Air France pilots make headline news

[frangatang]

One day the French will speak english on 126.9 over africa and also when in communication with their ex colonial territories eg algeria!

[flyboy2]

Air France warns pilots over safety

2009-10-24 19:30
Paris - In a strongly worded internal memo, Air France has warned its pilots to be more vigilant about safety procedures and upbraided those blaming flight equipment for the crash of Flight 447 into the Atlantic in June.

No one knows what caused the accident, which killed all 228 people aboard and was Air France's deadliest crash. Pilots' unions said on Saturday the company is trying to distance itself from blame - and shift attention to the possibility of human error - as the investigation drags on.

"Enough Scandals and False Debates about Flight Security!" reads the memo, sent to pilots Tuesday and obtained by The Associated Press on Saturday. It dismisses calls by pilots for new safety procedures following Flight 447's crash. "It suffices simply to apply our doctrine, our procedures," the memo says.

Erick Derivry of the SNPL union said he was "shocked" by the letter and that pilots were being made into "scapegoats."

Air France said in a statement that the memo was meant to be an internal document and insisted that it "has total confidence in its pilots."

Safety lapses

The memo details the company's responses to concerns about Flight 447's airspeed sensors, known as Pitots. Air France replaced older models of the sensors amid concerns they could have iced over and sent false speed information to the pilots as the Airbus 330 ran into a thunderstorm far off Brazil's mainland.

Air France revealed in the memo that it has stopped a training program for pilots on how to manage a Pitot malfunction like that.

Planemaker Airbus told the airline that the simulation "does not loyally reproduce the chain of consequences in real situations," the memo says, adding that the exercise misled pilots into thinking such a chain of events was more likely than it is.

The memo also outlines recent safety lapses by pilots that could have posed dangers, including deviating from the takeoff trajectory and not reporting technical problems immediately. It warns against "overconfidence" and thinking that safety measures are overkill.

Derivry described those incidents as everyday occurrences in any airline and "very largely exaggerated."

Strike threat

The memo appeared to be a response to a strike threat by two unions representing a minority of Air France's more than 4 000 pilots that have demanded new safety procedures.

A pilot with one of those unions, Alter, said Saturday it was maintaining the threat and dismissed the memo as a failed effort to assuage flight staff. The pilot spoke on condition of anonymity out of concern of repercussions in his job.

Investigators may never determine what happened to Flight 447 because the flight recorders have not been found after extensive searches deep in the Atlantic.

The families of two Americans killed in the crash filed a lawsuit in Houston last month claiming the airline and the plane's various manufacturers knew the aircraft had defective parts - including Pitots - that could have caused the accident.

The Air France memo came the day before pilots of a Northwest Airlines jet missed its destination in Minneapolis, saying they forgot to land, an incident that renewed concerns about flight safety.

- AP
Source:
Air France warns pilots over safety: News24: World: News

[jimjim1]

Some numbers

Airline accident ratings
Data for 20 Years Jan 1989 - Dec 2008

The calculated parameters are quite clever. The "Accident Rate" column is zero where the airline has an average occupant death rate per flight and less than zero for better than average and greater than zero for worse than average. This takes into account the number of flights each airline makes and the number of deaths resulting.

e.g
Soutwest Airlines # 15M flights # 0 fatal events # Accident rate -4.25
British Airways # 5M flights # 0 fatal events # Accident rate -1.48

I have no idea of the truth or correctness of these figures but someone has gone to a lot of trouble anyway.

If the figures are true and correct, Air France does not seem to come out too well to me, and that is before the Atlantic crash is accounted for.

Interesting that none of Air France's competitors are using these figures in advertising. Maybe we need government mandated inclusion of this material in all airline ads, in a similar way to fuel consumption (and safety rating?) is published for cars? I guess the public could get hung up on minute differences but some way could easily be found so that minute differences were factored out of the published figures.

I will certainly think twice before getting on an AF flight now I have seen these numbers. Quite shocking.

[747JJ]

It's amusing how this language issue keeps popping up. Equally often another issue pops up. Last year I've been plowing European skies flying short sectors mostly 4 a day on my work days, quite a change from long haul really.

Instead of spending about an hour or so over the busy central Europe as when on the 747 I know spend all of it in the area.

What I have noticed is the horrendous amout of yapping on 121.5 and a lot of it pilots that are on wrong frequency or do not have one. In my experience majority of these French. Flying on Tuesday this week I counted 3 flights on the first sector to LTN, coming back 5 and next 2 sectors to DTM another 4 AF flights that where looking for a frequency or being searched by another AF flight with a new frequency.

I am not trying to stir up a pissing contest regarding the use of English as the language of choise in aviation, and it is, but I am wondering why the French airlines, mostly AF, are so well represented in what is becoming a very congested 121.5 over Europe.

[lelolo44]

Meaning ...

Hi all, i know it is not that easy to know what is going on the airline for outsiders, and when we read the news with a "air france pilots are asked to fly correctly" people have to understand two ways of understanding the title :

Long before AF447 few pilot's unions ALTER and SPAF, asked AF to increase and modify its safety policy, the management never really listenened to them...instruction in the airline is 90% based on books, and young pilots look like "lawyers" studying ...the main task being if you have that scenario where do you find the answer in the book ??

Every year two simulators sessions, and until last year pilots had the all simulator session in detail in their book, so no surprise with on top of it a majority of them having a copy of the instructor leaflet on the side !!

AF pilots are asking for an external "audit" to me made, preferably by foreign pilots experts, they are asking for major changes for a long time now (before toronto), but the management never really moved its ass ..
After AF447 crash, two unions ALTER and SPAF asked that all Thalès pitot tubes to be changed on all 340 and 330, they pushed ver yhard until the management decided to do it while the same management communicated on the subject saying they did the change etc !!!
The same unions are asking to the pilot's management to resign from their seats because they estimate properwork hasn't been done...and months later that management decided to send the letter above mentionned.....so now you have more clues about that very sad story !

I used to fly in foreign airlines, did some type ratings in UK, flew with British and US pilots in the past, and i must say i'm not impressed by the management of the airline, there is a huge work for "foreign audit experts" with AIR FRANCE , and they have to go very deep inside the airline ...
Concerning french pilots and english let's face the main problem, why so few french pilots and/or people; speak and write properly english ???
Of course because the education system is to be changed ! that problem has been identified for long, sudents from the age of 10 start to study grammar, grammar, grammar, and can hardly talk despite knowing the most insignificant grammar particularity after 8 years of english lessons !!Who could believe it is a genetic problem seriously ?
English is not the issue with AF447, but seeing how difficult it is to change the education system with languages points out the big french problem...

AF needs the extern audit, french pilots are asking for it !!

[Me Myself]

AF needs the extern audit, french pilots are asking for it !!

And my friend...............you will not like the taste of the medicine they prescribe. From what I understand, it's nobody's fault. What do you think an audit is going to pull out of its hat ??? A praise for the pilots and marching papers for management??? The very one who is appointing the audit ??? Yes Santa Claus is still coming on the 25th.
As to the change of Pitot probe..........tosh ! The decision, however tardy, was made end of April and the job to last several weeks until..........!
447 crew must be turning in their grave hearing the mamothal amount of unsubstanciated manure that is coming out from self proclaimed experts.
If a sub and an oceanographic search vessel cannot find a clue, you'll have to explain how people sitting on their toush in Paris can come up with all these very interesting explainations. it's beyhond me.

The reason french speak such an appalling english is they do not give a hoot. You can blame the system, which I agree is total crap, the fact remains that the french, as a people are not in the least interested in speaking anything else but french.
I'd say young people are probably the worst. Listen to 17/18 years old speak english and compare with let's say young swedes who are fluent at 12. Pathetic. The only way to learn is...............to speak, you know, try, make mistakes, eventually looking a bit gooffy from time to time........but such an unfrench thing to do.

Years ago, an attempt was made to implement english as the official language at CDG. French ATC controlers and french pilots speaking english to one another. It was very scary and dangerous and was swiftly ditched. We all feel safer for it now.

The document starting all this commotion was " for AF pilots only ". I'd like to know how it landed in the media. I'm sure some well meaning soul who thought it would do the compagny a lot of good. Well, it's out now and who is looking like a fool ?? It kind of backfired, don't you think ??

[lelolo44]

Why is the audit necessary ? because without it , it is impossible to talk clearly about what's wrong !! i'm not saying or protecting a system i can tell you ! If you read carefully i point out that the way of instructing pilots in that airline needs to be improved a lot !!
Concerning english language, yes...they are very very reluctant to foreign languages and i was just explaining that this problem goes deep into education system, despite it would be easier to believe it is a genetic issue !!

[wiggy]

Yep there are language issues, possible CRM issues, Toronto, etc, that need looking at, however thats not the only thing firing up AF Flight Crew at the moment. Reading the French Press it seems there is a very real danger that because there is no concrete evidence the Flight Crew are going to carry the can for AF447 - A point "Me Myself" made above. All very convenient for AF, Airbus and probably the French Government, so is it any wonder the AF pilot unions are unhappy about it.

And if you think it "couldn't happen here in the Anglo-Saxon world" then read up on the RAF's loss of a Chinook in Scotland many years ago and the subsequent findings of the Board of Enquiry and you'll get the picture. All professional pilots, and their associations, should be watching the handling of the AF 447 enquiry very carefully.

[KAG]

Interesting that none of Air France's competitors are using these figures in advertising.

I guess because the airlines are not silly. Using accident/crash as a weapon is, (beside the fact it is using somebody else misfortune) like throwing a boomerang, you never know if one day it will come back right to your face.

[powdermonkey]

I flew in and out of CDG regularly last year and found the French controller's ability to switch from French to English without skipping a beat quite astounding! Although speaking English for over 30 years and having done all my flight training in English, I am a native French speaker and I did struggle in French airspace and on the ground to picture what was going on around me! Purely because the "trigger" words are not there. However, must say my experience of the French controllers was all positive, dunno how they do it!!!!

[point8six]

Three observations on the previous postings:-
1) ATC/pilot communications in non-English is not restricted to France!
2) FANS 1 A/B (CNS-ATM) will reduce the voice communications considerably, but many aircraft will require a more robust method of contacting the pilots -Northwest A320.
3) Before anyone rushes to condemn the French language - as much as 60% of current English is derived from French (mainly thanks to William the Conqueror)!
That said - I agree that SA is compromised when non-English is used and the requirement for ATC/pilots to attain a level of proficiency in English, for reasons of safety, do not (in my opinion) go far enough - it should be mandatory when non-state registered aircraft are operating on the frequency in use.
Preumably Air France undergo LOSA checks?

[Me Myself]

Reading the French Press it seems there is a very real danger that because there is no concrete evidence the Flight Crew are going to carry the can for AF447 - A point "Me Myself" made above. All very convenient for AF, Airbus and probably the French Government, so is it any wonder the AF pilot unions are unhappy about it.

I beg to differ on that one. That's not the point I made and having read that "in"famous paper, I saw nothing implying something of the sort. In fact it says " Until the BEA has found something and we must get used to the idea it might be NEVER, everyone should button up and carry on with his duties "
From what I know, that letter is refering ( too late ) to very specific incidents that happened before and after 447 and where the crews got very............er............creative.
I'm sure AF, Airbus and the governement would like to get off the hook, but nothing substantiates so far, the theory that the crew was the cause of the crash. Until something does or doesn't come out, everyone should be well and truly inspired to get about his / her business and apply whatever SOP they're supposed to. In a nutshell, that's what comes out of that paper.
Leaking it out was a very stupid thing to do. AF has nothing to gain from it and pilots even less in the present market circumstances. Does " Let's keep it in the family " ring a bell ?

i was just explaining that this problem goes deep into education system, despite it would be easier to believe it is a genetic issue !!

See ? I catch you again : " not my fault " it's the education system. Thank God I know a hoodle of french people who speak english without the faintest trace of accent. I don't hear them blame the system for it even if it's dung.
They just went out because they were INTERESTED. The french are fed day in and day out with their passed grandeur and they are only too happy to swallow. You start reading in english, you start watching movies and tv in english and you go were people speak english to interact. That's how it's done and not in some posh parisian elite school or worst, some suburban war zone run down " lycee " where spelling has been downgraded to " texting ".

Sure an audit is a good thing, even better if done by KLM and Delta..........who might break this bliss of an alliance if they discover the whole shop is a freak show.
It's your expectations from an audit I question. You are very naïve in thinking pilots will come out all clean and shiny and management carrying the burden of their incompetence.
Like I've said a while back, the ventilator will spread the dung very generously and evenly my friend. What will you do then, when this audit of yours assigns you part of the blame ?? Go marching out and ask for another audit ??

If you read carefully i point out that the way of instructing pilots in that airline needs to be improved a lot !!

From what I understand, the incidents your boss is refering to were caused by blatant disregard of SOP's. I don't suppose your instructors ask you to precisely do that, or do they ??

[framer]

The simple application of procedure would have meant these events could have been avoided. We do not need to modify procedures or create new ones," they said in the letter quoted by La Tribune.

This sort of statement is so typical. Don't airline management teams realise that THEY are resposible for the safety culture and flight deck discipline that exists at any one time within an airline? After moving through a few different airlines over the years it is blatently obvious that the airlines with excellent adherence to SOP's and flight deck disciplne (ie the safe ones) are the ones with skilled, motivated, intelligent management teams. And the reverse is true.
Management need their own special form of SA. Here's a parralell; maintaining a perfect descent speed, tracking and vertical profile on an approach while forgetting to extend the gear is us losing SA, maintaining excellent economic operational efficiencies and high ROI for investors while forgetting your staff training/discipline/motivation obligations, is losing SA for them.
For us and them, there is no point in getting one part of the equation right if another part fails. If we lose SA like above we are seen as having performed poorly at our job. So it should be for them. To come out with a statement that says "Straighten up and fly right boys" is to completely shift the focus away from the problem.
If we forget to extend the gear as in the scenario above, the EGPWS should sqwark at us "Too low gear", what is managements equivilent??? Maybe the unions sqwarking "We need different safety systems".
Framer

[albertofdz]

I beleive this language issue to be quite easy really.

French controlers and many of those who are writting are wrong.

Its this simple: Speak the language you wish. UNLESS the situation dictates the need for others to understand what is going on, for instance, LVP procedures in force, climbing/descending through other levels were other aircraft not speaking your native language are involved.... Don´t you agree?

So, it is not necessary to always speak in English, nor in your native language, you just have to use the brains god gave you and know when to use which. Its that simple and there is no argument to this.

By the way, for those who beleive English should be used at all times, make these considerations:

No.1, Try to imagine English was not your mother language (its very easy to discuss this when it is)
No.2, English is not the most used language througout the world. It is beaten by Chinese and Spanish (English is third in the list i´m affraid). So consider yourselves to be very lucky when English appears to be the common language.
No.3, English is not the only language considerd by ICAO.
No.4, The common language (English) is to be used ONLY when it is considered that other traffic need to know what is going on. (I deeply agree with this because it is the last barrier we have in order to block off accidents/incidents/frights...etc), but ONLY in this scenario, not always as many would like.

This is just my opinion.

[framer]

you just have to use the brains god gave you

God didn't give me any brains, mine are a result of tens of thousands of years of natural selection where most advantages were obtained at a maximum of 10 miles an hour and with my ancestral feet planted firmly on the ground. That is why I am not very good at coping with complex environments moving at 400MPH and often have incomplete Situational Awareness while flying.

Its that simple and there is no argument to this.

Simple is a word that springs to mind alright.

So consider yourselves to be very lucky when English appears to be the common language.

What if some of us don't beleive in 'luck'? what if we beleive in a chain of action and consequence? Shall we sit down and consider the chain of actions that lead to this consequence? I don't have time for that at the moment.

The common language (English) is to be used ONLY when it is considered that other traffic need to know what is going on.

This pre-supposes that all operational aviation personel (PPL's, fighter pilots, wide-body pilots, follow-me car drivers, 200hr 737 f/o's) have perfect SA and know exactly what is going on within their sphere of operations.....if thats the case we don't need to transmit at all.
Regards,
Framer

[lelolo44]

"Me myself" you make it too personnal against "french frogs", i know too well how french can be when you look at them with a foreigner eye ...i'm really not a french guy defending the french nation (on top of it this is not my only nationality), i can tell you, that's why i tend to practice my english as much as i can, that's why i've worked with US and english pilots in the air force as well as with airliners ...

I was just trying to point out that french system is one of the worst to move because french are like that, they don't like people to point out their lacks, and if you do so they react as if they 've eaten four lemons !!
AF Pilots need to change things in their way of flying ...but AF pilots do what their pilot management decides 'that management is held by pilots !!) , meaning that unions said "you were unable to change the bad habits, unable to improve safety, the airline was unable to change the pitot tubes despite the fact that few airlines got into deep trouble with pitot icing (another french airline)
so the pilots managing the other 4300 AF pilots feel very very unsecure ...and what do they do ? they write a paper stating that AF pilots are bad pilots etc .....they tried to avoid the subject concerning all the signs that were announcing what happened with AF447 because as long as we don't have the recorders they will try that behaviour...
If you are an instructor and if your apprentice don't get their exams do you think you won't have any responsability if you are there for more that 20 years and collected just bad results ?

[Caudillo]

Many regard the language issue as serious. It is. Whilst you're waiting and pushing for the use of English in environments where local and foreign crews both operate - wouldn't it be worth the while for those who fly to and through France regularly to pick up some basic aviation French?

Thought not.

[virgo]

I've always found that communication between Frenchmen and myself is much improved when we've all had a few glasses of wine. Perhaps the "drinking and flying" rules should be reviewed when departing, arriving or over-flying France ?

[kbrockman]

AF and KLM are in the same group.
Why do results seem to differ so much between the 2 of them, it cannot only come down to cultural differences I think, no?

I still have to meet the first KLM pilot (or any other memeber of the crew come to think of it) that isn't fluent in English.

[FougaMagister]

air-sol: I wouldn't call your airline a "small" one, with 17 heavy jets (soon to be 20 if I'm not mistaken )!

The language issue keeps coming back because it is such an important part of flight safety. When you mention that foreign (i.e., non-French-speaking) pilots come into CDG two or three times a month, I beg to differ. Some of those in my outfit fly to CDG nearly every weekday (or night, to be more specific), and while some of them understand some basic French, some don't. Therefore I sometimes have to increase their situational awareness by translating what I hear in French on the same frequency, such as a clearance to land to an aircraft behind us on the ILS, and I can recommend that they keep the speed up because I know from the callsign that the following aircraft is an A321/737 etc. So I end up doing my PF/PNF duties and translating at the same time...

Foreign pilots routinely flying in and out of CDG (or MRS, or NCE, etc.) learn the airport's peculiarities pretty fast. But when you say that accidents caused by the use of different languages are non-existent, I think you conveniently overlook the 25 June 2000 collision at CDG between Air Liberte 8807 (an MD-83) taking off on 27L and Streamline Aviation 200 (a Shorts 330). No matter that the BEA report tried to shift some of the blame on the British crew for not understanding French (!), the accident was largely (although not only) caused by ATC speaking French to the French aircraft and English to the British one. And by the way, the First Officer on the Shorts was killed in the collision, and the captain seriously injured. So people have died because of language-induced misunderstandings and ambuiguity. And as we know, ambiguity in aviation is the mother of all ups...

The tired refrain that Chinese, or Spanish, are more used than English is a lot of tosh. Granted, more people might be speaking them as their native language, but these languages are not more widely spoken the world over, i.e. they are understood in a more limited geographical area than English.

I totally agree with Me Myself regarding the poor level of English teaching and practice in France, and the people's attitude to speaking foreign languages in general; no wonder the level of proficiency in the population at large in neighbouring countries is miles ahead of us. Back to the topic though: there is more than meets the eye to the AF safety audit, there are internal politics involved as well, and while a debate should always be welcome, it's anyone's guess what will come out of it...

Cheers