Spain sees the light, France next ?
I've found Iran to be very good, their ATC and domestic traffic do all communications in English and have had very few difficulties with them. Turkey tries hard, though I find the "Ankara Sisters" very annoying to listen to.
In two places I have had unusual circumstances make communicating with ATC difficult. Once in Caracas one of my tyres (tires) disintegrated on takeoff, I tried to advise ATC in English, they could not understand what I was saying, being bilingual in Spanish I explained it to them in Spanish. Before doing that I told the American Airlines on final about debris on the runway so he went around.
The next was in Beijing when I had a passenger with a heart attack, did PAN PAN and tried to explain, the controller was totally lost. A domestic Chinese flight came up on frequency with an American captain who told me he would have his Chinese copilot translate for me the details. Paramedics met us and the outcome was happy.
In two places I have had unusual circumstances make communicating with ATC difficult. Once in Caracas one of my tyres (tires) disintegrated on takeoff, I tried to advise ATC in English, they could not understand what I was saying, being bilingual in Spanish I explained it to them in Spanish. Before doing that I told the American Airlines on final about debris on the runway so he went around.
The next was in Beijing when I had a passenger with a heart attack, did PAN PAN and tried to explain, the controller was totally lost. A domestic Chinese flight came up on frequency with an American captain who told me he would have his Chinese copilot translate for me the details. Paramedics met us and the outcome was happy.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey
Age: 67
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give me an example of any accidents, incidents or of a near miss where a local language was directly responsible for such an event and I don't mean a Spanish person talking in a bad English... I mean a Spanish controller talking in Spanish to a Spanish pilot and the English pilot not understanding what was said in Spanish became involved in an incident or accident.
BEA Trident at Split 1976
BEA Trident at Split 1976
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 67
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When EASA ATC members from France and Spain are talking to their national colleagues in a language that I don't understand, I always find myself jumping in between their conversations because I can't tell when they have concluded.
When admonished I very much enjoy explaining to them exactly why I am likely to repeat the mistake, time and time again until they use English.
When admonished I very much enjoy explaining to them exactly why I am likely to repeat the mistake, time and time again until they use English.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Central America I was put in a hold at 6,000 ft which put me just below the tops for approach. It was not a busy airport but a pilot and controller kept talking in Spanish so about the 3rd turn in holding I got nervous about what was happening.
As I was joining the inbound hold a break in the clouds momentarily showed a plane converging with us so broke off my hold to avoid him. I was within 10 seconds of calling it a near miss thanks to the cloud break in a no radar environment.
I had a few words with him because he put our airliner in jeopardy to help his buddy land first putting him through the FAF at our holding point and altitude.
As I was joining the inbound hold a break in the clouds momentarily showed a plane converging with us so broke off my hold to avoid him. I was within 10 seconds of calling it a near miss thanks to the cloud break in a no radar environment.
I had a few words with him because he put our airliner in jeopardy to help his buddy land first putting him through the FAF at our holding point and altitude.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: formally Alamo battleground, now the crocodile with palm trees!
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G-SSWN, CDG, 25 May 2000
BEA Trident at Split 1976
Another fact that the foreign language R/T haters like to ignore is that the military does NOT necessarily use VHF in the same airspace. Where is the outcry? Silenced by nationalism? This is what this thread is all about, n'est-ce pas?
I am actually not surprised that the finger gets usually pointed at France, after having lurked on this forum for almost fourteen years now. Little details like dual language ATC in Germany, Canada etc. gets carefully omitted by the accused. Haters are going to hate, no matter what, using the same pet argument over and over.
I wish more UK controllers would speak better Queen's English. That would make me feel much safer!
Last edited by Squawk7777; 14th Jun 2014 at 00:05.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: formally Alamo battleground, now the crocodile with palm trees!
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When admonished I very much enjoy explaining to them exactly why I am likely to repeat the mistake, time and time again until they use English.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vega Constellation
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squawk, easy to blame and redefine who was wrong during these accidents.
Yet in CDG, had they been using a common language (English in that instance) the chances of an accident occuring would be slim to none.
The other examples provided on this thread about Germany or Canada are different IMHO. I do not remember any instance in my time in Germany, where I was confronted to ANYONE not speaking or understanding English, even outside aviation. I Canada, some hardcore French speakers want to keep French as an official language for aviation, based on historical pride and claims of cultural identity. I have yet to meet any Canadian (or Quebecois, for that matter) that is unable to read, speak and understand English.
Now the French are a different breed. It may be more pronounced in the previous generation, but they are reluctant to speak English for a very good reason: THEY CAN'T. Listen to the majority of AF flights abroad, their level of English is appalling, I know a significant number of AF pilots who readily admit that they have a problem with English in the cockpit and many do struggle on international flights to keep up with ATC. Just read the CVR transcript of AF447, it'll show an example at work, where numerous times neither pilot understands who ATC is talking to, or misread instructions. Sad coincidence it was this particular flight, just the latest factual example I came across to read.
Now if Spain makes the move, one can hope others will follow their example, but I would not count on the French, where pride, arrogance and ignorance will prevail against common sense, improved comms with international flights, and improved safety for all.
Yet in CDG, had they been using a common language (English in that instance) the chances of an accident occuring would be slim to none.
The other examples provided on this thread about Germany or Canada are different IMHO. I do not remember any instance in my time in Germany, where I was confronted to ANYONE not speaking or understanding English, even outside aviation. I Canada, some hardcore French speakers want to keep French as an official language for aviation, based on historical pride and claims of cultural identity. I have yet to meet any Canadian (or Quebecois, for that matter) that is unable to read, speak and understand English.
Now the French are a different breed. It may be more pronounced in the previous generation, but they are reluctant to speak English for a very good reason: THEY CAN'T. Listen to the majority of AF flights abroad, their level of English is appalling, I know a significant number of AF pilots who readily admit that they have a problem with English in the cockpit and many do struggle on international flights to keep up with ATC. Just read the CVR transcript of AF447, it'll show an example at work, where numerous times neither pilot understands who ATC is talking to, or misread instructions. Sad coincidence it was this particular flight, just the latest factual example I came across to read.
Now if Spain makes the move, one can hope others will follow their example, but I would not count on the French, where pride, arrogance and ignorance will prevail against common sense, improved comms with international flights, and improved safety for all.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Qatar
Age: 68
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" pride, arrogance and ignorance " :
They just develop and build airliners, jet fighters, helicopters, regional turboprops, business jets, avionics, jet engines, helicopter turbines, GA aircraft, missiles, ICBMs with MIRVs, space rockets and satellites ... (*)
and for that reason have to suffer the jealousy of those who don't, and who, although speaking the famous language as mother tongue, would like for that reason to be associated with the aerospace glory of UK and USA - got them ?)
for the illiterates : Airbuses, Rafales and Mirages, Pumas, Squirrels, Dolphins, ATR 72, Falcon 7X, CFM56 and M88, Arriel, Astazou, Robin, Exocet (!) and MICA, M51, Ariane, SPOT ...
and they do the avionics suites of Russian Sukkhois, Migs and combat helicopters ...
and they do squadron exchanges with the Russian AF
and the even sell with much pleasure big assault combat ships to the same Russians ...
Now to try to be a little bit balanced, it would not disturb me if CDG was a little bit-more English speaking - I have been translating for years to the F/Os anything of interest happening in front of us, or even behind - but that's the problem with all the big countries, like Russia, China, Brasil. Of course in Danemark or Philippines it's easier to use English.
And as said by recceguy...sometimes it's racism (how do you dare nominate Australia or others ?) and then it becomes normal and accepted french-bashing the other way...
They just develop and build airliners, jet fighters, helicopters, regional turboprops, business jets, avionics, jet engines, helicopter turbines, GA aircraft, missiles, ICBMs with MIRVs, space rockets and satellites ... (*)
and for that reason have to suffer the jealousy of those who don't, and who, although speaking the famous language as mother tongue, would like for that reason to be associated with the aerospace glory of UK and USA - got them ?)
for the illiterates : Airbuses, Rafales and Mirages, Pumas, Squirrels, Dolphins, ATR 72, Falcon 7X, CFM56 and M88, Arriel, Astazou, Robin, Exocet (!) and MICA, M51, Ariane, SPOT ...
and they do the avionics suites of Russian Sukkhois, Migs and combat helicopters ...
and they do squadron exchanges with the Russian AF
and the even sell with much pleasure big assault combat ships to the same Russians ...
Now to try to be a little bit balanced, it would not disturb me if CDG was a little bit-more English speaking - I have been translating for years to the F/Os anything of interest happening in front of us, or even behind - but that's the problem with all the big countries, like Russia, China, Brasil. Of course in Danemark or Philippines it's easier to use English.
And as said by recceguy...sometimes it's racism (how do you dare nominate Australia or others ?) and then it becomes normal and accepted french-bashing the other way...
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The white elephant is back again , comes every 3-4 years in this Forum.Same arguments , same conclusions.
Quick ones for the new people here:
Fact 1 : ICAO language requirements still says that the local language of the country overflown is to be used, and in case incompatibility English language is to be used. Many attempst to change or reverse this always faileld so far.
Fact 2 ICAO is made of States, not a supra national body ordering States what to do. majority of those States wants to keep their national language, so forget ICAO changing their SARPS on that issue.
Fact 3 : there is ( unfortunately ) no scientific or statistical evidence that would suggest that it would be safer to mandate English operations everywhere. There are no recorded accident in last 60 years where language was a large contributing factor to sustain this.(*)
On the contrary the use of local language can be demonstrated to be " safer" in communications between 2 nationals using the same language. ( as it was used in Quebec in 1976 )
So in a nutshell , forget it, ICAO and even EASA will not look into this ( do not mix up AESA and EASA as the first poster here did )
(*) before posting the ususal BS on the CDG collision of Zagreb , or even Cali, it would be helpful to read again the conclusions of the 3 Accidents reports. Language did not caused , or even significantly contributed to those accidents. Language is mentioned , but not as a cause or a listed contributing factor.
Quick ones for the new people here:
Fact 1 : ICAO language requirements still says that the local language of the country overflown is to be used, and in case incompatibility English language is to be used. Many attempst to change or reverse this always faileld so far.
Fact 2 ICAO is made of States, not a supra national body ordering States what to do. majority of those States wants to keep their national language, so forget ICAO changing their SARPS on that issue.
Fact 3 : there is ( unfortunately ) no scientific or statistical evidence that would suggest that it would be safer to mandate English operations everywhere. There are no recorded accident in last 60 years where language was a large contributing factor to sustain this.(*)
On the contrary the use of local language can be demonstrated to be " safer" in communications between 2 nationals using the same language. ( as it was used in Quebec in 1976 )
So in a nutshell , forget it, ICAO and even EASA will not look into this ( do not mix up AESA and EASA as the first poster here did )
(*) before posting the ususal BS on the CDG collision of Zagreb , or even Cali, it would be helpful to read again the conclusions of the 3 Accidents reports. Language did not caused , or even significantly contributed to those accidents. Language is mentioned , but not as a cause or a listed contributing factor.
Last edited by ATC Watcher; 14th Jun 2014 at 06:27. Reason: language :-)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Little details like dual language ATC in Germany, Canada etc. gets carefully omitted by the accused.
Split was Yugoslavia - Missed geography classes, uh ??
Give me an example of any accidents, incidents or of a near miss where a local language was directly responsible for such an event
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: formally Alamo battleground, now the crocodile with palm trees!
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dual language ATC in germany exists only for VFR traffic where both languages may be used. For IFR traffic only english is allowed, except for emergency use of course. However, since ATCOs from all over europe work both in germany and in eurocontrol controlling german airspace any local lingo the relevant ATCO might speak should work as well.
Yet in CDG, had they been using a common language (English in that instance) the chances of an accident occuring would be slim to none.
(*) before posting the ususal BS on the CDG collision of Zagreb , or even Cali, it would be helpful to read again the conclusions of the 3 Accidents reports. Language did not caused , or even significantly contributed to those accidents. Language is mentioned , but not as a cause or a listed contributing factor.
So, to summarise the point of view shown by many here, being a definite contributory factor to accidents and being one of "the holes in the cheese" is perfectly fine just as long as you can't prove it is the biggest hole? Honestly words fail me.
Last edited by Plastic787; 14th Jun 2014 at 15:59.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: formally Alamo battleground, now the crocodile with palm trees!
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... being a definite contributory factor to accidents and being one of "the holes in the cheese"
And one of those barriers is insisting on a common language. In what way is insisting on a common language arrogant and pompous? That's got nothing to do with it, it's safety critical. Otherwise it wouldn't have been decided upon in the first place.
I was accused here of a lazy response, one thing that is very definitely a lazy (and totally unsubstantiated) claim is that making English a single language for R/T communications is arrogant and pompous. Any way you can back that up? Or is it a lazy and easy defence against the FACT that many in the industry are lacking the required standard in English Language Proficiency?
I was accused here of a lazy response, one thing that is very definitely a lazy (and totally unsubstantiated) claim is that making English a single language for R/T communications is arrogant and pompous. Any way you can back that up? Or is it a lazy and easy defence against the FACT that many in the industry are lacking the required standard in English Language Proficiency?
Last edited by Plastic787; 14th Jun 2014 at 11:38.
Guest
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere between E17487 and F75775
Age: 80
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
France.....true. I was at PPG last week when local light aircraft landing and departing were being controlled in French as the daily FR from Stansted turned out at sea and made his approach, being controlled in English. Poor visibility, low cloud, rain, one main runway.
Sure, nothing happened. So no problem, right ?
Sure, nothing happened. So no problem, right ?
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OPSO :
In the event you described, no. It would seem you perhaps do not understand the basics of what ATC is supposed to do and what the PIC responsibilities are as far as separation is concerned in controlled airspace in IFR/IMC..
An unpleasant feeling to hear an aircraft being given instructions in another language you do not understand while you are performing an approach in IMC, I fully understand it, been there myself, and would agree with you. But really an unsafe or problematic situation ? No.
Done everyday all around the world to hundreds of thousands of flights without problems.
Sure, nothing happened. So no problem, right ?
An unpleasant feeling to hear an aircraft being given instructions in another language you do not understand while you are performing an approach in IMC, I fully understand it, been there myself, and would agree with you. But really an unsafe or problematic situation ? No.
Done everyday all around the world to hundreds of thousands of flights without problems.
All we seem to hear on this thread is the assertion that people saying the use of one language should be mandatory "don't know what they are talking about". This is in equal parts hypocrisy, complacency and stupidity.
Instead of imploring people to give examples where foreign R/T was in use and it led directly to disaster, equally (if not more importantly) why not try to imagine an example of a scenario where a near disaster, in fact, WOULD have become an actual disaster had ATC been communicating in two different languages?
To illustrate the point, think back to the events of the Runway incursion of a Boeing 757 (United Airlines 1448) on December 6th 1999 in the thick fog at Providence, Rhode Island. For those of you unfamiliar with this case, look it up. Only a marvellous piece of judgement and situational awareness from the Captain of the departing aircraft lined up on the same runway prevented another Tenerife.
Now imagine a very similar set of circumstances only this time at an airport in France with a non French speaking crew lined up on the threshold of the active runway and ATC trying to resolve the situation in French. Sound plausible? It certainly does to me. And cue disaster as one aircraft (completely oblivious to the threat facing them due to the use of a language they don't understand) accepts clearance for takeoff right into the teeth of an aircraft still on the active runway.
The set of events that transpired in Providence are a latent threat just waiting to happen again at an airfield where multiple languages are in use. We know all about Murphy's law.
But no, I have absolutely no clue what I'm talking about do I? My insistence on a single language is pure arrogance and pomposity.
Instead of imploring people to give examples where foreign R/T was in use and it led directly to disaster, equally (if not more importantly) why not try to imagine an example of a scenario where a near disaster, in fact, WOULD have become an actual disaster had ATC been communicating in two different languages?
To illustrate the point, think back to the events of the Runway incursion of a Boeing 757 (United Airlines 1448) on December 6th 1999 in the thick fog at Providence, Rhode Island. For those of you unfamiliar with this case, look it up. Only a marvellous piece of judgement and situational awareness from the Captain of the departing aircraft lined up on the same runway prevented another Tenerife.
Now imagine a very similar set of circumstances only this time at an airport in France with a non French speaking crew lined up on the threshold of the active runway and ATC trying to resolve the situation in French. Sound plausible? It certainly does to me. And cue disaster as one aircraft (completely oblivious to the threat facing them due to the use of a language they don't understand) accepts clearance for takeoff right into the teeth of an aircraft still on the active runway.
The set of events that transpired in Providence are a latent threat just waiting to happen again at an airfield where multiple languages are in use. We know all about Murphy's law.
But no, I have absolutely no clue what I'm talking about do I? My insistence on a single language is pure arrogance and pomposity.
Last edited by Plastic787; 14th Jun 2014 at 18:17.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 69
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Trim Stab
English-native speakers always shout that all communication should be in English, without ever having made the effort to learn a second-language themselves. If it is mandatory that all aeronautical communication be in English, that would kill off most GA in non-English speaking countries - as outside English-speaking countries most PPLs don't speak much English. Why should a French PPL be obliged to learn to speak English in order to fly around his own country?
My view on this is simple - in controlled airspace both local language and English should be acceptable. Outside controlled airspace only local language should be acceptable - and if you can't speak the local language don't go into uncontrolled airspace!
The problems that I have seen arising in France are due to pilots flying around in uncontrolled airspace using English - thereby not being understood by local pilots.
My view on this is simple - in controlled airspace both local language and English should be acceptable. Outside controlled airspace only local language should be acceptable - and if you can't speak the local language don't go into uncontrolled airspace!
The problems that I have seen arising in France are due to pilots flying around in uncontrolled airspace using English - thereby not being understood by local pilots.
And Plastic787, dig the difference between controlled and uncontrolled airports. Language chauvinism is foolish, and dangerous.