Runway incursion incident at CDG 10/01/06?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Swanwick
Age: 44
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely SA can be even more important during an emergency. Other aircraft can try and assist any way they can, or can keep an even greater look-out if things are really going wrong (like an emergency descent due to decompression).
AF pilot's English, on the whole isn't great. However, the pilots who seem to have the biggest language barrier are the Americans!! Ha ha, oh well
AF pilot's English, on the whole isn't great. However, the pilots who seem to have the biggest language barrier are the Americans!! Ha ha, oh well
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bordeaux, France
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And a Welsh Flight from CDG gets in the Local Press... 
Beware lots of careering, juddering and even booboos, when seconds from death etc..
Cardiff-bound flight in runway 'near miss'
Apparently the Pilot thought it was a "Close Shave".......Any more cheese Gromit?
Regards, SD.
Beware lots of careering, juddering and even booboos, when seconds from death etc..Cardiff-bound flight in runway 'near miss'
Apparently the Pilot thought it was a "Close Shave".......Any more cheese Gromit?
Regards, SD.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 31-43,000 feet ALL the friggin' time!
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cali
Originally Posted by acm
As somebody mention earlier on, dual language never kills anybody so far.
If we go back to the beginning, Wilbur and Orville spoke English.
We can also thank them for the creation of hand signals, but that's another can of worms.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: edge of reality
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Dual language never killed anyone so far..."
Did someone really say that ? Whoever it was probably resembles a 6ft tall bird with its head firmly buries in the ground...the use of poor English has very definately killed many people and only the French would try to oil their way out of any responsibility for the CDG Streamline collision by stating that the Streamline crew might not have heard the take-off instruction to the other aircraft even if given in English...pathetic comment... I know without any doubt whatsoever that I'm alive today along with probably 100 other people for no better reason than a cloud was no bigger than it was.... had we not popped out of it when we did we would not have missed colliding with another aircraft that had mistakenly been given an approach clearance...in Spanish.
Is that acceptable to you 'dual' language supporters ?....
It's certainly not to me.
Did someone really say that ? Whoever it was probably resembles a 6ft tall bird with its head firmly buries in the ground...the use of poor English has very definately killed many people and only the French would try to oil their way out of any responsibility for the CDG Streamline collision by stating that the Streamline crew might not have heard the take-off instruction to the other aircraft even if given in English...pathetic comment... I know without any doubt whatsoever that I'm alive today along with probably 100 other people for no better reason than a cloud was no bigger than it was.... had we not popped out of it when we did we would not have missed colliding with another aircraft that had mistakenly been given an approach clearance...in Spanish.
Is that acceptable to you 'dual' language supporters ?....
It's certainly not to me.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 'round the world
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May we just consider that Tenerife accident occured with ATC and Pilots (KLM and Pan Am) speaking English ?
Dual language operations are not a problem if everyone works properly in a safe environment.
Maybe focusing on this small part of the incident will be the best way to avoid the good questions...
Dual language operations are not a problem if everyone works properly in a safe environment.
Maybe focusing on this small part of the incident will be the best way to avoid the good questions...
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: edge of reality
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F320
Tennerife.... As far as I remember the 2 aircraft were not communicating directly with each other...the controller had a very difficult to understand accent ... this was one of the accidents I was referring to above regarding the use of 'poor' English.
The very near-miss that I suffered was during a period when I had already queried an instruction to another aircraft ( I speak a little Spanish )... I was assured in English that 'all is OK'.... another rapid instruction to the other aircraft in Spanish was beyond my level and I just had to believe 'all is OK'... then we came out of the cloud...
Give it up... there is a major safety risk in the use of two languages... we may as well be on different frequencies.
Tennerife.... As far as I remember the 2 aircraft were not communicating directly with each other...the controller had a very difficult to understand accent ... this was one of the accidents I was referring to above regarding the use of 'poor' English.
The very near-miss that I suffered was during a period when I had already queried an instruction to another aircraft ( I speak a little Spanish )... I was assured in English that 'all is OK'.... another rapid instruction to the other aircraft in Spanish was beyond my level and I just had to believe 'all is OK'... then we came out of the cloud...
Give it up... there is a major safety risk in the use of two languages... we may as well be on different frequencies.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: edge of reality
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a clever or a valid response Missy...at very large airports more than one frequency is inevitablle but you won't have two frequencies giving take-off and landing clearences for the same runway at the same time !
If ATC or another pilot is screwing up...I want to hear about it. Maybe from now on...every time we hear a French controller give an instruction to another aircraft in French that involves our route or runway we should ask for him to confirm that it does not clash with our proposed intentions... see how long they'll put up with that.
If ATC or another pilot is screwing up...I want to hear about it. Maybe from now on...every time we hear a French controller give an instruction to another aircraft in French that involves our route or runway we should ask for him to confirm that it does not clash with our proposed intentions... see how long they'll put up with that.
MungoP, I was referring to this incident...
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=Boston+US+Air
Runway safety is paramount. Practices that do not afford the greatest protection should be eliminated.
As at March 5 2008 ICAO language proficiency of flight crews, air traffic controllers and aeronautical station operators come into play whereby those requried to communicate in a language other than a mother tongue or native language shall be formally evaluated.
Try this link for further information:
http://www.icao.int/cgi/goto_m.pl?ic...arch_icao.html
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=Boston+US+Air
Runway safety is paramount. Practices that do not afford the greatest protection should be eliminated.
As at March 5 2008 ICAO language proficiency of flight crews, air traffic controllers and aeronautical station operators come into play whereby those requried to communicate in a language other than a mother tongue or native language shall be formally evaluated.
Try this link for further information:
http://www.icao.int/cgi/goto_m.pl?ic...arch_icao.html
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: edge of reality
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Missy...
Interesting link that... Sorry if I'm getting a bit Peeed with some of the replys here but some of the inane inputs here trying to argue against the obvious have been getting to me...
Interesting link that... Sorry if I'm getting a bit Peeed with some of the replys here but some of the inane inputs here trying to argue against the obvious have been getting to me...
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This starts to look like an Allo-Allo ! episode.
So I will say only once
before I start :
The obvious is of course a single use of one language on the RT , and that should also obviously be English.
The obvious thing is to have English only at all international airports ( and that includes CDG !) and even at regional airports as soon as one international , non native aircraft is on the frequency. ( as practiced in Finland for instance )
Now that makes a lot of sense, but unfortunately, the ICAO rules are saying otherwise, and so far no real safety case can be made to oppose dual languages on the R/T .
Tenerife was no dual language, and accent did not play a role at all. Everyone understood everyone else perfectly, the problem was more a crossed RT call, and that one could have helped preventing the collision. Many changes were made by ICAO after TFN, but sadly the technical solution to prevent double transmissions on VHF ( i.e. CONTRAN) has never been mandated. but that is another story.
CDG : sorry , not even a contributing factor, just a possible way that could perhaps have prevented the collision, and for this it is part of the recommendations of the final report ( sadly ignored by the French DGAC to this day )
Cali : no way, the mistake was done much earlier on.
Now the near totality of the runway incursions and collisions are in pure English R/T environment and most of them are in the US. This is not a political statement it is fact.
On the ICAO language proficiency mandate of March 2008, it is for ALL languages spoken on the RT , not only English . Although I agree that that will definitively raise the English level of many Crews and controllers worldwide, this mandate will also limit the mobility of staff as now, level 4 will be required in the second language(s) being legally use on the RT.
So there is still a long way full of hurdles for the UK controllers to work in Aix en Provence ..
So , unfortunately, dual language on the R/T are here to stay I am afraid .
Finally for Capt pit bull , you do not have to buy anything from me because I sell nothing. If you want to see a confirmation of what I said , check ICAO Annexes under IFR rules. It is all there. There is a difference between what is required and what would perhaps make sense for some . A bit like ETOPS..
.
So I will say only once
before I start :The obvious is of course a single use of one language on the RT , and that should also obviously be English.
The obvious thing is to have English only at all international airports ( and that includes CDG !) and even at regional airports as soon as one international , non native aircraft is on the frequency. ( as practiced in Finland for instance )
Now that makes a lot of sense, but unfortunately, the ICAO rules are saying otherwise, and so far no real safety case can be made to oppose dual languages on the R/T .
Tenerife was no dual language, and accent did not play a role at all. Everyone understood everyone else perfectly, the problem was more a crossed RT call, and that one could have helped preventing the collision. Many changes were made by ICAO after TFN, but sadly the technical solution to prevent double transmissions on VHF ( i.e. CONTRAN) has never been mandated. but that is another story.
CDG : sorry , not even a contributing factor, just a possible way that could perhaps have prevented the collision, and for this it is part of the recommendations of the final report ( sadly ignored by the French DGAC to this day )
Cali : no way, the mistake was done much earlier on.
Now the near totality of the runway incursions and collisions are in pure English R/T environment and most of them are in the US. This is not a political statement it is fact.
On the ICAO language proficiency mandate of March 2008, it is for ALL languages spoken on the RT , not only English . Although I agree that that will definitively raise the English level of many Crews and controllers worldwide, this mandate will also limit the mobility of staff as now, level 4 will be required in the second language(s) being legally use on the RT.
So there is still a long way full of hurdles for the UK controllers to work in Aix en Provence ..
So , unfortunately, dual language on the R/T are here to stay I am afraid .
Finally for Capt pit bull , you do not have to buy anything from me because I sell nothing. If you want to see a confirmation of what I said , check ICAO Annexes under IFR rules. It is all there. There is a difference between what is required and what would perhaps make sense for some . A bit like ETOPS..
.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the Milky Way
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CDG : sorry , not even a contributing factor, just a possible way that could perhaps have prevented the collision
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, let' s agree on a contributing factor , I have no real problem with that.
But the English clearance given to the Shorts was : " line up and wait number 2, " .The subsequent take off clerance in French to the MD could have been understood to be from another intersection , as everyone was confused as to who was at which intersection.(dixit both captains and the controller in the report )
The controller got it badly wong , that is for sure , but if the MD TO clearance would have been in English I personally doubt it would have made much difference, but we can debate this at lenght...
Anyway the BEA recommendation after this was for English only at CDG, at to this date the DGAC failed to implement this more than one day on the pressure of the Air France Pilot Unions. (CDG ATC was rather in favour of the recommendation if my memory serves me well..)
But the English clearance given to the Shorts was : " line up and wait number 2, " .The subsequent take off clerance in French to the MD could have been understood to be from another intersection , as everyone was confused as to who was at which intersection.(dixit both captains and the controller in the report )
The controller got it badly wong , that is for sure , but if the MD TO clearance would have been in English I personally doubt it would have made much difference, but we can debate this at lenght...
Anyway the BEA recommendation after this was for English only at CDG, at to this date the DGAC failed to implement this more than one day on the pressure of the Air France Pilot Unions. (CDG ATC was rather in favour of the recommendation if my memory serves me well..)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC Watcher,
How on earth could you say that the dual language was not a contributing factor in the Shed accident?
When you are cleared to line up, you expect to have the runway to yourself. Not only that, if the take off clearance had been in English, I can pretty much guarantee that the Shorts Capt. would have stopped short and queried it. He is a very careful chap and only survived the accident as he was leaning forward to try and look up the runway when they were hit. Unfortunately the FO wasn't so lucky.....
We can never say for certain if a single language would have prevented the accident, but I'll bet money having one language cuts the chances of something similar happening again. A change I think should be made as soon as possible.
How on earth could you say that the dual language was not a contributing factor in the Shed accident?
When you are cleared to line up, you expect to have the runway to yourself. Not only that, if the take off clearance had been in English, I can pretty much guarantee that the Shorts Capt. would have stopped short and queried it. He is a very careful chap and only survived the accident as he was leaning forward to try and look up the runway when they were hit. Unfortunately the FO wasn't so lucky.....
We can never say for certain if a single language would have prevented the accident, but I'll bet money having one language cuts the chances of something similar happening again. A change I think should be made as soon as possible.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 'round the world
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe we are forgetting one element :
In those accidents / incidents, at least one aircraft was able to understand both languages used by atc, (especially when English is used by french atc ;=)) )
At CDG, the MD80 and the Airbus had pilots who were able to understand the clearances given to the Short and BA aircraft. And they did not realize something wrong was going on.
Why do you really think that the other aircraft would have been able to get the informations in time to avoid troubles??? Maybe, as Native Englishmen, they are better pilots ?
In Tenerife, Pan Am and Klm speaking English collided. Should they have used Dutch ?
The real problem is not RT but taxi. You'll get the same problem, all around the world, as long as taxi will take you across the active RWY.
In those accidents / incidents, at least one aircraft was able to understand both languages used by atc, (especially when English is used by french atc ;=)) )
At CDG, the MD80 and the Airbus had pilots who were able to understand the clearances given to the Short and BA aircraft. And they did not realize something wrong was going on.
Why do you really think that the other aircraft would have been able to get the informations in time to avoid troubles??? Maybe, as Native Englishmen, they are better pilots ?
In Tenerife, Pan Am and Klm speaking English collided. Should they have used Dutch ?
The real problem is not RT but taxi. You'll get the same problem, all around the world, as long as taxi will take you across the active RWY.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The same argument could be used to justify only having one pilot on board instead of being multi-crew.
It's better having everyone listening and able to understand rather than a few. It only needed one person to stop and think and the whole accident could have been avoided.
An accident is always a chain of events, one link missing and it breaks. Why not give everyone a chance to hear potential problems?
It's better having everyone listening and able to understand rather than a few. It only needed one person to stop and think and the whole accident could have been avoided.
An accident is always a chain of events, one link missing and it breaks. Why not give everyone a chance to hear potential problems?
Even slight misinterpretation of English can cause devastating consequences.
Look at Tenerife, not the obvious one but a little known one of the Dan Air 727 CFIT back in early 1980.
There were of course other factors (and I am well aware of them), however the controllers inability to articulate correctly rather critical information (misinterpreted by the crew) led to around 150 people losing their lives, instead of enjoying what was going to be a summer holiday in the sun.
Words (or lack of them) can kill.
Look at Tenerife, not the obvious one but a little known one of the Dan Air 727 CFIT back in early 1980.
There were of course other factors (and I am well aware of them), however the controllers inability to articulate correctly rather critical information (misinterpreted by the crew) led to around 150 people losing their lives, instead of enjoying what was going to be a summer holiday in the sun.
Words (or lack of them) can kill.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F320/ ATC Watcher.
I repeat. What is the BENEFIT (if any!) of Dual language ops?
If there are none, and its known to be a hazard (which it is), then why do it?
I repeat. What is the BENEFIT (if any!) of Dual language ops?
If there are none, and its known to be a hazard (which it is), then why do it?