controllers with broken english
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sandi Arabia
Age: 63
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Controllers with broken English
Here we go.
1- Late evening in Barcelona. 7 Iberia planes trying to land and I’m the only one speaking English. After a bit of struggle, I decided to tell my F/O: You have the controls and you do as I tell you, and came back to the controller in Spanish, realizing that he wanted me to do a left 270 degree turn (For separation) to join ILS behind a landing MD.
2- Remember the Avianca accident in Manhattan??? The pilots where not able to communicate to the tower that they where low on fuel. From then on no Colombian pilot gets in to Avianca without a very good English knowledge.
3- Wouldn’t be able to fly in to Australia if it wasn’t for an Australian Co-captain.
Summarize: It’s always good to know more than one language, in my case is more than three, but it is a dream to have all the aviation community speaking several languages just because they go all over the word.
It’s definitely better to have all the controllers do so …. And I have to agree with most of you. It’s a safety matter.
Don’t know how many of you have had the chance to fly in the Middle East, but they have a very good English and they even use it between themselves.
It’s normal for other countries to use there native language in certain circumstances, but it should be mandatory in close proximity to airports, on climb-descend, turn, intercept approaches and take off-line up clearances…
Best of all, it’s in our hands to keep it safe… when in doubt …..(SAY AGAIN)
1- Late evening in Barcelona. 7 Iberia planes trying to land and I’m the only one speaking English. After a bit of struggle, I decided to tell my F/O: You have the controls and you do as I tell you, and came back to the controller in Spanish, realizing that he wanted me to do a left 270 degree turn (For separation) to join ILS behind a landing MD.
2- Remember the Avianca accident in Manhattan??? The pilots where not able to communicate to the tower that they where low on fuel. From then on no Colombian pilot gets in to Avianca without a very good English knowledge.
3- Wouldn’t be able to fly in to Australia if it wasn’t for an Australian Co-captain.
Summarize: It’s always good to know more than one language, in my case is more than three, but it is a dream to have all the aviation community speaking several languages just because they go all over the word.
It’s definitely better to have all the controllers do so …. And I have to agree with most of you. It’s a safety matter.
Don’t know how many of you have had the chance to fly in the Middle East, but they have a very good English and they even use it between themselves.
It’s normal for other countries to use there native language in certain circumstances, but it should be mandatory in close proximity to airports, on climb-descend, turn, intercept approaches and take off-line up clearances…
Best of all, it’s in our hands to keep it safe… when in doubt …..(SAY AGAIN)
Drain Bamaged
up to date picture ?
Maverfic, regarding Québec I suspect that your news date from early 80´s....
No offence BTW
& never heard about "the split frequency" suggestion.
No offence BTW
& never heard about "the split frequency" suggestion.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: formally Alamo battleground, now the crocodile with palm trees!
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it, it is an ICAO agreement/requirement that the aviation language was to be English. Or is it the case the French and French speakers have made exemptions, to suit themselves.
I had a previous argument about dual languages on ATC and ICAO. I don't have the exact reference with me now (out of town), but ICAO states that if you cannot use the language (other than English) that is being used by ATC than English should be used. I am pretty sure that in Brazil Portuguese is used for ATC communications. I know a part of Brazil where a local Indian language is used for ATC. Long story short: English is not the only international language that can be used for ATC.
I have done some personal research on that matter and the only major accident that comes to my attention is the one @ CDG. As far as I have researched I don't think that the use of French was the only reason for this accident.
If a pilot/flight crew is concerned about a foreign language that is being used on the radio, he should increase his situational awareness, especially on the ground!
Mid-air collisions, take-off/landing accidents etc. have happened in "English-only spoken airspace" as well. I think that dual languages are not a safety hazard. On the reverse, a flight crew can become too complacent if ATC is only conducted in English.
7 7 7 7
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that dual languages are not a safety hazard. On the reverse, a flight crew can become too complacent if ATC is only conducted in English.
You mention the ONLY incident that comes to you attention was that unfortunate one at CDG. This is gonna sound a little sensationalist, but will it take more deaths to seriously address this issue?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: formally Alamo battleground, now the crocodile with palm trees!
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jericho,
you make it sound that the main reason for the accident at CDG was the use of dual languages. It was a contributing factor which I am not disputing.
I have flown many hours in Latin America and I don't speak Spanish. Do I consider it unsafe? No! Am I more concentrated on my situational awareness? You bet! If you fly regularly in a dual language airspace, don't be too stubborn and prep yourself. You won't believe how much it helps just to learn numbers (0-36). Two languages and one head - that seems difficult, I suppose?
Yes, I am suggesting complacency. Again, that comes from my personal experience. Just the mental picture "my language = much safer" can create it. Like it or not, that's what I have seen.
7 7 7 7
you make it sound that the main reason for the accident at CDG was the use of dual languages. It was a contributing factor which I am not disputing.
I have flown many hours in Latin America and I don't speak Spanish. Do I consider it unsafe? No! Am I more concentrated on my situational awareness? You bet! If you fly regularly in a dual language airspace, don't be too stubborn and prep yourself. You won't believe how much it helps just to learn numbers (0-36). Two languages and one head - that seems difficult, I suppose?
Yes, I am suggesting complacency. Again, that comes from my personal experience. Just the mental picture "my language = much safer" can create it. Like it or not, that's what I have seen.
7 7 7 7
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: temporarily unsure :-)
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No matter what you say about the french-at least they're more cultured! who cares if you cant understand them!They're probably saying bad things about us anyway!
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're flogging over old ground here. The main error was an ATC one, no doubting that. However waving the situational awareness flag as you were, IF the Shorts pilot had heard the MD80 lined up on the same runway, PERHAPS it could have been averted (been thrashed to death already)
If we wish to recount "personal experiences", I had the opportunity to plug in and watch Montreal Terminal earlier in the year. Talk about confusing. Let's picture a somewhat new BA pilot entering that airspace for the first time. Must be daunting. As I have said several time, in a BUSY terminal environment, what's the effin need or point aside from the "because we can".
If we wish to recount "personal experiences", I had the opportunity to plug in and watch Montreal Terminal earlier in the year. Talk about confusing. Let's picture a somewhat new BA pilot entering that airspace for the first time. Must be daunting. As I have said several time, in a BUSY terminal environment, what's the effin need or point aside from the "because we can".
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: formally Alamo battleground, now the crocodile with palm trees!
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I have read the accident report the crew of the shorts were uncertain if the runway was clear or occupied. Why did they not verify that they were cleared for take-off? My criticism about the controller is that he did not name the runway in his landing clearance for Air Inter.
Another thought that crossed my mind is military traffic. I fly regularly through military operating airspace and I cannot hear the military a/c since they use UHF. As far as I remember some countries in Europe require a separate controller for UHF comm. You share the same airspace, and cannot hear military traffic! Is that safer?
How many accidents can you directly attribute to dual languages being used by ATC? Factor in the number of operations and the frequency is probably very low and therefore remains a very low risk.
If you take a look at the whole picture it probably is the safest way it is now. I am getting scared imagining whole Latin America trying to conduct ATC comm in English to each other ...
7 7 7 7
Another thought that crossed my mind is military traffic. I fly regularly through military operating airspace and I cannot hear the military a/c since they use UHF. As far as I remember some countries in Europe require a separate controller for UHF comm. You share the same airspace, and cannot hear military traffic! Is that safer?
How many accidents can you directly attribute to dual languages being used by ATC? Factor in the number of operations and the frequency is probably very low and therefore remains a very low risk.
If you take a look at the whole picture it probably is the safest way it is now. I am getting scared imagining whole Latin America trying to conduct ATC comm in English to each other ...
7 7 7 7
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a very low risk
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: formally Alamo battleground, now the crocodile with palm trees!
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation is about calculated risks, congested frequencies etc. Some of it is acceptable e.g. read the UK Mandatory Occorance Report and it says sometimes like "this incident is acceptable provided the frequency remains low".
For how many years has dual-language ATC existed and how many accidents can you attribute to?
Nah, I don't think I support your argument
For how many years has dual-language ATC existed and how many accidents can you attribute to?
Nah, I don't think I support your argument
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For how many years has dual-language ATC existed and how many accidents can you attribute to?
Anyway, in 10-15 years it'll all be automated. All the little computers talking to each other. You reckon Air France's computers will communicate in French? And then go on strike? (sorry, cheap shot)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: formally Alamo battleground, now the crocodile with palm trees!
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jerricho,
good thought, but I disagree on the "percentage increase in air traffic movements in busy Terminal Environments".
I have flown into a few very busy airports in the US (ORD, ATL, JFK, EWR, BOS). When the ATC controller is so busy that his communication sounds like a non-stop AK-47, can you really picture all of his transmissions? I agree that it sounds strange to a person the first time he's exposed to dual-language ATC and that he feels unsafe. If you approach a very busy airport, bad weather, approach procedures etc. do you have enough time to catch all other communications? I think not. Will dual-language ATC make it more confusing? I think not.
good thought, but I disagree on the "percentage increase in air traffic movements in busy Terminal Environments".
I have flown into a few very busy airports in the US (ORD, ATL, JFK, EWR, BOS). When the ATC controller is so busy that his communication sounds like a non-stop AK-47, can you really picture all of his transmissions? I agree that it sounds strange to a person the first time he's exposed to dual-language ATC and that he feels unsafe. If you approach a very busy airport, bad weather, approach procedures etc. do you have enough time to catch all other communications? I think not. Will dual-language ATC make it more confusing? I think not.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
7777... you do speak some tosh..
How can anyone possibly support an argument that states it's not a problem if we don't know what each other are doing...
Your personal research indicates that the accident at CDG is the'Only' one resulting from use of a foreign language...For the poor co-pilot on the 330 it's the only one he needed ! And your research is badly flawed...several accidents have been attributed in part..notice I said ' In part ' to this cause....Dan_Air 727 hitting a mountain at Tenerife....BEA and Air Yugoslavia collision over Zagreb 1976...and if you care to look at a posting I made on this thread on Oct 10th you'll find an ' almost '....
If ATC, ourselves or other crew make no mistakes then we probably would have even fewer accidents, whatever the language... unfortunately people do make mistakes...At least let's all have a chance to hear thjem being made..
How can anyone possibly support an argument that states it's not a problem if we don't know what each other are doing...
Your personal research indicates that the accident at CDG is the'Only' one resulting from use of a foreign language...For the poor co-pilot on the 330 it's the only one he needed ! And your research is badly flawed...several accidents have been attributed in part..notice I said ' In part ' to this cause....Dan_Air 727 hitting a mountain at Tenerife....BEA and Air Yugoslavia collision over Zagreb 1976...and if you care to look at a posting I made on this thread on Oct 10th you'll find an ' almost '....
If ATC, ourselves or other crew make no mistakes then we probably would have even fewer accidents, whatever the language... unfortunately people do make mistakes...At least let's all have a chance to hear thjem being made..
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: london
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I have flown into a few very busy airports in the US (ORD, ATL, JFK, EWR, BOS). When the ATC controller is so busy that his communication sounds like a non-stop AK-47, can you really picture all of his transmissions? "
And do you really believe that ATC using a dual langauge in these environments is safe.What happens when something goes wrong.Will he/she remember which langauge they are supposed to be using to the a/c with a problem or the two they are trying to give avoiding action to.Under an extreme pressure situation I very much doubt it.
Dual langauge may be "safe" in a very quiet ATC sector but in a busy sector in my humble opinion its just an accident waiting to happen.
And do you really believe that ATC using a dual langauge in these environments is safe.What happens when something goes wrong.Will he/she remember which langauge they are supposed to be using to the a/c with a problem or the two they are trying to give avoiding action to.Under an extreme pressure situation I very much doubt it.
Dual langauge may be "safe" in a very quiet ATC sector but in a busy sector in my humble opinion its just an accident waiting to happen.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
7777, it's more than a good though, it's a fact. And you (and a couple of others here) have been pretty good at waving the "dual-language freqs are safe.....blah, blah, blah!" flag. There have been some good arguments/points from both pilots and controllers as to why they don't think its a good idea
Answer me this. WHY? Why do it? What operational benefit is there? Let's here some arguments. We've done our side, you do yours. If it simply is "because we can", or "Cause ICAO says we can" that's pretty lame.
And I have been thinking about your "complacency". What a load of cr@p. In fact, complacency would be more of an issue with 2 languages being used. Pilot thinks "Oh, ATC are wittering on again in French, that's not for me". Meanwhile, said "wittering" is avoiding action being given to opposite direction traffic to the guy. If you hear "Avoiding Action" or "Turn now" in the one standardised language, everybody is going to pay attention.
(Edited cause we all know I can't spell)
Answer me this. WHY? Why do it? What operational benefit is there? Let's here some arguments. We've done our side, you do yours. If it simply is "because we can", or "Cause ICAO says we can" that's pretty lame.
And I have been thinking about your "complacency". What a load of cr@p. In fact, complacency would be more of an issue with 2 languages being used. Pilot thinks "Oh, ATC are wittering on again in French, that's not for me". Meanwhile, said "wittering" is avoiding action being given to opposite direction traffic to the guy. If you hear "Avoiding Action" or "Turn now" in the one standardised language, everybody is going to pay attention.
(Edited cause we all know I can't spell)
Last edited by Jerricho; 24th Nov 2003 at 16:59.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jerricho and others,
You make some good points but your "dual ATC frequencies are unsafe ...blah blah blah" bandwagon is flawed in its logic.No accident has been directly attributable to this practice.It is possible that in the CDG crash,it was a contributing factor,but this could never be proven.The other crashes you cite are also red herrings.The Dan Air Tenerife was pilot error,the mid-air over Zagreb was controller error.
Why does it continue?Mainly because analysis of past accidents tells us that it is not unsafe to do so.Pilots can not be expected to derive situational awareness by monitoring how controllers are managing traffic flow.Second-guessing a controllers intentions is well nigh impossible in an "English-only" environment.TCAS is always there as a final option in any case.
Some controllers/pilots(I'm thinking Latin America and Africa) can not speak English very well.Conveying something in a short a time as possible can best be done in their native language.Suggest you follow 7777's advice and learn a few relevant phrases(1-36,left,right,cleared line up/land/takeoff)in French and Spanish..that 's if you think you know better than the controller....
You make some good points but your "dual ATC frequencies are unsafe ...blah blah blah" bandwagon is flawed in its logic.No accident has been directly attributable to this practice.It is possible that in the CDG crash,it was a contributing factor,but this could never be proven.The other crashes you cite are also red herrings.The Dan Air Tenerife was pilot error,the mid-air over Zagreb was controller error.
Why does it continue?Mainly because analysis of past accidents tells us that it is not unsafe to do so.Pilots can not be expected to derive situational awareness by monitoring how controllers are managing traffic flow.Second-guessing a controllers intentions is well nigh impossible in an "English-only" environment.TCAS is always there as a final option in any case.
Some controllers/pilots(I'm thinking Latin America and Africa) can not speak English very well.Conveying something in a short a time as possible can best be done in their native language.Suggest you follow 7777's advice and learn a few relevant phrases(1-36,left,right,cleared line up/land/takeoff)in French and Spanish..that 's if you think you know better than the controller....