Runway incursion incident at CDG 10/01/06?

[brain fade]

Re: Runway incursion incident at CDG 10/01/06?

Merue

Just for the record I have no complaint against CDG ATC. In fact I like the way they work.

This thread is not meant as an anti-CDG thread at all. I posted it as I saw (heard) something alarming. Luckily no one was hurt but it could have been another Tenerife.

I know Air France would prefer 'English only'.

I know dual language ops occasionally kill people.

I know CDG ATC know dual language ops occasionally kill people.

Shall we wait for the 'Big One', or stop it now?

[MungoP]

Re: Runway incursion incident at CDG 10/01/06?

There are extremely few ( I can only think of 'fatigue' as another one) recurring dangers currently out there waiting to get us in modern aviation.... Local language use when non-national a/c are on freq has proved lethal in the past...as has the use of very poor English...an easy problem to address, and it needs to be addressed now. If the aircraft that collided with the Streamline 330 had suffered a major accident killing all on board maybe...just maybe, the French ( who in my experience are the worst in Europe for this ) would have modified their work practises....the sad truth is..I doubt it.

[admiral ackbar]

Re: Runway incursion incident at CDG 10/01/06?

Just out of curiosity, how does YUL handle this?

[priscilla]

Re: Runway incursion incident at CDG 10/01/06?

What about an "english for dummies" language that will be learned by all the native english speaker...
Usually english pilots just use their usual phrases, or vocabulary...as they were speaking to another native...They don't realise how it's difficult to understand for us.
In France we usually learn lists of vocabulary (aeronautical, medical...). Why don't we use the same list in every countries? English speaking pilots will have a chance to be understood if they use "standard" vocabulary..

[Merue]

Re: Runway incursion incident at CDG 10/01/06?

Originally Posted by brain fade

Merue

Just for the record I have no complaint against CDG ATC. In fact I like the way they work.

This thread is not meant as an anti-CDG thread at all. I posted it as I saw (heard) something alarming. Luckily no one was hurt but it could have been another Tenerife.

I know Air France would prefer 'English only'.Shall we wait for the 'Big One', or stop it now?

I understand.

We have a real problem in CDG, because a lot of atc are much too young and suffer a lack of experience, and nothing is done to make the others stay.

This field is huge and complicate, but we still perform either approach control or ground and tower control.

Because our beautiful administration is unable to make any decision about the future (eg. separate approach and tower like in London, global approach with orly, or even Paris center...).

Even if this topic is not pleasant for me to read, I mostly agree with all your comments.

[A7700]

Originally Posted by Merue

I understand.
We have a real problem in CDG, because a lot of atc are much too young and suffer a lack of experience, and nothing is done to make the others stay.
This field is huge and complicate, but we still perform either approach control or ground and tower control.
Because our beautiful administration is unable to make any decision about the future (eg. separate approach and tower like in London, global approach with orly, or even Paris center...).
Even if this topic is not pleasant for me to read, I mostly agree with all your comments.

I am of the "old one ATCOs" who stays 26 years in CDG, and what I have experienced here is that 99,5 % of the runways incursions occurred in a single language environnement ( 100 % in US...!!!! even in the Niagara falls case on the 23/04/76)...
Then all pilots involved as the main cause of a runway incursion have always very good reasons to have done what they have done wrongly, including mainly a "Cockpit workload" that have lead them not to respect ATC instruction -even not listen to it - but that has left enough room to monitor the frequency for hearing ( not listening, its a full time job) instructions send to other aircraft...for the so called "situational awareness...
The use of English was described in ICAO annex 10 §5.2.1.1.2...as "something adopted, waiting for the set up and adoption of a better spoken expression ...”
From that time,is there something changed in a language that has never been builded up and certified - vocabulary, prononunciation..- By an Academy? (Complaints from UK ALPA in PPRUNE about the use of "so call English" in Africa and Far East?)
The Kent Jones - seems not to sound French...-study on the non scientific use of English in ATC (but for political reasons) is very clear.
And the only official serious study done in that field by bi-lingual experts ( R.sinclair-J.chouinard-Darrel.V.Heald ) for the Canadian minister of transport has lead to the conclusion that the level of safety required by ICAO do not request that individual ATC instructions should be understood ( at leat interpreted) by other traffic on the same frequency.
Then and finally why only non native English speakers should have to support the cost of learning a foreign language? The only safe aviation language should be building up, and learned by EVERYBODY in the loop so that each party should take care of the other party with the same level of skill. An update version of Esperanto could reach the requirement. (But may be, checking at the European statistics, Brits are, let say , too lazy to learn a second language...
In fact,the generic problem is not the use of English in aviation; it's the aggressive domination of the US totalitarisme, with the little poodle barking behind...Let's speak english or we will send you a carpet of B52'
PS/ Stop to report stupid things about the streamline accident in CDG : At no time the enquirers were able to determine if the SH330 crews was monitoring the frequency at the time the T/O clearance was given to the MD80 crew, with at the same time, having no cockpit workload to give them room to do the ATC job…
But may be we can look why , when told – even by error – to line up behind a departing, the view of a landing A/C can replace in the mind of the Captain ( not in the F/O one’s) a departing one.

[MungoP]

7700
"too lazy to learn a second language..."
What absolute Bullsh*t.... what about a 3rd language and a 4th...5th 6th ?
I'm flying in Afghanistan at the moment...should I be fluent in Pharsee and Pushtu ? If the international radio language had been decided on as being French I doubt that we'd be hearing these protestations from 7700...the fact is that English was chosen because it is overwhelmingly the world most spoken and understood language...and therefore fewer people would have to learn a new language... a safety factor in itself...
Way too many people have died because of inadequate communication due to language difficulties...I, together with my crew and the passengers and crew of a Fokker 100 came within seconds of a major disaster due to a controller mistakenly clearing the F100 fro an approach...in the local language...
A pilot being subjected to local language communications between controllers and other aircraft may as well be on the wrong frequency....we all need to be in the loop...

[ElNino]

it's the aggressive domination of the US totalitarisme, with the little poodle barking behind...Let's speak english or we will send you a carpet of B52'

I find it very worrying that someone who controls at the main airport I operate to uses such a pointless and irrelevant argument to justify a dual language strategy. Denial is ridiculous, a problem very much exists. Not to mention to appalling radio discipline of all too many AF crews.

[ATC Watcher]

This debate is like the phoenix, it dies and is reborn every 9 months or so, everytime with new people and everytime using the wrong arguments to justify thier views.

For info : Once more : the Facts :
ICAO is NOT manadating English only , quite the opposite in fact. ( read your Annexes)
Situation awareness is NOT required in IFR, and could even be dangerous if you modify a clearance because of what you percieved to have understood.
Causes of the CDG collison between the Short and the MD was NOT dual language use , but disorientation of both ATC and Crews as to where both a/c were ( which one was behind which ) combined with a conditional line up clearance (in English) to the Short that mistook a landing a/c for the departing one.( see the report)
CDG controllers are rather for English only, it is AF crews and Unon (SNPL) who theatened to strike if that measure was implemented.

If you want to justify better English understanding between crews and ATC,
then review for instance the Avianca 707 crash in JFK in Jan 1990. ( avail from the NTSB web site) The CVR transcript will give you plenty of material to debate this very important safety issue.

If you study carefully most accident reports you will find that lack of proper Phraseology is the key, not dual use of languages.

[FlyVMO]

SA is what??

Situation awareness is NOT required in IFR, and could even be dangerous if you modify a clearance because of what you percieved to have understood

Err..where to begin with this one...?
I was under the impression that controllers and pilots were [I]both[I] human, and prone to making mistakes. All transmissions being in a common language allows one to catch potentially deadly mistakes made by others-either in giving a clearance or reading it back. Please note this does NOT mean we as pilots are going to "change" a clearance. It means if we hear something that sounds wrong we'll ask for confirmation. Maybe Im just misunderstanding you, but I can't help feeling that your statement that SA is unneccessary under IFR is a little bit self important. Are you going to tell me controllers don't make mistakes? We all know (I think) accidents occur as a result of a chain of events-i.e you mentioned disorientation-every opportunity should be used to break that chain when one starts.
I appreciate that learning English is not easy, but then I don't think its too much compared to how much other material you have to know to be a pilot/ATCO. I would venture that English is the closest thing we have to a common language in aviation, making it the most practical solution at this time. Simply-fewest number of people to learn a new language. And yes I did learn another language (german), unfortunately I've forgotten it from lack of use (admittedly a sin almost as great as never having learned it).
If anyone has a better solution I'm all ears, but please be practical.

[vespasia]

Totally agree with Brain Fade on this one. I'm lucky enough to have English as my first language and I know that for non native english speakers this adds another dimension to training BUT what do ATCOs and pilots perceive as most important - their own language or SAFETY? I'm an ATCO and I love the job and if the rules changed tomorrow I'd learn French, Japanese, Russian, Spanish or whatever I needed. I simply cannot understand the blinkered approach which thinks that this is not a problem which needs urgently addressing. Maybe if you flying guys overwhelmed CDG with MORs we could start to get somewhere? ( definition of MOR - event which did, or if not corrected, would have affected safety. )

[junior_man]

Everybody not speaking the same language removes a barrier that could prevent an accident or incident.

It is nice to hear the controller clear somebody to land on the runway you are holding in position on, or hear another guy cleared for the same approach as you.

National pride isn't a reason to reduce safety.

BTW, same dual language problem in YUL as well.

[ehwatezedoing]

Originally Posted by junior_man

BTW, same dual language problem in YUL as well.

So quote us a incident or accident report related to it.
Because I'm not aware of any.

I have to admit, it's not the same level of traffic as CDG.

[junior_man]

Less safe may not mean an accident, but less safe is still less safe. Removing situational awareness by not using the same language just as a matter of national pride?

I think it is a matter of is it more safe to use a different languages or more safe to all use the same language?

Maybe we should start using regional slang as well.

Yessir, it's raiinin laaake a cow peein on a flat rock. Rough as a stucco bathtub too.

Or would you prefer some standard format perhaps that all can understand?


BTW, I am from YUL. Not just some Yankee.

[Gretchenfrage]

"Situation awareness is NOT required in IFR"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This statement falls into the same category as "even a grandmother can fly one of our products...."

Jeeeeeezzzzz.

Just READ your statement again, very slowly and then think again.
GF

[ATC Watcher]

Gretchenfrage, do not take out remarks outside their context, we are discussing R/T dual language issues here.

I maintain my remark , which is valid in IFR , in R/T procedure as defined by ICAO . You might not like the idea of it , but it is so much a fact that all the future communications plans (including ICAO FANS) will replace R/T by data link , where , each aircrfat will receive its unique clearances, without having any posibility to " read" the clearances to other a/c in its vicinity.

But even today,in large ATC units, with multi collapse/bandoxed frequencies , vertical sectors splits, etc.. you only hear a fraction of what you were hearing a few years ago.
Basing your situation awareness, and acting upon it , based on what you hear on the R/T can be as dangerous as using a TCAS display to spot other traffic.

( the underlined words above are the key words )

[junior_man]

Well, loss of situational awareness in IFR is a red flag for CRM. Situational awareness is always required. Stuational awareness is knowing where you are, where you are going and what is going on around you.
Now, perhaps you are just refffering to knowing where the other aircraft are? Yes, one doesn't keep track of where everybody else is enroute, but then, I am not usually talking to the tower or ground control enroute either.
When on the ground such things as hearing somebody else cleared to land on the runway you are holding on, or cleared to cross the runway you are taking off on IS important.
And no, you generally don't go off changing your clearance without asking, but sometimes the controller can be very glad you asked.

[DW11]

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

Basing your situation awareness, and acting upon it , based on what you hear on the R/T can be as dangerous as using a TCAS display to spot other traffic.

The alternative being a 737 and A330 playing chicken in Chicago.

[junior_man]

I think you mean BOS. Everybody is lucky the 737 crew saw the 330 and took evasive action. The problem there was two different frequencies for intersecting runways, so nobody could hear the other crew getting the clearance. That situation has been rectified so that you wil be on the same frequency and will be able to hear if to aircraft are given takeoff clc on intersecting runways. The use of different languages would negate this.

Also an incident in PVD a few years ago where one crew got lost in the dense ground fog and taxied onto the active runway. Another crew was cleared for takeoff but knew the airplane was lost in the fog and wisely declined to T/O. Avoiding a collision on the ground between a 737 and 757.

Paying attention to what is going on around you is good airmanship.

[DW11]

junior_man,

I did indeed mean BOS.