guarantee either.
This incident describes what can be a major contributing factor to an incident/accident.
Why is it that the only people who have their head in the sand over these issues are the ones who are politically motivated and not flight safety orientated?
Grouchy, it was not my intention to shoot the messenger. I interpreted your post to mean that if all parties in the incident you alluded to had spoken English, the event would not have occurred. I used the example of USAir 1432 to show, as the song says, 'tain't necessarily so. I'm sorry if you took it the wrong way.
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/1991/1991-3.htm
Saudi, agreed that unilingual French is no guarantee either. A loss of separation occurred between an ATR42 and a L1011 near the QB VOR some years back where all the parties involved were communicating in French. As that incident and the USAir737/WS Metro accident prove, **** can happen in any language.
You accuse me of two things, being politically motivated and not flight safety oriented. I'm retired. I don't have to kiss anyone's ass for any reason, least of all for political motives. As for my dedication to flight safety, I don't happen to believe that a French Quebecer should have to learn English to do circuits and bumps at the local airport in St. Ciboire. French communication is offered at all Quebec airports, and at Ottawa. I'd be the first to agree this was a political decision, but presumably a risk analysis was carried out before this became law twenty or so years ago and the risk was deemed minimal. As things stand now, if that unilingual guy is out there chances are he'll be talking to someone and obtaining the traffic not keeping mum and blundering around in somebody elses airspace.
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/1991/1991-3.htm
Saudi, agreed that unilingual French is no guarantee either. A loss of separation occurred between an ATR42 and a L1011 near the QB VOR some years back where all the parties involved were communicating in French. As that incident and the USAir737/WS Metro accident prove, **** can happen in any language.
You accuse me of two things, being politically motivated and not flight safety oriented. I'm retired. I don't have to kiss anyone's ass for any reason, least of all for political motives. As for my dedication to flight safety, I don't happen to believe that a French Quebecer should have to learn English to do circuits and bumps at the local airport in St. Ciboire. French communication is offered at all Quebec airports, and at Ottawa. I'd be the first to agree this was a political decision, but presumably a risk analysis was carried out before this became law twenty or so years ago and the risk was deemed minimal. As things stand now, if that unilingual guy is out there chances are he'll be talking to someone and obtaining the traffic not keeping mum and blundering around in somebody elses airspace.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Geneva
Age: 51
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
breguet
Regardless what you say, two aircraft speaking different languages was a cause of the incident. Don't give me that crap about "Read the report"... not sure what field you work in but you should know as well as I do, the truth is not always presented in incident/accident reports. I was involved in an incident where I was a coordinator and the radar controller lost sep down to 1 mile/400 feet. It was pure controller error but the report was half a dozen pages talking about teamwork and equipmen etc... The use of French in Canada is purely political. If private pilot xx wants to fly around and do circuits at the local airport I have no prob with him being provided french ATC as most others flying at that airport are probably french speaking as well. French or anything others language aside from english has no place in the IFR ATC world period. Every ATC provider in the world is making efforts to harmonize airspace, procedures, equipment.. the one things they have problems with is the language.. why??? POLITICS! The Swiss made a huge decision back a couple years ago, no more FRENCH R/T above FL 270. The world did not fall apart and those who we were accomodating in french just spoke english and no one complained.
No one can accuse me of being anti-french or a french hater since french is my first language and I was born and raised in a french community. I just believe everyone should use 1 language.
breguet.... just to add
"Basically french was not the cause of this incident as you seem to imply. The report states: "A risk of collision occurred as the result of an ineffective controller handover procedure..."
Amongst the 18 findings of the report only one mentionned the fact that the RJ crew did not undestand french and it is in 13th position. Hence, your assertion that it was remove for political reason is absolutely false."
I am very aware of this incident and even know those 2 controllers who were involved. Was also a poor visibility day in Ottawa tower and the fact that an aircraft was in position was somewhat overlooked. If R/T was in English there is a HUGE HUGE chance it would have been saved earlier. Incidents happen when a chain of errors is present. Than series of errors could have been stopped, use of 1 language on the radio is a safety net. Bottom line, if everyone does their job 100% correctly 100% of the time then who cares what anyone speaks. IF the airplane turn when i tell him or climbs and descends when I tell him too... and the controller spots every single conflict then we would live in a perfect world... but we don't... In ATC, we have in certain places 2 people working a sector.. why? Second set of eyes..., we have a conflict alert on the radar...why? because we might make a mistake, we have minimum safe altitude warning..why? because you the pilot might make a mistake... the list goes on and on and on... and for me.. if i have to fly to go see grandma somewhere far away.. i am damn glad for all these safety nets... 1 R/T language is part of that list and unfortunately for POLITICAL reasons we can't change it in Canada....
Regardless what you say, two aircraft speaking different languages was a cause of the incident. Don't give me that crap about "Read the report"... not sure what field you work in but you should know as well as I do, the truth is not always presented in incident/accident reports. I was involved in an incident where I was a coordinator and the radar controller lost sep down to 1 mile/400 feet. It was pure controller error but the report was half a dozen pages talking about teamwork and equipmen etc... The use of French in Canada is purely political. If private pilot xx wants to fly around and do circuits at the local airport I have no prob with him being provided french ATC as most others flying at that airport are probably french speaking as well. French or anything others language aside from english has no place in the IFR ATC world period. Every ATC provider in the world is making efforts to harmonize airspace, procedures, equipment.. the one things they have problems with is the language.. why??? POLITICS! The Swiss made a huge decision back a couple years ago, no more FRENCH R/T above FL 270. The world did not fall apart and those who we were accomodating in french just spoke english and no one complained.
No one can accuse me of being anti-french or a french hater since french is my first language and I was born and raised in a french community. I just believe everyone should use 1 language.
breguet.... just to add
"Basically french was not the cause of this incident as you seem to imply. The report states: "A risk of collision occurred as the result of an ineffective controller handover procedure..."
Amongst the 18 findings of the report only one mentionned the fact that the RJ crew did not undestand french and it is in 13th position. Hence, your assertion that it was remove for political reason is absolutely false."
I am very aware of this incident and even know those 2 controllers who were involved. Was also a poor visibility day in Ottawa tower and the fact that an aircraft was in position was somewhat overlooked. If R/T was in English there is a HUGE HUGE chance it would have been saved earlier. Incidents happen when a chain of errors is present. Than series of errors could have been stopped, use of 1 language on the radio is a safety net. Bottom line, if everyone does their job 100% correctly 100% of the time then who cares what anyone speaks. IF the airplane turn when i tell him or climbs and descends when I tell him too... and the controller spots every single conflict then we would live in a perfect world... but we don't... In ATC, we have in certain places 2 people working a sector.. why? Second set of eyes..., we have a conflict alert on the radar...why? because we might make a mistake, we have minimum safe altitude warning..why? because you the pilot might make a mistake... the list goes on and on and on... and for me.. if i have to fly to go see grandma somewhere far away.. i am damn glad for all these safety nets... 1 R/T language is part of that list and unfortunately for POLITICAL reasons we can't change it in Canada....
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: around the world
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.bea-fr.org/francais/rapports/rap.htm
Type Modèle Immat Catégorie
avion, Shorts 330, G-SSWN, Transport public,
Pays Lieu - Departement Date Langue
France Roissy - 95 25/05/2000 english
Résumé
The MD 83 registered F-GHED was cleared to take off from runway 27 at Paris Charles de Gaulle. The Shorts 330 registered G-SSWN was then cleared to line up and to wait as "number two". The controller believed that the two aircraft were at the threshold of the runway, whereas the Shorts had been cleared to use an intermediate taxiway. The Shorts entered the runway at the moment the MD 83 was reaching its rotation speed. The tip of the MD 83's left wing went through the Shorts 330's cockpit and hit both pilots. The MD 83 aborted its takeoff. The HTML version is not yet available.
Type Modèle Immat Catégorie
avion, Mc Donnell Douglas MD 83, F-GHED, Transport public,
Pays Lieu - Departement Date Langue
France Roissy - 95 25/05/2000 english
Résumé
The MD 83 registered F-GHED was cleared to take off from runway 27 at Paris Charles de Gaulle. The Shorts 330 registered G-SSWN was then cleared to line up and to wait as "number two". The controller believed that the two aircraft were at the threshold of the runway, whereas the Shorts had been cleared to use an intermediate taxiway. The Shorts entered the runway at the moment the MD 83 was reaching its rotation speed. The tip of the MD 83's left wing went through the Shorts 330's cockpit and hit both pilots. The MD 83 aborted its takeoff.
Type Modèle Immat Catégorie
avion, Shorts 330, G-SSWN, Transport public,
Pays Lieu - Departement Date Langue
France Roissy - 95 25/05/2000 english
Résumé
The MD 83 registered F-GHED was cleared to take off from runway 27 at Paris Charles de Gaulle. The Shorts 330 registered G-SSWN was then cleared to line up and to wait as "number two". The controller believed that the two aircraft were at the threshold of the runway, whereas the Shorts had been cleared to use an intermediate taxiway. The Shorts entered the runway at the moment the MD 83 was reaching its rotation speed. The tip of the MD 83's left wing went through the Shorts 330's cockpit and hit both pilots. The MD 83 aborted its takeoff. The HTML version is not yet available.
Type Modèle Immat Catégorie
avion, Mc Donnell Douglas MD 83, F-GHED, Transport public,
Pays Lieu - Departement Date Langue
France Roissy - 95 25/05/2000 english
Résumé
The MD 83 registered F-GHED was cleared to take off from runway 27 at Paris Charles de Gaulle. The Shorts 330 registered G-SSWN was then cleared to line up and to wait as "number two". The controller believed that the two aircraft were at the threshold of the runway, whereas the Shorts had been cleared to use an intermediate taxiway. The Shorts entered the runway at the moment the MD 83 was reaching its rotation speed. The tip of the MD 83's left wing went through the Shorts 330's cockpit and hit both pilots. The MD 83 aborted its takeoff.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Not a huge sand box but very nice winters anymore
Age: 57
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PigB,
I wasn't accusing you of anything. It was more of a general statement. You do raise an interesting point. What about this french only pilot doing circuits and bumps at the local airport in St. Ciboire. Do you think then a restriction should be applied to his/her licence that limits them to Quebec borders?
It still would not help if this pilot then decided to toddle into Ottawa or any other major airport where he could only speak french. I believe that this person would be a hazard to flight safety.
Communication is one of the most important factors in the safe conduct and execution of flight operations. Anything that jeopardizes this needs to be addressed regardless of the political implications.
I wasn't accusing you of anything. It was more of a general statement. You do raise an interesting point. What about this french only pilot doing circuits and bumps at the local airport in St. Ciboire. Do you think then a restriction should be applied to his/her licence that limits them to Quebec borders?
It still would not help if this pilot then decided to toddle into Ottawa or any other major airport where he could only speak french. I believe that this person would be a hazard to flight safety.
Communication is one of the most important factors in the safe conduct and execution of flight operations. Anything that jeopardizes this needs to be addressed regardless of the political implications.
