Iberia Mayday
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: europe
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't want to argue with you guys about the use of spanish, I just want to try to open your minds a bit about how different(that not unsafe) is to fly out of the great london airspace. anyway happy new year chaps and thanks TE RANGI for your replay
Pegase Driver
Now that Chrismas and the peace time is over, let's recap from the begining.
Everyone seem to read what he wants and make their own rules based on rumors.
Post #7 :
The international agreed rules are the ICAO annexes.There is nothing else on international Aviation RT telecommunications. These are saying that the language to be spoken on radiotelephony is the language of the country overflown. When there is no agreement, English is to be used or provided.
Nothing to do with ICAO 7 languages, no it is the full official 220 .If tomorrow Catalonia province becomes independant and has Catalan as its official language, they can use it on the RT.
These are the rules we have to work with .
.
If you knew me , you would also know that I am for the use of English as a single language on International RT , but the internationally agreed rules say differently ans this is part of the problem. It has become heavily political and will not be resolved overnight , unfortunately.
As to the use of one's own language in emergency situations, I am not that sure this is an issue. It is more a Human factor problem than a political one.
Ask yoursef the question if a US or British citizen had an emergency above USA or UK and the International RT language was French or German, in which language he/she would communicate in emergency situations ?
Back To TCAS : For me what the gentlemen has said above and what I have understood , is that RAs could be avoided if one knows what is going around, if that RT had been in English instead of Spanish.
If that was not meant please educate me, English is not my mother tongue. If I am correct then my remark stands.
From the other ACAS remarks posted on this thread ,I am totally amazed to see today pilots and controllers, 4 years after Ueberlingen , still not understanding how TCAS works..
But that is another subject .
Back on the original thread : Dual language in ATC wether it is Spanish, French or Russian is not going to go away overnight.
It will come one day, but not in my lifetime.
Also please stop using the CDG accident as a example. Read the official accident report before posting. The reason why that poor chap was killed was not because the take off clearance of the MD80 was in French.
There is a recommendation on this report from the BEA that ops in CDG be in English only, true, and that was tried an unfortunately and sadly , the French AF pilots union killed this after a few hours.
Now I wish you all , in English, a nice and safe new year.
Everyone seem to read what he wants and make their own rules based on rumors.
Post #7 :
Nothing to do with ICAO 7 languages, no it is the full official 220 .If tomorrow Catalonia province becomes independant and has Catalan as its official language, they can use it on the RT.
These are the rules we have to work with .
.
If you knew me , you would also know that I am for the use of English as a single language on International RT , but the internationally agreed rules say differently ans this is part of the problem. It has become heavily political and will not be resolved overnight , unfortunately.
As to the use of one's own language in emergency situations, I am not that sure this is an issue. It is more a Human factor problem than a political one.
Ask yoursef the question if a US or British citizen had an emergency above USA or UK and the International RT language was French or German, in which language he/she would communicate in emergency situations ?
Back To TCAS : For me what the gentlemen has said above and what I have understood , is that RAs could be avoided if one knows what is going around, if that RT had been in English instead of Spanish.
If that was not meant please educate me, English is not my mother tongue. If I am correct then my remark stands.
From the other ACAS remarks posted on this thread ,I am totally amazed to see today pilots and controllers, 4 years after Ueberlingen , still not understanding how TCAS works..
But that is another subject .
Back on the original thread : Dual language in ATC wether it is Spanish, French or Russian is not going to go away overnight.
It will come one day, but not in my lifetime.
Also please stop using the CDG accident as a example. Read the official accident report before posting. The reason why that poor chap was killed was not because the take off clearance of the MD80 was in French.
There is a recommendation on this report from the BEA that ops in CDG be in English only, true, and that was tried an unfortunately and sadly , the French AF pilots union killed this after a few hours.
Now I wish you all , in English, a nice and safe new year.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chester
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC Watcher - I can't see much wrong with the TCAS comments (apart from not understanding Alexbans compatibility statement).
If you are suggesting that TCAS should be obeyed in every situation (even quiet airspace with an extreme manoeuvre by one a/c whilst the other is close to coffin corner) then you need to read the posts again.
Airmanship comes from looking at the whole picture.100% reliance on automation with flawed logic and lateral capability issues (in the circumstances detailed above) is inappropriate.
If you are suggesting that TCAS should be obeyed in every situation (even quiet airspace with an extreme manoeuvre by one a/c whilst the other is close to coffin corner) then you need to read the posts again.
Airmanship comes from looking at the whole picture.100% reliance on automation with flawed logic and lateral capability issues (in the circumstances detailed above) is inappropriate.
Pegase Driver
If you are suggesting that TCAS should be obeyed in every situation (even quiet airspace with an extreme manoeuvre by one a/c whilst the other is close to coffin corner) then you need to read the posts again.
Airmanship comes from looking at the whole picture.100% reliance on automation with flawed logic and lateral capability issues (in the circumstances detailed above) is inappropriate.
Airmanship comes from looking at the whole picture.100% reliance on automation with flawed logic and lateral capability issues (in the circumstances detailed above) is inappropriate.
I do nor want to reopen the ACAS debate in this post, it has been covered so many times in the past here and in the Tech log ( but if you want you can open another thread or PM me to continue discussing this)
Just a remark and an advice : when designing highly automated systems such as the ACAS logic, manual interferences are generally not considered, and therefore not only do those cancel the desired effect but can cause in some cases, in itself an accident.
This is not only valid for ACAS but also for some other airborne components ( ATHR comes to mind, when looking at Toronto to take only a recent example )
After the recent incidents, accidents and collisions caused partially by the current ACAS logic and/or the visual /manual RA non-compliance, the advice given now by all ACAS experts in both side of the Atlantic is ALWAYS follow the RA and never , ever manoeuvre in the opposite sense.
Now, let's stop being too serious and Happy new year to all, and let,s hope that 2007 be safer as 2006 ! ( Although it sarted badly in Indonesia
)
