Airbus Within 6ft of the Ground nearly 1 mile Short of Runway
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Null Island
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nowhere was it stated that the A/C had not yet passed him. It was just a T/O clearance. It also stated 'while looking for No. 1' Now if he thought No1 was to his right, I would have thought he would not have entered the active runway.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If that wasn't an off-airport encounter, the off-height might have been (less than) 30 ft, 1 mb. Given the persistent rounding to whole digits, in digital calculations, just the reachable accuracy.
Using PA below about FL180 is a technical backwardness. The system isn't going to change anytime soon, but in the interim, the next panel upgrade I'm doing to my jets includes space for an iPad as the EFB, and for general "SA" benefits. It already interfaces with the APFD and C145 nav systems. Geometric altitude is where there be dragons, that's the info I find nice to have on hand.
I am not sure, what you want to state with this. Of course, with cold temperature, the effective height is lower as the PA, though the (really) closer you get to the ground, the more the PA display in the aircraft starts matching the factual height, corresponding with the given airport QNH, suffering from the same cold (inversions may give surprising effects, the Theta diagrams tend to be pretty irregular). The vertical flight path to the airport is no longer a straight-in-the-vertical flight-path in GPS/ground terms, though in PA terms, it still could be, though with variable VS in the GPS/ground system. Please correct me, when I get you wrong.
If that wasn't an off-airport encounter, the off-height might have been (less than) 30 ft, 1 mb. Given the persistent rounding to whole digits, in digital calculations, just the reachable accuracy.
I wise thing to have, and it could be a NG-EGPWS, if it does have the synthetically calculated cone, to warn for being too far outside the normal (granted, ground based) approach gradient.
Yep, though, hey, when doing a PA based approach, we aren't aiming with a 3 degrees glideslope from a 10000+ ft PA, as if it would be in the GPS/ground reference system.
If that wasn't an off-airport encounter, the off-height might have been (less than) 30 ft, 1 mb. Given the persistent rounding to whole digits, in digital calculations, just the reachable accuracy.
I wise thing to have, and it could be a NG-EGPWS, if it does have the synthetically calculated cone, to warn for being too far outside the normal (granted, ground based) approach gradient.
Yep, though, hey, when doing a PA based approach, we aren't aiming with a 3 degrees glideslope from a 10000+ ft PA, as if it would be in the GPS/ground reference system.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wide, you are quite correct normally, a QNH given at an airport will give a value that should be correct at that altitude for the conditions. which is why this one airport was perplexing, the errors at the approach end of the runway led to a number of odd approaches. Temp correction factors should correct for colder than ISA temperatures for altitudes above the reference datum, which should be the airfield itself. Everywhere else that seems to work quite well, except for one location. That location was very terrain affected on the approach, and was non-radar, so the concerns were related to the initial approach and then the rest up to the final fix. Then came the surprise reports on late finals... Why, not resolved in my time.
Actually, that table is a very mean one. The temperature in the vertical is not a "deviation from normalcy" temperature (as one would expect for a "correction" table), though, simply the absolute temperature (in Degrees Celsius, not Kelvin). Add a row with +15C at the top, and the first 4-5 columns will read "0".
IF only a handful of airports are "slightly" off with their PA, my first thought would be "just a calibration error", or, if not persistent, "just rounding". Or maybe something like "humidity" or just up/down drafts due to local geography is relevant ?
PPRuNe Handmaiden
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harder than you might think, in my view.
Various suggestions have been made about how the initial incorrect value could or should have been caught, irrespective of how that incorrect value came to be communicated by ATC. They are way outside my area of expertise, but language use isn't, and my conviction, informed by professional and personal experience, is that requiring people who share a native language to communicate in a non-native language is a recipe for poor communication and potentially just as great a problem as any due to the use of multiple languages.
Various suggestions have been made about how the initial incorrect value could or should have been caught, irrespective of how that incorrect value came to be communicated by ATC. They are way outside my area of expertise, but language use isn't, and my conviction, informed by professional and personal experience, is that requiring people who share a native language to communicate in a non-native language is a recipe for poor communication and potentially just as great a problem as any due to the use of multiple languages.
And of course there is the pesky issue of not being able to get full situational awareness and a correct mental model incase of multiple language use on frequency. Had that demonstrated once in MAD of all places, an Iberia (spanish communication) and us (english) under the control of the same ground controller got a conflicting clearance that could have resulted in some bent metal at the next intersection. It was easily solved by our colleagues in the Iberia by switching to english and querying that clearance prompting the ATCO to reply in english as well assuring that both crews and the controller had the same mental model. In the air conflicts are not always as easy to see and to solve, where dual language use is common.
“French ATC“ and „Spanish ATC“ are the number one threats during the TEM discussion in the briefing in those places.
General aviation flying out of Jerez with Swiss friend who was handling comms and seemed to be concurring with ATC, I said that his command of English was better than mine because I could hardly understand a word of what was being said. Neither did I was his reply!
We got to Córdoba without incident.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Manchester
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would disagree. Yes, english is a tertiary language for me, but it is the primary language in a professional context. Since we do not use „free“ language in ATC communications but rather a very specific and prescribed phraseology, it is not normal english, or normal french, spanish or german for that matter. Quite honestly, using my native language in my home country for ATC would reduce my mental capacity, situational awareness and speed of communication. Simply because i always have to think about the correct phraseology which i haven’t used in over 25 years (and i have been based in my home country nearly all that time).
And of course there is the pesky issue of not being able to get full situational awareness and a correct mental model incase of multiple language use on frequency. Had that demonstrated once in MAD of all places, an Iberia (spanish communication) and us (english) under the control of the same ground controller got a conflicting clearance that could have resulted in some bent metal at the next intersection. It was easily solved by our colleagues in the Iberia by switching to english and querying that clearance prompting the ATCO to reply in english as well assuring that both crews and the controller had the same mental model. In the air conflicts are not always as easy to see and to solve, where dual language use is common.
“French ATC“ and „Spanish ATC“ are the number one threats during the TEM discussion in the briefing in those places.
And of course there is the pesky issue of not being able to get full situational awareness and a correct mental model incase of multiple language use on frequency. Had that demonstrated once in MAD of all places, an Iberia (spanish communication) and us (english) under the control of the same ground controller got a conflicting clearance that could have resulted in some bent metal at the next intersection. It was easily solved by our colleagues in the Iberia by switching to english and querying that clearance prompting the ATCO to reply in english as well assuring that both crews and the controller had the same mental model. In the air conflicts are not always as easy to see and to solve, where dual language use is common.
“French ATC“ and „Spanish ATC“ are the number one threats during the TEM discussion in the briefing in those places.
Several Pub's into the Crawl, I was approached by an older Brit, who started speaking to me in such a thick accent that all I could make out was he knew I was an American and American's were "Okay". In frustration, I asked some of the local classmates for help in figuring out what the guy was saying. They laughed and said they couldn't understand him either
. I finally decided he wanted me to buy him a beer and I figured what the heck - but when I got out some money it became apparent that he wanted to buy me a beer - because I was an 'American and Okay' 
.I politely declined his offer (I was on an expense account anyway at the time), but I can only assume based on his age and the few words I could make out that he was trying to thank me (and Americans in general) for helping the British against the Nazi's in WWII.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Usually firmly on the ground
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
More broadly, I think there's a problem treating any spoken language as just another form of code. Different accents are just the start of the issue. Cultures also interfere. Even the way people perceive English (native speakers and non-native speakers) differs. Some cultures are readier to adopt English purely for a specific professional use than others. Different interpretations and applications are always possible, too. For instance, I see a lot of discussion on here about the use of PAN PAN and MAYDAY on either side of the pond.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Manchester
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NO Effect on safety 2%
A detrimental effect on safety 96%
Dont Know 2%
I think that is the reality that pilots see every day
Look, lots of Americans have trouble understanding a native English speaker in the UK, especially Scotland.
But then there is Welsh, Scouse, Geordy, and a few other dialects/accents that trip us up as well.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Usually firmly on the ground
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
A recent poll on Linkedin asked " Do you consider ATC RT transmissions in multiple languages at major international airports has"...currently the voting is as follows
NO Effect on safety 2%
A detrimental effect on safety 96%
Dont Know 2%
NO Effect on safety 2%
A detrimental effect on safety 96%
Dont Know 2%
Like most surveys the outcome depends a lot on how the question is framed, and LinkedIn is hardly a respected polling organisaion seeking a representative sample, etc.
I think that is the reality that pilots see every day
By the way, an important point you haven't addressed upthread is that in the instance you cite at CDG in your opening post, the communication error was in English. Would you be happy accepting a universal aviation language that wasn't English?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Manchester
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I I freely admit to not understanding *all* the circumstances behind the situation, but I would like you to consider that *some* of the circumstances behind the situation might be better appraised by people who aren't pilots but who can bring an outside perspective with relevant expertise.
If you read upthread, you'll see I acknowledged some time ago that multiple languages certainly are a problem. The question that interests me, and that comes with my outside perspective, is whether replacing them in this setting with a single language might not run the risk of creating other, more serious problems.
If it was a requirement to speak Mandarin and you wanted to be a pilot...you would learn Standard RT Mandarin. I had to lean Mose Code. It's what you do. I taught Malaysian airline cadets, in Malaysia. I leant to speak Malay. I gave ground school and flight lessons in English.
Still unsure, here are some of the comments from the linked in poll
"Absolutely degrading to safety."
"Situational Awareness (SA) is the key to a pilot’s survival. When you take a sense away (RT) you are lowering a pilot’s SA. When non-English RT is being used the risk increases. Proximate traffic speed/altitude info gets lost. Altimeter setting readings, wind reports, ATC frequencies all become useless to the non-lingual. This all has huge relevance to the world I’ve flown in over the last 30+ years and continues to increase as airspace useage intensifies. There is a good reason for being ICAO signatories; it’s called safety."
"You just have to fly regularly in to one of the Paris airports or places like Madrid / Rome when it’s busy and it becomes pretty clear what the effect multiple languages in ATC RT has, can have, on safety."
"It’s absolutely lethal."
"It is not just transmissions between ATC and Aircraft which must be carried out in one universal language. You will get transmissions BETWEEN aircraft too when required, especially when observations and messages need to be quickly passed. It always helps a crew to understand what is being said by other aircraft in the vicinity, especially near or on an airfield.
Communication saves lives."
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Usually firmly on the ground
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
The fact is it is English that was adopted as the Language of the air.
Although the language proficiency of L1 English aviation professionals may typically be considered to be equivalent to Expert Level 6 on the ICAO Scale, they may also be sub-standard communicators in Aviation English, specifically by being prone to the use of non-standard terms, demonstrating impatience with non-native speakers, and speaking excessively, as well as too quickly. Such native speaker failings tend to worsen in emergency situations
In other words, adopting English as a universal aviation language will not solve all the problems, neither does it put the onus on resolving those problems solely on non-native speakers. Would you agree?
Thats why the question was framed as it was. Can you see any issue with the 'framing'?
Feel free to put a poll up here and see what the reaction is
"Communication saves lives."
For one thing, it gives non-native speakers of the 'universal' language a false sense of security that they understand each other perfectly because they are speaking the same language. My most lucrative jobs come from situations, usually with plenty of lawyers in attendance, in which it's become apparent that this is not the case (fortunately none involving fatalities so far).
For another, as the Wikipedia article points out, the way native and non-native speakers use a language differs and can in some cases make communication more difficult.
The fact is that we live in a multilingual world and language, even codified language, is not wholly unambiguous. Imposing a single language is not going to solve all communication problems and may well create others. In my view over-insistence on this aspect is likely to mask other contributing factors to incidents, and that would not be a good thing.
Good point, still would get nuisance alerts in most cases i think, whenever the QNH set on the alt would be more than the limit... You also introduce an issue if the reference is wrong triggering a alert even if the set QNH is correct. I am sure there is a better way to design this instead of a comparison like that. If there is a need perhaps as mentioned one better is to upload the correct qnh...
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: L
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Eutychus;11272716]I know what situational awareness is, and reading this forum makes me pay attention to SA when I'm driving my car. I'm prepared to learn from the expertise of others and apply it in my own field. Are you?
Experienced pilots are among the most highly trained and experienced professionals in communication across all industries. We are aware of its limitations as we experience this every day. As such we are always open to new communication learning as ways to reduce errors and threats. However, maybe not from a SLF on an online forum.
“In other words, adopting English as a universal aviation language will not solve all the problems, neither does it put the onus on resolving those problems solely on non-native speakers. Would you agree?”
We use standard phraseology, that way the use of one language works well. Any comments on this thread about English being chosen as opposed to another language are just hot air. It’s already happened. We could switch to Klingon and use standard phraseology and have local languages like in this case, and the same problems would continue to occur.
Experienced pilots are among the most highly trained and experienced professionals in communication across all industries. We are aware of its limitations as we experience this every day. As such we are always open to new communication learning as ways to reduce errors and threats. However, maybe not from a SLF on an online forum.
“In other words, adopting English as a universal aviation language will not solve all the problems, neither does it put the onus on resolving those problems solely on non-native speakers. Would you agree?”
We use standard phraseology, that way the use of one language works well. Any comments on this thread about English being chosen as opposed to another language are just hot air. It’s already happened. We could switch to Klingon and use standard phraseology and have local languages like in this case, and the same problems would continue to occur.
Only half a speed-brake
Experienced pilots are among the most highly trained and experienced professionals in communication across all industries. We are aware of its limitations as we experience this every day. As such we are always open to new communication learning as ways to reduce errors and threats.