What is the language of the skies??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the language of the skies??
What is the language of the skies?? There is of course the decision by ICAO that it is English, but flying the skies of Europe and western Africa one could start doubting this. There is frankly too much local language on the air IMHO.
Considering a few of the accidents we have encountered in Europe in the last couple of years, a disturbing amount of them have references to language barriers included in the preliminary or actual accident reports. If not as the cause of the accident/incident then as a contributing factor. What I hope from writing this Piece is a healthy debate on the language of the skies, and maybe the colleagues in the air will return to English, and only use local language as a last resort. This is in my view a safety issue, and one we as fellow aviators need to address. Consider the following postulates.
1. By all speaking the same language the amount of radio traffic will be reduced as one will be able to deduce information from other conversations.
2. Understanding all of the radio communications will give a better situational awareness to all.
3. Forced use of the English language will improve the English level for those who do not have it as a mother tongue, thus maybe avoiding situations where fear of the language leads to complacency.
4. Is it not common courtesy to speak a language everyone understands when being in a social environment, why should the air be any different.
The skies of Europe are about to change, the EU is growing introducing new states, more and more languages are being introduced. We need to adhere to the standard. Although I am weighing this a lot towards the European skies, I do believe this is a issue that needs to be addressed globally. Please let’s try and make this a positive debate. I am not naming any languages nor any countries as I am sure that we all have our different experiences, and I do not wish this to become a mudslinging contest. I speak 5 languages, no braging intended, myself but consider it very much a safety issue to speak English on the radio. What if anything can be done to change the current state without having a lot of guys starting to wave the flag.
Oluf
Considering a few of the accidents we have encountered in Europe in the last couple of years, a disturbing amount of them have references to language barriers included in the preliminary or actual accident reports. If not as the cause of the accident/incident then as a contributing factor. What I hope from writing this Piece is a healthy debate on the language of the skies, and maybe the colleagues in the air will return to English, and only use local language as a last resort. This is in my view a safety issue, and one we as fellow aviators need to address. Consider the following postulates.
1. By all speaking the same language the amount of radio traffic will be reduced as one will be able to deduce information from other conversations.
2. Understanding all of the radio communications will give a better situational awareness to all.
3. Forced use of the English language will improve the English level for those who do not have it as a mother tongue, thus maybe avoiding situations where fear of the language leads to complacency.
4. Is it not common courtesy to speak a language everyone understands when being in a social environment, why should the air be any different.
The skies of Europe are about to change, the EU is growing introducing new states, more and more languages are being introduced. We need to adhere to the standard. Although I am weighing this a lot towards the European skies, I do believe this is a issue that needs to be addressed globally. Please let’s try and make this a positive debate. I am not naming any languages nor any countries as I am sure that we all have our different experiences, and I do not wish this to become a mudslinging contest. I speak 5 languages, no braging intended, myself but consider it very much a safety issue to speak English on the radio. What if anything can be done to change the current state without having a lot of guys starting to wave the flag.
Oluf
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Already heavily debated here on PPRuNe. Please use the search function.
Of course, based on your assumptions above, perhaps the 'standard' language to be used should be the one that has greatest useage, which as far as I'm aware, isn't English. Perhaps Chinese or Spanish?
Now there's a dilemma... English because it's easier for you or Tagalog because more people use it? Remember to widen your perspective if you are going to start a debate with an international flavour on PPRuNe!
Of course, based on your assumptions above, perhaps the 'standard' language to be used should be the one that has greatest useage, which as far as I'm aware, isn't English. Perhaps Chinese or Spanish?
Now there's a dilemma... English because it's easier for you or Tagalog because more people use it? Remember to widen your perspective if you are going to start a debate with an international flavour on PPRuNe!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny.
I don't believe it's lack of perspective that made me start the debate, rather the need for common ground. If there is one thing in my experience aviators will agree apon it's safety issues. If a pilot is given the needs for better situational awareness he will take it.
As long as the standard prescribed by ICAO is to use the English language when engaging in aviation radio conversation one must abide by that.
Now the my intention for starting this debate is not so much to advocate for English, as it is to underline the importance of cross the board understanding while in the air, be that in Chinese, Spanish or Latin.
I admit that I would prefer the language to be English for two reasons. 1. I understand it. 2. Beacuse it carries the standard frasiologi that we use to make the communication short and to the point, and thus bringing everyone into the loop. It is tought at every flightschool in the JAA countries as the language to utilize.
English may not be the language spoken by most as a mother tounge, it is however probably the most widespread making it useful.
So the issue at hand may not really be what language we speak, it is agreeing on the standard and sticking to it.
One could be temted to compare this to the issue of computersystems. As we know microsoft is the biggest, but is it the best? Maybe not technically, it is however the most widespread, and therefore utilized for the enhancement of better communication. It sets the standard.
I for one like to understand thouroughly what goes on around me while I'm in the air.
Oluf
I don't believe it's lack of perspective that made me start the debate, rather the need for common ground. If there is one thing in my experience aviators will agree apon it's safety issues. If a pilot is given the needs for better situational awareness he will take it.
As long as the standard prescribed by ICAO is to use the English language when engaging in aviation radio conversation one must abide by that.
Now the my intention for starting this debate is not so much to advocate for English, as it is to underline the importance of cross the board understanding while in the air, be that in Chinese, Spanish or Latin.
I admit that I would prefer the language to be English for two reasons. 1. I understand it. 2. Beacuse it carries the standard frasiologi that we use to make the communication short and to the point, and thus bringing everyone into the loop. It is tought at every flightschool in the JAA countries as the language to utilize.
English may not be the language spoken by most as a mother tounge, it is however probably the most widespread making it useful.
So the issue at hand may not really be what language we speak, it is agreeing on the standard and sticking to it.
One could be temted to compare this to the issue of computersystems. As we know microsoft is the biggest, but is it the best? Maybe not technically, it is however the most widespread, and therefore utilized for the enhancement of better communication. It sets the standard.
I for one like to understand thouroughly what goes on around me while I'm in the air.
Oluf
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go again,
My dear Oluf,
As Danny correctly said this subject comes back regularly , at least once a year since the beginning of this site. With a little bit of research you could find all the answers, but, Oluf, since you took the effort to explain the reasons behind the question, I will oblige one more time :
Let´s go step by step and in shortcuts (and without xenophobia) :
First, the problem has been debated inside ICAO since 1945 . The current regulations are seen by many as the best compromise one can get. If you are unaware of them , a good start would be to look into the ICAO Annexes dealing with communications, and once you are done, look into the debates on the issue during the last ICAO Air navigation Conference (ANC) in October 2003. All of these are avail on www.icao.org
Secondly you have to be able to make the difference between “ phraseology based on the English language “ which is the ICAO definition and the generic words “ English language “
These are 2 completely different things.
And while everyone (i..e. every Civil aviation authority in each State ) agrees with the ICAO definition, , inclusion of the other is the purpose of a very heated debate.
The current ICAO regulation is that the prime language to be used in aviation on the R/T of a particular Country is a language defined by the authority of the Country overflown. In case of incompatibility, a phraseology based on English shall be made available ( even through an interpreter ) This is currently done in all ICAO member States. Again this is not perfect, but it is the best reachable compromise one can get in this world presently.
There is , during every ICAO ANC, a debate on the issue, but every time the status quo remains . As the ANC meets every 10 years, it is safe to assume that nothing will change until 2014. Since data link will by then , take probably an increasing predominance, I could also safely predict that the language issue is unlikely to be modified even by then. You have to realise that is (very unfortunately ) also a serious political issue.
But everyone also agrees now that phraseology alone is not sufficient to communicate, especially in cases of emergency. For this reason ICAO is sponsoring English language courses awareness for ATM personal through a very ambitious programme, but it remains on request , (i.e for States requesting it.)
It is a very lengthy process , as you have to realise that for instance, the numbers of controllers in South& central America, in Russia and in China alone, are more than the number of controllers in the rest of the world.
Also there are far, far more accidents , let alone incidents , caused by bad (English ) phraseology than caused by the use of two languages simultaneously .
For instance the recently published Final report on the Linate Crash has poor (English ) phraseology in the list of the contributing factors, not the fact hat the controller was using Italian and English simulteanously.
Therefore if you were ICAO you would concentrate your efforts on phraseology instead than on language issues, (where there is anyway little political will to change. )
Most of us, dealing with safety , are also not convinced that this is the most pressing thing to do , seen the limited resources ICAO has. Also , to be fair, one has to admit that speaking native language between pilots and controllers has also safety advantages, especially in areas where over 90% of the traffic is national. Forcing everyone to speak another language from day x would certainly have safety impacts during the transition period.
Many are not really prepared to take that risk .
It does not mean however that this cannot be done, it just need very serious planning and a complex training programme , but, as I said earlier, given limited resources, priorities have to be set and choices to be made.
I am not denying the problem, just being honest with the reality.
Therefore, and as a conclusion : it is extremely unlikely that the language issue be solved .
Finally, do not be afraid of new European states joining the EU in 2 months time, their CAAs are all post communist era and they generally all speak a better English than most US citizens.
Also do not let yourself be fooled by the so called “ accidents caused by the mixture of 2 languages in the frequency “ they are generally all overdone to justify an argument. Read instead the accident reports when they are published ,to make your own opinion. You will find that in almost all cases the language is an accessory factor , i.e one that could perhaps have influenced the outcome , but never was a primary cause.
The well know , often used recent case : the CDG accident between a Shorts and a MD87, is such a typical example. Read the final report avail in English at www.bea-fr.org if you doubt what I say. ( I have just incidentally a few weeks ago discussed the matter with some of the investigators of that accident and they even do not believe that had all the R/T been in English, it would have changed anything. But this is another debate ) Every accident is a complex mixure of many factors, it is extremely difficult to isolate one .
And at last a request to Danny : since I seem to repeat myself every year or so on this subject, could you consider putting this post somewhere reachable on PPRuNe, in order that we can refer to it in the future when someone surely will re-inquire on this issue ?
My dear Oluf,
As Danny correctly said this subject comes back regularly , at least once a year since the beginning of this site. With a little bit of research you could find all the answers, but, Oluf, since you took the effort to explain the reasons behind the question, I will oblige one more time :
Let´s go step by step and in shortcuts (and without xenophobia) :
First, the problem has been debated inside ICAO since 1945 . The current regulations are seen by many as the best compromise one can get. If you are unaware of them , a good start would be to look into the ICAO Annexes dealing with communications, and once you are done, look into the debates on the issue during the last ICAO Air navigation Conference (ANC) in October 2003. All of these are avail on www.icao.org
Secondly you have to be able to make the difference between “ phraseology based on the English language “ which is the ICAO definition and the generic words “ English language “
These are 2 completely different things.
And while everyone (i..e. every Civil aviation authority in each State ) agrees with the ICAO definition, , inclusion of the other is the purpose of a very heated debate.
The current ICAO regulation is that the prime language to be used in aviation on the R/T of a particular Country is a language defined by the authority of the Country overflown. In case of incompatibility, a phraseology based on English shall be made available ( even through an interpreter ) This is currently done in all ICAO member States. Again this is not perfect, but it is the best reachable compromise one can get in this world presently.
There is , during every ICAO ANC, a debate on the issue, but every time the status quo remains . As the ANC meets every 10 years, it is safe to assume that nothing will change until 2014. Since data link will by then , take probably an increasing predominance, I could also safely predict that the language issue is unlikely to be modified even by then. You have to realise that is (very unfortunately ) also a serious political issue.
But everyone also agrees now that phraseology alone is not sufficient to communicate, especially in cases of emergency. For this reason ICAO is sponsoring English language courses awareness for ATM personal through a very ambitious programme, but it remains on request , (i.e for States requesting it.)
It is a very lengthy process , as you have to realise that for instance, the numbers of controllers in South& central America, in Russia and in China alone, are more than the number of controllers in the rest of the world.
Also there are far, far more accidents , let alone incidents , caused by bad (English ) phraseology than caused by the use of two languages simultaneously .
For instance the recently published Final report on the Linate Crash has poor (English ) phraseology in the list of the contributing factors, not the fact hat the controller was using Italian and English simulteanously.
Therefore if you were ICAO you would concentrate your efforts on phraseology instead than on language issues, (where there is anyway little political will to change. )
Most of us, dealing with safety , are also not convinced that this is the most pressing thing to do , seen the limited resources ICAO has. Also , to be fair, one has to admit that speaking native language between pilots and controllers has also safety advantages, especially in areas where over 90% of the traffic is national. Forcing everyone to speak another language from day x would certainly have safety impacts during the transition period.
Many are not really prepared to take that risk .
It does not mean however that this cannot be done, it just need very serious planning and a complex training programme , but, as I said earlier, given limited resources, priorities have to be set and choices to be made.
I am not denying the problem, just being honest with the reality.
Therefore, and as a conclusion : it is extremely unlikely that the language issue be solved .
Finally, do not be afraid of new European states joining the EU in 2 months time, their CAAs are all post communist era and they generally all speak a better English than most US citizens.
Also do not let yourself be fooled by the so called “ accidents caused by the mixture of 2 languages in the frequency “ they are generally all overdone to justify an argument. Read instead the accident reports when they are published ,to make your own opinion. You will find that in almost all cases the language is an accessory factor , i.e one that could perhaps have influenced the outcome , but never was a primary cause.
The well know , often used recent case : the CDG accident between a Shorts and a MD87, is such a typical example. Read the final report avail in English at www.bea-fr.org if you doubt what I say. ( I have just incidentally a few weeks ago discussed the matter with some of the investigators of that accident and they even do not believe that had all the R/T been in English, it would have changed anything. But this is another debate ) Every accident is a complex mixure of many factors, it is extremely difficult to isolate one .
And at last a request to Danny : since I seem to repeat myself every year or so on this subject, could you consider putting this post somewhere reachable on PPRuNe, in order that we can refer to it in the future when someone surely will re-inquire on this issue ?
cks
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the respondants to this post: I salute you.
I hate to repeat myself, but a good healthy discussion is what I'm seeking. ( and it seemes it's what I'm getting)
There are a lot of references to ICAO, but what is essencial in my view is common sence. What do the professionals in the sky believe to be prudent. We can all refer to the scriptures but does it make sence.
As ATC watcher says, this has been debated since 1945. It will probably be debated for the next century.The main target should be finding a soution. If pilots feel better as a whole with one language beeing utilized, shouldn't that set the standard. In the USA there are continuing efforts to strive towards a common phraseology in an effort to increase safety, they only have one language to deal with. I know it's not popular to highlight the USA in these matters, but it is probably the the nation in the world with the most flying.
The referal to the Linate accident made in other posts: Maybe the use of multible languages did not cause the accident, but is it possible that a common language could have made a difference??
As to the argument made that local language is used to enhance the understanding for the needy, that is in my view appropriate, but don't leave the rest of us in the dark.
Confirmation is what we seek, if in doubt, don't take anything for granted, and hopefully you will be safe.
As for the discussion about English not being the the best solution as pilots may not be comfortable or secure in that language concider the following:
If one knows that the operative language is, then one should make one's best effort to learn it sufficiantly.
The higher the understanding the less misunderstanding.
This discussion is turning in to a war between English and French which was not my intention, What does a Russian pilot with limited english knowledge do when encountering a greek controler with no english knowledge do on approach to a greek island. ( Put there for effect)
Î hope the discussion will continue.
Oluf
I hate to repeat myself, but a good healthy discussion is what I'm seeking. ( and it seemes it's what I'm getting)
There are a lot of references to ICAO, but what is essencial in my view is common sence. What do the professionals in the sky believe to be prudent. We can all refer to the scriptures but does it make sence.
As ATC watcher says, this has been debated since 1945. It will probably be debated for the next century.The main target should be finding a soution. If pilots feel better as a whole with one language beeing utilized, shouldn't that set the standard. In the USA there are continuing efforts to strive towards a common phraseology in an effort to increase safety, they only have one language to deal with. I know it's not popular to highlight the USA in these matters, but it is probably the the nation in the world with the most flying.
The referal to the Linate accident made in other posts: Maybe the use of multible languages did not cause the accident, but is it possible that a common language could have made a difference??
As to the argument made that local language is used to enhance the understanding for the needy, that is in my view appropriate, but don't leave the rest of us in the dark.
Confirmation is what we seek, if in doubt, don't take anything for granted, and hopefully you will be safe.
As for the discussion about English not being the the best solution as pilots may not be comfortable or secure in that language concider the following:
If one knows that the operative language is, then one should make one's best effort to learn it sufficiantly.
The higher the understanding the less misunderstanding.
This discussion is turning in to a war between English and French which was not my intention, What does a Russian pilot with limited english knowledge do when encountering a greek controler with no english knowledge do on approach to a greek island. ( Put there for effect)
Î hope the discussion will continue.
Oluf
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I live (and fly) in an interesting part of the world, linguistically speaking: Canada. Quebec, to be specific. Though just a PPL, I have flown a significant amount of time in controlled airspace.
You have to factor something into the language equation. Not everyone can master English in many parts of the world. In particular, at the "low end" of aviation, light GA or bush flying, the knowledge of English in Quebec is fairly limited. Although to work in ATC you have to be bilingual, many controllers speak with a pronounced French accent. Throw in a PPL holder who can barely understand English, and I fail to see how comprehension or situational awareness, for that pilot, will be enhanced by forcing English. It's a reality we have to live with.
As I'm fluent in both English and French, it's less of an issue for me. But for others, it's a problem.
In any case I don't know of a single accident in Canada that can be attributed to the language issue. Our controlled airspace is perhaps not as busy as in the US or Europe, so ATC has more time to sort things out with improving situational awareness for two unilingual pilots of opposing language.
I've heard the flow go so rapidly from "Tango Lima Mike, turn left 2-4-0, your traffic is an A320 at 3 o'clock, three thousand; Air Canada 173, vous avez un Beechcraft à 9 heures, 2000 pieds" so smoothly it doesn't matter (yes, Air Canada pilots can and do use French). No doubt if all English, ATC would give exactly the same amount of wording, except all in English. And then one of the two aircraft involved might not clearly, or as quickly, understand the ATC instructions.
There were huge protests and predictions of carnage in the skies when French was allowed into ATC coms, first VFR only, now VFR and IFR, in the early '80s (when I learned to fly). It has not come to pass. The old rules of "see and be seen" still apply for VFR, as does positive traffic separation for IFR. I think it's actually more of an issue at uncontrolled fields with Mandatory Frequencies, than in controlled airspace. But then poor communications practices happen at uncontrolled fields regardless of the language being used.
Mike
You have to factor something into the language equation. Not everyone can master English in many parts of the world. In particular, at the "low end" of aviation, light GA or bush flying, the knowledge of English in Quebec is fairly limited. Although to work in ATC you have to be bilingual, many controllers speak with a pronounced French accent. Throw in a PPL holder who can barely understand English, and I fail to see how comprehension or situational awareness, for that pilot, will be enhanced by forcing English. It's a reality we have to live with.
As I'm fluent in both English and French, it's less of an issue for me. But for others, it's a problem.
In any case I don't know of a single accident in Canada that can be attributed to the language issue. Our controlled airspace is perhaps not as busy as in the US or Europe, so ATC has more time to sort things out with improving situational awareness for two unilingual pilots of opposing language.
I've heard the flow go so rapidly from "Tango Lima Mike, turn left 2-4-0, your traffic is an A320 at 3 o'clock, three thousand; Air Canada 173, vous avez un Beechcraft à 9 heures, 2000 pieds" so smoothly it doesn't matter (yes, Air Canada pilots can and do use French). No doubt if all English, ATC would give exactly the same amount of wording, except all in English. And then one of the two aircraft involved might not clearly, or as quickly, understand the ATC instructions.
There were huge protests and predictions of carnage in the skies when French was allowed into ATC coms, first VFR only, now VFR and IFR, in the early '80s (when I learned to fly). It has not come to pass. The old rules of "see and be seen" still apply for VFR, as does positive traffic separation for IFR. I think it's actually more of an issue at uncontrolled fields with Mandatory Frequencies, than in controlled airspace. But then poor communications practices happen at uncontrolled fields regardless of the language being used.
Mike
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting but still missing the point Oluf,
Communications is indeed a weak link in Safety. Often the weakest.
The problem is communications is more the use of a single phraseology that about a single language.
let's take a recent example in a country that do has English as official language : the USA :
the decision last year by ICAO to change taxi phraseology :
e.g . "taxi to holding position " ( was taxi to holing point before ) it is now conflicting with the US FAA phraseology "taxi into position and hold " meaning a totally different thing. ( in one instruction you taxi and hold BEFORE entering the runway and in the other you ENTER , line up and hold.)
The US , accoring ICAO , should use "line up and wait " but refuses to change its habbits on the account that : "15.000 controllers and 300.000 pilots in the US are not going to change for a few forgein pilots.."( in the Continental US 96% of the traffic is done by US aircraft. ) They argue that ICAO should change again their phraseology to make it less ambiguous with FAA.
Everyone ( ICAO and FAA) now awaits a serious incident or an accident to back off and return to sanity.
This is only one example, I can produce more, but you get the point I guess.
.
As our Canadian friend said, mixing languages on the R/T is annoying for some but it is not unsafe per se. But Applying bad phraseology might kill you one day.
Finally , AIRWAY, I do not think Chinese ( in singular ) is the most spoken language in the world . the official language in China is Mandarin and is , I am told, only spoken by the mainland elite and in Taiwan .
The vast majority of the people speak only their regional language , Cantonese being the largest I guess ( used in Hong Kong for instance ) But I migh be wrong .
Communications is indeed a weak link in Safety. Often the weakest.
The problem is communications is more the use of a single phraseology that about a single language.
let's take a recent example in a country that do has English as official language : the USA :
the decision last year by ICAO to change taxi phraseology :
e.g . "taxi to holding position " ( was taxi to holing point before ) it is now conflicting with the US FAA phraseology "taxi into position and hold " meaning a totally different thing. ( in one instruction you taxi and hold BEFORE entering the runway and in the other you ENTER , line up and hold.)
The US , accoring ICAO , should use "line up and wait " but refuses to change its habbits on the account that : "15.000 controllers and 300.000 pilots in the US are not going to change for a few forgein pilots.."( in the Continental US 96% of the traffic is done by US aircraft. ) They argue that ICAO should change again their phraseology to make it less ambiguous with FAA.
Everyone ( ICAO and FAA) now awaits a serious incident or an accident to back off and return to sanity.
This is only one example, I can produce more, but you get the point I guess.
.
As our Canadian friend said, mixing languages on the R/T is annoying for some but it is not unsafe per se. But Applying bad phraseology might kill you one day.
Finally , AIRWAY, I do not think Chinese ( in singular ) is the most spoken language in the world . the official language in China is Mandarin and is , I am told, only spoken by the mainland elite and in Taiwan .
The vast majority of the people speak only their regional language , Cantonese being the largest I guess ( used in Hong Kong for instance ) But I migh be wrong .
PPRuNe Co-Pilot
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Sky
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi ATC Watcher,
Im not sure on that one, but you might be right, i just took the rankings from a magazine called "Science" that did a survey/study on the most spoken languages in the world.
Im not sure on that one, but you might be right, i just took the rankings from a magazine called "Science" that did a survey/study on the most spoken languages in the world.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC Watcher
Agree with you regarding standard phraseology. This would though reqiure us to also agree upon the language of the phraseology would it not?
With regards to the point of using the local language in an attemt to avoid misunderstanding, I pointed that out in previous post as being natural.
My point remains though: The environment is safer if all participants in it has full understanding of the current situation.
I think with the recent years of improvement in CRM training, where one of the biggest subjects remain communication and understanding, most pilots feel more comfortable understanding the trafic and events that suround us.
The american stand on refusing to adher to standard phraseology is yet an excample of single states thinking they are the one to call the shots, and why this issue is so difficult to deal with, if that kind of stubborness is alowed to prevail, we will indeed see accidents before we see improvements.
What the biggest language is should really be beside the point IMHO, as the goal should be to find the practical, safe and efficient solution, and then applying it.
Oluf
Agree with you regarding standard phraseology. This would though reqiure us to also agree upon the language of the phraseology would it not?
With regards to the point of using the local language in an attemt to avoid misunderstanding, I pointed that out in previous post as being natural.
My point remains though: The environment is safer if all participants in it has full understanding of the current situation.
I think with the recent years of improvement in CRM training, where one of the biggest subjects remain communication and understanding, most pilots feel more comfortable understanding the trafic and events that suround us.
The american stand on refusing to adher to standard phraseology is yet an excample of single states thinking they are the one to call the shots, and why this issue is so difficult to deal with, if that kind of stubborness is alowed to prevail, we will indeed see accidents before we see improvements.
What the biggest language is should really be beside the point IMHO, as the goal should be to find the practical, safe and efficient solution, and then applying it.
Oluf
