Bad Engrish? [Archive] - AviationBanter

Larry Dighera

June 29th 07, 02:44 AM

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:10:28 GMT, Dallas
> wrote in
>:

>On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:38:47 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> It's worse than that. It's down right dangerous!
>
>It was dangerous. "hold November"
>
>Was it just me or did it sound like the pilot was trying to BS his way
>through the readback unwilling to admit that he didn't understand the word
>"question"?

To me, it sounded like the only English the person speaking on the
radio aboard the China Airlines flight was able to recognize was the
ICAO phonetic alphabet, and the words contained in the
Pilot/Controller Glossary, but he was totally unable to comprehend
ATC's questions and instructions. Granted the controller was speaking
normally as he would to someone who understood English. I doubt it
would have helped if the China crew requested "speak slower", because
they didn't seem to be able to understand the English grammar nor the
meaning of the rest of the words spoken by ATC.

That person obviously isn't able to speak and understand English,
therefore they are in violation of the ICAO regulation equivalent to
91.711(c)(3):

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=9e13c970c7e286a8b935f38ff01e17cf&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.10.8.7.8
§ 91.711 Special rules for foreign civil aircraft.
top
Link to an amendment published at 72 FR 31679, June 7, 2007.

(a) General. In addition to the other applicable regulations of this
part, each person operating a foreign civil aircraft within the United
States shall comply with this section.

(b) VFR. No person may conduct VFR operations which require two-way
radio communications under this part unless at least one crewmember of
that aircraft is able to conduct two-way radio communications in the
English language and is on duty during that operation.

(c) IFR. No person may operate a foreign civil aircraft under IFR
unless—

(1) That aircraft is equipped with—

(i) Radio equipment allowing two-way radio communication with ATC when
it is operated in controlled airspace; and

(ii) Radio navigational equipment appropriate to the navigational
facilities to be used;

(2) Each person piloting the aircraft—

(i) Holds a current United States instrument rating or is authorized
by his foreign airman certificate to pilot under IFR; and

(ii) Is thoroughly familiar with the United States en route, holding,
and letdown procedures; and

(3) At least one crewmember of that aircraft is able to conduct
two-way radiotelephone communications in the English language and that
crewmember is on duty while the aircraft is approaching, operating
within, or leaving the United States.

(d) Over water. Each person operating a foreign civil aircraft over
water off the shores of the United States shall give flight
notification or file a flight plan in accordance with the
Supplementary Procedures for the ICAO region concerned.

(e) Flight at and above FL 240. If VOR navigational equipment is
required under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, no person may
operate a foreign civil aircraft within the 50 States and the District
of Columbia at or above FL 240, unless the aircraft is equipped with
distance measuring equipment (DME) capable of receiving and indicating
distance information from the VORTAC facilities to be used. When DME
required by this paragraph fails at and above FL 240, the pilot in
command of the aircraft shall notify ATC immediately and may then
continue operations at and above FL 240 to the next airport of
intended landing at which repairs or replacement of the equipment can
be made. However, paragraph (e) of this section does not apply to
foreign civil aircraft that are not equipped with DME when operated
for the following purposes and if ATC is notified prior to each
takeoff:

(1) Ferry flights to and from a place in the United States where
repairs or alterations are to be made.

(2) Ferry flights to a new country of registry.

(3) Flight of a new aircraft of U.S. manufacture for the purpose of—

(i) Flight testing the aircraft;

(ii) Training foreign flight crews in the operation of the aircraft;
or

(iii) Ferrying the aircraft for export delivery outside the United
States.

(4) Ferry, demonstration, and test flight of an aircraft brought to
the United States for the purpose of demonstration or testing the
whole or any part thereof.

[Doc. No. 18834, 54 FR 34320, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt.
91–227, 56 FR 65661, Dec. 17, 1991]

Aluckyguess

June 29th 07, 03:33 AM

The controller getting upset doesn't do any good. That just makes a bad
situation worse. You either take the time or you tell him to shut the thing
down. Nobody needs to get upset. I hate it when controllers act all ****y. I
was flying through the palm springs tursa one day and ATC was getting all
over this guy in a helicopter. The guy didn't speak good English and was
getting more and more confused as the guy yelled at him. I almost asked for
his number so I could call him and remind him what his job was. His job is
to make sure everyone is safe not panic some new pilot into running into the
side of a mountain. After he gets the situation under control he can tell
the pilot to call and yell at him without the whole world listening.

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
>
> Scary.
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWDEIvjwaFU
>
>
> --
> Dallas

[email protected]

June 29th 07, 04:36 AM

On Jun 28, 8:33 pm, "Aluckyguess" > wrote:
> The controller getting upset doesn't do any good. That just makes a bad
> situation worse. You either take the time or you tell him to shut the thing
> down. Nobody needs to get upset. I hate it when controllers act all ****y. I
> was flying through the palm springs tursa one day and ATC was getting all
> over this guy in a helicopter. The guy didn't speak good English and was
> getting more and more confused as the guy yelled at him. I almost asked for
> his number so I could call him and remind him what his job was. His job is
> to make sure everyone is safe not panic some new pilot into running into the
> side of a mountain. After he gets the situation under control he can tell
> the pilot to call and yell at him without the whole world listening.
>

I didn't think the controller was all that ****y for one, and he was
trying his best to make sure that the comm was correctly interpreted
and complied with which is his job.

JFK is one of the busiest airports in the world, and pilots flying
there should be professional and competent, which includes being able
to speak and understand basic english. The Air China pilot certainly
didn't meet the english requirement.

Larry Dighera

June 29th 07, 05:08 AM

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:33:05 -0700, "Aluckyguess" > wrote in
>:

>The controller getting upset doesn't do any good. That just makes a bad
>situation worse. You either take the time or you tell him to shut the thing
>down. Nobody needs to get upset. I hate it when controllers act all ****y.

It reveals the controller's fear of losing control of his sector of
responsibility.

>I was flying through the palm springs tursa one day and ATC was getting all
>over this guy in a helicopter.

My experience with the KPSP TRSA personnel has been disappointing.
They seem inexperienced, to nonchalant about actually doing their job,
but ready to vector you hither and yawn to make room for the heavier
iron. I'm often tempted to tell them, "Negative stage three."

I heard a rumor that KPSP TRSA operation is being reassigned to a
military facility, IIRC.

>The guy didn't speak good English and was
>getting more and more confused as the guy yelled at him. I almost asked for
>his number so I could call him and remind him what his job was. His job is
>to make sure everyone is safe not panic some new pilot into running into the
>side of a mountain.

I believe KPSP ATC was responsible for a Lear impacting Mt. San
Gregornio several years ago, because they forgot to issue a turn after
departure one night.

>After he gets the situation under control he can tell
>the pilot to call and yell at him without the whole world listening.

Right. It's like the controllers' personalities are paramount, and
the smooth conduct of aircraft through their airspace is secondary
sometimes.

Bob Fry

June 29th 07, 05:35 AM

Yeah...but they should also train the controllers on how to ditch
their various accents themselves, slow down a bit, and deal with ESL
pilots. The burden can't be 100% on the pilots to understand
controllers.
--
"I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source
code"

Shirl

June 29th 07, 06:13 AM

"Aluckyguess" >:
> >The guy didn't speak good English and was
> >getting more and more confused as the guy yelled at him.
> >I almost asked for his number so I could call him and remind
> >him what his job was. His job is to make sure everyone is safe
> >not panic some new pilot into running into the side of a mountain.

And he might have reminded you what his job is not ... there isn't
supposed to be a language barrier there -- the reg specifies being able
to read, speak, write *and understand* English. Sorry, but I tend to
side with the ATC when a person's English is the source of the
confusion/problem.

Richard

June 29th 07, 07:31 AM

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
>
> Scary.
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWDEIvjwaFU
>

Bad situation but I was amused that the person who produced the video felt
it necessary to provide subtitles for the ATC as well.

Mxsmanic

June 29th 07, 07:56 AM

Aluckyguess writes:

> The controller getting upset doesn't do any good. That just makes a bad
> situation worse.

Given the workload of the controller and the potential risks, I think he did
very well.

> You either take the time or you tell him to shut the thing
> down.

It's unlikely the pilot would shut down; that would be a tremendous loss of
face. It's also unlikely that any amount of explanation would allow a person
who cannot understand English to suddenly start understanding it.

> Nobody needs to get upset. I hate it when controllers act all ****y. I
> was flying through the palm springs tursa one day and ATC was getting all
> over this guy in a helicopter. The guy didn't speak good English and was
> getting more and more confused as the guy yelled at him. I almost asked for
> his number so I could call him and remind him what his job was.

The pilot, or the controller? If the pilot can't understand English, he needs
to stay on the ground.

> His job is to make sure everyone is safe not panic some new pilot
> into running into the side of a mountain.

A pilot who cannot understand English is not safe, and should never have left
the ground. By the time the controller talks to him, the flight is _already_
unsafe, because it's in the air with a pilot who cannot speak English.

Mxsmanic

June 29th 07, 07:58 AM

Bob Fry writes:

> Yeah...but they should also train the controllers on how to ditch
> their various accents themselves, slow down a bit, and deal with ESL
> pilots. The burden can't be 100% on the pilots to understand
> controllers.

False. This controller spoke very clearly; his accent was completely
unimportant. The pilot's English was horrible, and completely unacceptable.
All of the fault rests with the pilot.

You cannot "deal with" pilots who cannot speak English. There is nothing you
can do to make a person understand your language if he cannot understand it.
This pilot's English was so poor that no action the controller might take, and
no English accent he might have used, would have sufficed to allow
communication. The pilot was simply incompetent in English.

Mxsmanic

June 29th 07, 07:59 AM

Richard writes:

> Bad situation but I was amused that the person who produced the video felt
> it necessary to provide subtitles for the ATC as well.

Maybe it was just for the sake of consistency or political correctness.

Radio communication is often hard to understand for the uninitiated. Even
experienced users often make mistakes, unfortunately.

Cubdriver

June 29th 07, 11:09 AM

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:44:22 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>Granted the controller was speaking
>normally as he would to someone who understood English.

I often have trouble understanding controllers. I often suspect that
they try to mumble, on the theory that if the pilot doesn't know
what's going on, then he's not much of a pilot.

"My speech is more abbreviated and monotonal than your speech, so
there!"

My most frequent requestt to ATC is "Say again" which is pretty
abbreviated and monotonal itself. So there!

(See my post on Air Force One at Pease. THAT controller spoke clearly,
you bet!)

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

Cubdriver

June 29th 07, 11:20 AM

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:58:53 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>This controller spoke very clearly; his accent was completely
>unimportant.

Spoken like a true monophone American!

Accents are VERY important. You might try landing at Liverpool with a
controller speaking clearly in a Liverpudlian accent. You wouldn't
have a clue what he was saying.

It's not enough to speak clearly. The controller should speak a
standard English, like that used by network announcers and news
readers.

That said, there is a particular problem understanding Asians speaking
English that they learned in secondary school or later. Though they
were taught a standard English, either American or British, and though
they may be entirely fluent, it can be very hard indeed to understand
everything they say. I wrote a recommendation for a graduate student
applying to Harvard for a PhD program. I had no doubt whatever that
she could handle the work with ease, but I had to admit that I was
sometimes mystified by her speech. ("Wolf" for example. She pronounced
it with a long O, and it became another word entirely.)

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

Thomas Borchert

June 29th 07, 12:00 PM

Cubdriver,

> he controller should speak a
> standard English, like that used by network announcers and news
> readers.
>

And, just like pilots, they should use standard phraseology! (Hint:
Neither "with you" nor "out of thirtyfivehundred" is)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

El Maximo

June 29th 07, 12:49 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> I think he did very well.

I don't give a **** what you think. I also know that many others also don't
give a **** what you think.

Paul Tomblin

June 29th 07, 02:33 PM

In a previous article, Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> said:
>I often have trouble understanding controllers. I often suspect that
>they try to mumble, on the theory that if the pilot doesn't know
>what's going on, then he's not much of a pilot.

I think they're mumbling because they spend their entire duty shift
talking.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
It could have been raining flaming bulldozers, and those idiots would have
been standing out there smoking, going 'hey, look at that John Deere burn!'
-- Texan AMD security guard

Mxsmanic

June 29th 07, 02:42 PM

El Maximo writes:

> I don't give a **** what you think. I also know that many others also don't
> give a **** what you think.

Then why do you feel compelled to tell me so? And why do you need to
speculate that others feel as you do? Are you uncomfortable with your own
opinions if they don't match those of the club?

Mxsmanic

June 29th 07, 02:44 PM

Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> writes:

> Spoken like a true monophone American!

No, spoken like someone who is bilingual and teaches ESL for a living.

> Accents are VERY important. You might try landing at Liverpool with a
> controller speaking clearly in a Liverpudlian accent. You wouldn't
> have a clue what he was saying.

A minority of British accents are very strong, but most are not, and most
American accents are mild compared to British accents.

> It's not enough to speak clearly. The controller should speak a
> standard English, like that used by network announcers and news
> readers.

That would certainly be ideal, but in this case he wasn't that far from the
standard.

> I wrote a recommendation for a graduate student
> applying to Harvard for a PhD program. I had no doubt whatever that
> she could handle the work with ease, but I had to admit that I was
> sometimes mystified by her speech. ("Wolf" for example. She pronounced
> it with a long O, and it became another word entirely.)

I feel sorry for any students she ends up teaching.

Mxsmanic

June 29th 07, 02:44 PM

Thomas Borchert writes:

> And, just like pilots, they should use standard phraseology! (Hint:
> Neither "with you" nor "out of thirtyfivehundred" is)

Standard phraseology would not have helped here. The Chinese pilot was simply
incompetent in English.

Thomas Borchert

June 29th 07, 03:04 PM

Mxsmanic,

> teaches ESL for a living.
>

Bruhaha!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Shirl

June 29th 07, 03:57 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Standard phraseology would not have helped here.
> The Chinese pilot was simply incompetent in English.

How much more standard can it get than, "Were you cleared to the ramp?"
The question couldn't GET any more basic than that, and even after
asking four times, the guy *did not understand* that it was a
*question*, NOT a clearance. IMO, that clearly falls under the heading
of not "understanding" English. Not to mention his inability to LISTEN
and comprehend. How many times did the controller have to repeat that he
was saying "Mike/Alpha", NOT November? The guy was so intent on reading
back his instruction that he failed to even HEAR what it was accurately.

Shirl

[email protected]

June 29th 07, 04:29 PM

Air China had an incident (I think it was in the late 80's) involving
a 747 bound for LA. The plane lost its outboard engine in flight, and
while the pilots were distracted with the engine shutdown checklist,
the plane slowed down as the autopilot struggled to deal with the
adverse yaw and began to pitch up and apply aileron to attempt to stay
straight and level. By the time the Captain noticed the problem, the
plane had slowed way down. The captain disengaged the autopilot and
applied rudder to straighten out of the nose, which caused a cross-
control situation and an immediate stall. The 747 abruptly snap-
rolled into a split-S, pulling over 10Gs in the process. Damage
included a twisted engine pylon, a crumpled aileron, loss of several
feet of the horizontal stabilizer, and numerous popped rivits. The
damage to the tail was symmetrical.

The pilots regained their orientation as they passed through a cloud
deck at 10,000 feet and recovered to climb back to altitude, unaware
of the extent of the damage to the plane. The controllers contacted
them to see if they were OK (due to the large and sudden altitude
excursion), and they said that they were. Asked if they wanted to
divert to San Francisco, they opted to continue to LA until they were
informed that at least one of the PAX had been injured.

Upon arrival at San Francisco, the FAA impounded the plane to conduct
an investigation, and the Boeing AOG team couldn't touch it until
after almost a month had passed while the investigation was
conducted.

The 747 does not have a G meter. They determined the G force of the
snap-roll by the fact that the flight data recorded had stopped laying
down data during the roll. Concluding that the head had pulled away
from the tape in the data recorder, they put the unit in a centrifuge
and spun it until the head pulled away from the tape at about 10Gs.

The Air China captain didn't understand what had happened until the
tapes were replayed in a simulator, at which point he was reportedly
quite shocked.

I originally heard the story from Jack Hessburg, chief mechanic on the
777 program in an air-carrier operations class that he gave at
Boeing. I also saw a segment on this incident on a TV documentary a
year or two ago...

Thomas Borchert

June 29th 07, 04:58 PM

Shirl,

> How much more standard can it get than, "Were you cleared to the ramp?"
>

It's an easy sentence, agreed. However, it is NOT a sentence in the AIM
nor the Pilot/Controller Glossary or the ICAO standard phraseology. It is
also not the proper way to phrase a question in standard phraseology. It
is plain English, but that doesn't help a foreigner trained to expect
standard aviation phraseology. And THAT is exactly what standard
phraseology is for.

So, to sum up: It's a non-standard phrase and a non-standard way to ask
something. How much LESS standard can it get?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

June 29th 07, 05:01 PM

On Jun 28, 3:00 pm, Dallas > wrote:
> Scary.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWDEIvjwaFU
>
> --
> Dallas

Oh ... good ... God!

Larry Dighera

June 29th 07, 05:36 PM

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 03:36:56 -0000, wrote in
. com>:

>The Air China pilot certainly didn't meet the english requirement.

Perhaps some Chinese natives aren't evolved enough to speak English:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19426064.800;jsessionid=FDDOLFCFABIO
Speaking like a Chinese native is in the genes
02 June 2007

Nora Schultz

ENQUIRE in Chinese after the health of someone's mother and you
could well receive an answer about the well-being of their horse.
Subtle pronunciation differences in tonal languages such as
Chinese change the meaning of words, which is one reason why they
are so hard for speakers of non-tonal languages like English to
learn.

Babies of all backgrounds can grow up speaking any language, so
there is no such thing as "a gene for Chinese". There may,
however, be something in our genes that affects how easily we can
learn certain languages. So say Dan Dediu and Robert Ladd of the
University of Edinburgh, UK, who have discovered the first clear
correlation between language and genetic variation.

Using statistical analysis, the pair show that people in parts of
the world where non-tonal languages are spoken are more likely to
carry different, more recently evolved forms of two brain
development genes, ASPM and microcephalin, than people in tonal
regions (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI:
10.1073/pnas.0610848104).

"This is exciting because most genes and language features that
vary at the population level are either not correlated or have a
correlation that can be explained by geography or history," says
Ladd. In ASPM and microcephalin, neither geography nor history can
account for the correlation.

Since both genes have a function in brain development, Dediu and
Ladd propose that they may have subtle effects on the organisation
of the cerebral cortex, including the areas that process language.
Brain anatomy differs between English speakers who are good at
learning tonal languages and those who find it harder, says Ladd
so now he wants to see whether similar learning differences can be
found in carriers of the ASPM and microcephalin variant genes.

A remaining puzzle is the role of natural selection. The newer
gene variants that are common in non-tonal regions must have been
positively selected (New Scientist, 11 March 2006, p 30), but
nobody has been able to show how they might provide a selective
advantage. Dediu and Ladd don't think their proposed linguistic
effect could be the answer. "There is absolutely no reason to
think that non-tonal languages are in any way more fit for purpose
than tonal languages," says Ladd.

Bernard Crespi of Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, in British
Columbia, Canada, has an explanation for the older genes, however.
"Tonal languages may have some similarities to 'motherese' [baby
talk]," which apparently helps infants learn language, he says.

From issue 2606 of New Scientist magazine, 02 June 2007, page 15

Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]

June 29th 07, 05:40 PM

AJ wrote:
> On Jun 28, 3:00 pm, Dallas > wrote:
>> Scary.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWDEIvjwaFU
>>
>> --
>> Dallas
>
> Oh ... good ... God!

Yes?

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

El Maximo

June 29th 07, 05:59 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> El Maximo writes:
>
>> I don't give a **** what you think. I also know that many others also
>> don't
>> give a **** what you think.
>
> Then why do you feel compelled to tell me so?

In the slim hope that you'll come to your senses and realize that you are
nothing but an irritant.

> And why do you need to speculate that others feel as you do?

It's not speculation. Try re-reading what I wrote.

>Are you uncomfortable with your own opinions if they don't match those of
>the club?

If it were a club, we would have a method to prevent you from polluting.

Mxsmanic

June 29th 07, 06:45 PM

Shirl writes:

> How much more standard can it get than, "Were you cleared to the ramp?"
> The question couldn't GET any more basic than that, and even after
> asking four times, the guy *did not understand* that it was a
> *question*, NOT a clearance. IMO, that clearly falls under the heading
> of not "understanding" English. Not to mention his inability to LISTEN
> and comprehend. How many times did the controller have to repeat that he
> was saying "Mike/Alpha", NOT November? The guy was so intent on reading
> back his instruction that he failed to even HEAR what it was accurately.

Agreed.

Mxsmanic

June 29th 07, 06:46 PM

Thomas Borchert writes:

> It's an easy sentence, agreed. However, it is NOT a sentence in the AIM
> nor the Pilot/Controller Glossary or the ICAO standard phraseology.

The AIM and glossary do not provide sentences, only sentence fragments (with
rare exceptions).

> It is
> also not the proper way to phrase a question in standard phraseology. It
> is plain English, but that doesn't help a foreigner trained to expect
> standard aviation phraseology. And THAT is exactly what standard
> phraseology is for.

If the foreigner can understand English, he can understand "non-standard"
phrases.

Dallas

June 29th 07, 07:27 PM

"Cubdriver" <usenet AT danford DOT net>
> You might try landing at Liverpool with a
> controller speaking clearly in a Liverpudlian accent.

I have an English friend that tells a story of renting a 172 on vacation in
Miami.

It seems that he got a Cuban-American controller and between the two of
them, neither could understand each other. He actually had to end his
flight and try again later after a shift change.

Dallas

El Maximo

June 29th 07, 07:40 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> writes:
>
>> Spoken like a true monophone American!
>
> No, spoken like someone who is bilingual and teaches ESL for a living.

You've admitted you don't make a very good living at it, therefore you must
be a poor instructor.

Mxsmanic

June 29th 07, 08:10 PM

El Maximo writes:

> You've admitted you don't make a very good living at it, therefore you must
> be a poor instructor.

There is no correlation between the quality of the instructor and the pay she
receives in my area.

Thomas Borchert

June 29th 07, 08:29 PM

Mxsmanic,

> The AIM and glossary do not provide sentences, only sentence fragments (with
> rare exceptions).

Read them (again)!

> If the foreigner can understand English, he can understand "non-standard"
> phrases.

He is not required to understand general English, he is required to understand
aviation English and standard phraseology. There's a reason common language
questions are a no-no in radio work. Even you can figure it out.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

June 29th 07, 08:29 PM

Shirl,

> The question couldn't GET any more basic than that, and even after
> asking four times, the guy *did not understand* that it was a
> *question*, NOT a clearance.
>

Missed that one. Again, there are NO questions asked by changing
inflection in standard phraseology. The proper way would have been
"confirm you have been cleared..." or something like that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

June 29th 07, 08:29 PM

Mxsmanic,

> There is no correlation between the quality of the instructor and the pay she
> receives in my area.
>

Yes, there is. I know instructors in Paris.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Andrew Gideon

June 29th 07, 08:37 PM

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:29:40 -0700, deanwil wrote:

> The Air China captain didn't understand what had happened until the tapes
> were replayed in a simulator, at which point he was reportedly quite
> shocked.

I don't understand. The captain was in the plane at the time of the
event, so why would "reliving" the event in a simulator help his
understanding? I'm obviously missing/misunderstanding something.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon

June 29th 07, 08:38 PM

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:40:15 -0400, Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

>> Oh ... good ... God!
>
>
>
> Yes?

No, no. The "good" one was being invoked.

- Andrew

[email protected]

June 29th 07, 09:22 PM

On Jun 29, 1:37 pm, Andrew Gideon > wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:29:40 -0700, deanwil wrote:
> > The Air China captain didn't understand what had happened until the tapes
> > were replayed in a simulator, at which point he was reportedly quite
> > shocked.
>
> I don't understand. The captain was in the plane at the time of the
> event, so why would "reliving" the event in a simulator help his
> understanding? I'm obviously missing/misunderstanding something.
>
> - Andrew

Apparently the snap-roll occured so fast that he didn't realize what
exactly had occured or why. The simulator replay allowed him to see
what led up to the event, and how the event actually transpired.
Remember, he had been engaged in the engine shutdown checklist, and
probably wasn't paying a lot of attention to what was happening until
he realize he was in an upset attitude. At least that was my
interpretation when I heard the story originally...

Here is the NTSB report, but it is very brief and doesn't go into the
detail that I heard from the Boeing chief mechanic:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA85AA015&rpt=fi

El Maximo

June 29th 07, 10:13 PM

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic,
>
>> The AIM and glossary do not provide sentences, only sentence fragments
>> (with
>> rare exceptions).
>
> Read them (again)!
>
>> If the foreigner can understand English, he can understand "non-standard"
>> phrases.
>
> He is not required to understand general English, he is required to
> understand
> aviation English and standard phraseology. There's a reason common
> language
> questions are a no-no in radio work.

> Even you can figure it out.

Apparantly not.

>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

Mike Isaksen

June 30th 07, 12:10 AM

> wrote in message ...
> Here is the NTSB report, but it is very brief and doesn't go into the
> detail that I heard from the Boeing chief mechanic:
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA85AA015&rpt=fi
>

Thank you for that summary in your previous post. That fills in a few
questions I had after watching the video on this event. I haven't downloaded
the entire episode, here's the YouTube 10 minute version. Remember this is
for mass TV audience so beware some accuracy holes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeznpFQHbSk

C J Campbell[_1_]

June 30th 07, 12:16 AM

On 2007-06-28 16:20:06 -0700, (Paul Tomblin) said:

> In a previous article, said:
>> Was it just me or did it sound like the pilot was trying to BS his way
>> through the readback unwilling to admit that he didn't understand the word
>> "question"?
>
> If there's one thing I've learned about the Chinese dealing with off-shore
> programmers, it's that they will *never* admit that they don't understand
> you. Even after they deliver something and you tell them it's nothing
> like what you contracted for, they'll smile and nod and be very proud of
> the quivering piece of **** that they delivered.

This is true in some other Asian cultures as well. The political and
social history are such that people are afraid of admitting a mistake
for fear of being severely punished, perhaps even killed, and their
families shamed.

This creates problems in the cockpit, especially if you have a
not-so-subservient American copilot on board.

"Captain, you are below glide slope."
<Ignoring rude American who does not know his place.>
"Captain, you are below glide slope."
<continuing to ignore this appallingly rude American>
"Captain, my airplane." <reaches for controls>
<slaps American's hand -- that'll teach him!>

Walking into the pilots' lounge, with dozens of other Korean pilots
there, the American copilot hauled off and decked his captain (formerly
a colonel in the South Korean Air Force) in front of everybody.

"You ever slap my hand again, I'll kill ya."

<dead silence throughout the room>

Amazingly, the American lived. But then, he was burly.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell[_1_]

June 30th 07, 12:24 AM

On 2007-06-29 03:09:59 -0700, Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> said:

> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:44:22 GMT, Larry Dighera >
> wrote:
>
>> Granted the controller was speaking
>> normally as he would to someone who understood English.
>
> I often have trouble understanding controllers. I often suspect that
> they try to mumble, on the theory that if the pilot doesn't know
> what's going on, then he's not much of a pilot.
>
> "My speech is more abbreviated and monotonal than your speech, so
> there!"
>
> My most frequent requestt to ATC is "Say again" which is pretty
> abbreviated and monotonal itself. So there!

Huh. My most frequent request to ATC is "Ready to depart." Never had a
problem understanding them.

The contract controller who worked the Tacoma Narrows tower *until
recently* was fired for departing the runway without a clearance. He
only flew 60 feet, though. In an automobile. Ended upside down at the
fence. Blood alcohol level was high. This was a guy who had already
been arrested twice for behavior resulting from drunkenness, such as
brawling at a bar. He was not driving the car in the recent incident.
He claims he was just sleeping there and somebody else suddenly jumped
into the car and started racing up and down the runway. Yeah, right. As
if he had never done it before. This time he got caught. Lucky he
wasn't killed. But I suppose he mumbled quite a bit giving this lame
explanation to the cops. :-)

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell[_1_]

June 30th 07, 12:30 AM

On 2007-06-28 19:33:05 -0700, "Aluckyguess" > said:

> The controller getting upset doesn't do any good. That just makes a bad
> situation worse.

I don't think the controller was upset or angry. He spoke with emphasis
trying to make himself understood.

> You either take the time or you tell him to shut the thing
> down. Nobody needs to get upset. I hate it when controllers act all ****y. I
> was flying through the palm springs tursa one day and ATC was getting all
> over this guy in a helicopter. The guy didn't speak good English and was
> getting more and more confused as the guy yelled at him. I almost asked for
> his number so I could call him and remind him what his job was. His job is
> to make sure everyone is safe not panic some new pilot into running into the
> side of a mountain. After he gets the situation under control he can tell
> the pilot to call and yell at him without the whole world listening.

I think you would have been way out of line to call him. The helicopter
pilot is obligated to obey ATC instructions. The controller has no way
of keeping people from running into each other or into mountains if
they just do whatever they want because they don't understand English.
If the helicopter pilot panicked and flew into a mountain it would have
been his fault, not the controller's.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Shirl

June 30th 07, 12:31 AM

Shirl:
> > The question couldn't GET any more basic than that, and even after
> > asking four times, the guy *did not understand* that it was a
> > *question*, NOT a clearance.

Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> Missed that one. Again, there are NO questions asked by changing
> inflection in standard phraseology. The proper way would have been
> "confirm you have been cleared..." or something like that.

Yes, he could have, but he shouldn't have to rephrase his questions just
to cater to someone who clearly *does not understand* English well
enough to answer a VERY basic question asked of him by an air traffic
controller. The controller is speaking plain, clear English; the pilot
didn't understand him. It's ultimately the controller's responsibility
to handle it, but that doesn't absolve the pilot from the requirement
that he *understands* English.

C J Campbell[_1_]

June 30th 07, 12:32 AM

On 2007-06-29 08:58:49 -0700, Thomas Borchert
> said:

> Shirl,
>
>> How much more standard can it get than, "Were you cleared to the ramp?"
>>
>
> It's an easy sentence, agreed. However, it is NOT a sentence in the AIM
> nor the Pilot/Controller Glossary or the ICAO standard phraseology. It is
> also not the proper way to phrase a question in standard phraseology. It
> is plain English, but that doesn't help a foreigner trained to expect
> standard aviation phraseology. And THAT is exactly what standard
> phraseology is for.
>
> So, to sum up: It's a non-standard phrase and a non-standard way to ask
> something. How much LESS standard can it get?

So what would have been the standard way to ask if he had been cleared
to the ramp?
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell[_1_]

June 30th 07, 12:34 AM

On 2007-06-29 12:29:15 -0700, Thomas Borchert
> said:

> Mxsmanic,
>
>> The AIM and glossary do not provide sentences, only sentence fragments (with
>> rare exceptions).
>
> Read them (again)!
>
>> If the foreigner can understand English, he can understand "non-standard"
>> phrases.
>
> He is not required to understand general English, he is required to understand
> aviation English and standard phraseology.

That is not what the regulations say. He is required to understand
English. Believe it or not, people have to be able to talk to pilots.
It is impossible to have a book with every possible phrase that might
be needed in aviation.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Shirl

June 30th 07, 12:35 AM

Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> It's an easy sentence, agreed. However, it is NOT a sentence in the AIM
> nor the Pilot/Controller Glossary or the ICAO standard phraseology. It is
> also not the proper way to phrase a question in standard phraseology. It
> is plain English, but that doesn't help a foreigner trained to expect
> standard aviation phraseology. And THAT is exactly what standard
> phraseology is for.
>
> So, to sum up: It's a non-standard phrase and a non-standard way to ask
> something. How much LESS standard can it get?

The reg is that you can speak, read, write, and understand English. It
doesn't specify that you only have to know how to understand and respond
to standard phraseology. Understanding English covers the whole
language, not just aviation phraseology.

C J Campbell[_1_]

June 30th 07, 12:39 AM

On 2007-06-28 23:31:51 -0700, "Richard" > said:

>
> "Dallas" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Scary.
>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWDEIvjwaFU
>>
>
> Bad situation but I was amused that the person who produced the video felt
> it necessary to provide subtitles for the ATC as well.
>
>

Heh, heh. So did the person who produced this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avcYjTVM7d0
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Orval Fairbairn

June 30th 07, 01:58 AM

In article om>,
wrote:

> Air China had an incident (I think it was in the late 80's) involving
> a 747 bound for LA. The plane lost its outboard engine in flight, and
> while the pilots were distracted with the engine shutdown checklist,
> the plane slowed down as the autopilot struggled to deal with the
> adverse yaw and began to pitch up and apply aileron to attempt to stay
> straight and level. By the time the Captain noticed the problem, the
> plane had slowed way down. The captain disengaged the autopilot and
> applied rudder to straighten out of the nose, which caused a cross-
> control situation and an immediate stall. The 747 abruptly snap-
> rolled into a split-S, pulling over 10Gs in the process. Damage
> included a twisted engine pylon, a crumpled aileron, loss of several
> feet of the horizontal stabilizer, and numerous popped rivits. The
> damage to the tail was symmetrical.
>
> The pilots regained their orientation as they passed through a cloud
> deck at 10,000 feet and recovered to climb back to altitude, unaware
> of the extent of the damage to the plane. The controllers contacted
> them to see if they were OK (due to the large and sudden altitude
> excursion), and they said that they were. Asked if they wanted to
> divert to San Francisco, they opted to continue to LA until they were
> informed that at least one of the PAX had been injured.
>
> Upon arrival at San Francisco, the FAA impounded the plane to conduct
> an investigation, and the Boeing AOG team couldn't touch it until
> after almost a month had passed while the investigation was
> conducted.
>
> The 747 does not have a G meter. They determined the G force of the
> snap-roll by the fact that the flight data recorded had stopped laying
> down data during the roll. Concluding that the head had pulled away
> from the tape in the data recorder, they put the unit in a centrifuge
> and spun it until the head pulled away from the tape at about 10Gs.
>
> The Air China captain didn't understand what had happened until the
> tapes were replayed in a simulator, at which point he was reportedly
> quite shocked.
>
> I originally heard the story from Jack Hessburg, chief mechanic on the
> 777 program in an air-carrier operations class that he gave at
> Boeing. I also saw a segment on this incident on a TV documentary a
> year or two ago...

I saw the plane sitting at SFO after the incident. It was a B747SP and
China Airlines. Both horizontal stabilizers were shredded! You could see
chromated metal parts sticking out!

Dallas

June 30th 07, 05:47 AM

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:34:07 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

> That is not what the regulations say. He is required to understand
> English.

The ICAO will require as of March of 2008, that all pilots flying
internationally and all Air Traffic Controllers must pass the ICAO level 4
language standards exam for English proficiency.

In this case:
d. handle successfully and with relative ease the linguistic challenges
presented by a complication or unexpected turn of events that occurs within
the context of a routine work situation or communicative task with which
they are otherwise familiar; and

e. use a dialect or accent which is intelligible to the aeronautical
community.

Details:
http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#20

--
Dallas

Mxsmanic

June 30th 07, 08:19 AM

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Read them (again)!

Reading them again will not change what they say.

> He is not required to understand general English, he is required to understand
> aviation English and standard phraseology.

There is no difference between the two, unfortunately.

This is similar to the illusion that there exists a "business English" that is
somehow easier to learn than standard English. In fact, there is no such
thing--English is English--but language schools promote the illusion because
it brings in more customers (who mistakenly believe that they can get away
with learning something "simple" instead of standard English to communicate).

Mxsmanic

June 30th 07, 08:20 AM

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Missed that one. Again, there are NO questions asked by changing
> inflection in standard phraseology. The proper way would have been
> "confirm you have been cleared..." or something like that.

The pilot still would not have understood, because he could not speak English.

Mxsmanic

June 30th 07, 08:21 AM

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Yes, there is. I know instructors in Paris.

So do I, and there is no correlation.

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

June 30th 07, 10:52 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Aluckyguess writes:
>
>> The controller getting upset doesn't do any good. That just makes a
>> bad situation worse.
>
> Given the workload of the controller and the potential risks, I think
> he did very well.
>
>> You either take the time or you tell him to shut the thing
>> down.
>
> It's unlikely the pilot would shut down; that would be a tremendous
> loss of face. It's also unlikely that any amount of explanation would
> allow a person who cannot understand English to suddenly start
> understanding it.
>
>> Nobody needs to get upset. I hate it when controllers act all ****y.
>> I was flying through the palm springs tursa one day and ATC was
>> getting all over this guy in a helicopter. The guy didn't speak good
>> English and was getting more and more confused as the guy yelled at
>> him. I almost asked for his number so I could call him and remind him
>> what his job was.
>
> The pilot, or the controller? If the pilot can't understand English,
> he needs to stay on the ground.

Not in France, they don't!

Which just goes to show you don't know what you're talking about, yet
agin.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

June 30th 07, 10:53 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> El Maximo writes:
>
>> I don't give a **** what you think. I also know that many others also
>> don't give a **** what you think.
>
> Then why do you feel compelled to tell me so?

Because you're a fun fun punching bag.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

June 30th 07, 10:53 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> And, just like pilots, they should use standard phraseology! (Hint:
>> Neither "with you" nor "out of thirtyfivehundred" is)
>
> Standard phraseology would not have helped here. The Chinese pilot
> was simply incompetent in English.
>

Nope, worng agian, asshole

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

June 30th 07, 10:54 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bob Fry writes:
>
>> Yeah...but they should also train the controllers on how to ditch
>> their various accents themselves, slow down a bit, and deal with ESL
>> pilots. The burden can't be 100% on the pilots to understand
>> controllers.
>
> False. This controller spoke very clearly; his accent was completely
> unimportant. The pilot's English was horrible, and completely
> unacceptable. All of the fault rests with the pilot.
>
> You cannot "deal with" pilots who cannot speak English.

Yes, you can,. there is actually no requirement, in Franc,e for
instance, that the pilot should speak english to ATC.

Same is true of most countries, in fact

So, wrong again, asshole.

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

June 30th 07, 10:56 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> It's an easy sentence, agreed. However, it is NOT a sentence in the
>> AIM nor the Pilot/Controller Glossary or the ICAO standard
>> phraseology.
>
> The AIM and glossary do not provide sentences, only sentence fragments
> (with rare exceptions).
>
>> It is
>> also not the proper way to phrase a question in standard phraseology.
>> It is plain English, but that doesn't help a foreigner trained to
>> expect standard aviation phraseology. And THAT is exactly what
>> standard phraseology is for.
>
> If the foreigner can understand English, he can understand
> "non-standard" phrases.
>

God you're an idiot.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

June 30th 07, 10:57 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> Read them (again)!
>
> Reading them again will not change what they say.
>
>> He is not required to understand general English, he is required to
>> understand aviation English and standard phraseology.
>
> There is no difference between the two, unfortunately.

Yes,there is, It's written in law,. So wrong again. #

>

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

June 30th 07, 10:57 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Shirl writes:
>
>> How much more standard can it get than, "Were you cleared to the
>> ramp?" The question couldn't GET any more basic than that, and even
>> after asking four times, the guy *did not understand* that it was a
>> *question*, NOT a clearance. IMO, that clearly falls under the
>> heading of not "understanding" English. Not to mention his inability
>> to LISTEN and comprehend. How many times did the controller have to
>> repeat that he was saying "Mike/Alpha", NOT November? The guy was so
>> intent on reading back his instruction that he failed to even HEAR
>> what it was accurately.
>
> Agreed.
>

Wrong agiasn

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

June 30th 07, 10:58 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> Missed that one. Again, there are NO questions asked by changing
>> inflection in standard phraseology. The proper way would have been
>> "confirm you have been cleared..." or something like that.
>
> The pilot still would not have understood, because he could not speak
> English.
>

Lots of French pilots, German pilots, Italian Pilots andeven english
pilots, don't speak english..

And they are safe and allowed to fly.

(well, except the english ones)

Hmmm.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

June 30th 07, 11:00 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> writes:
>
>> Spoken like a true monophone American!
>
> No, spoken like someone who is bilingual and teaches ESL for a living.
>
>> Accents are VERY important. You might try landing at Liverpool with a
>> controller speaking clearly in a Liverpudlian accent. You wouldn't
>> have a clue what he was saying.
>
> A minority of British accents are very strong, but most are not,

Yes, they are.

Wrong again.

and
> most American accents are mild compared to British accents.
>
>> It's not enough to speak clearly. The controller should speak a
>> standard English, like that used by network announcers and news
>> readers.
>
> That would certainly be ideal, but in this case he wasn't that far
> from the standard.
>

Spoken like someone who doesn't fly!

Heyt, you don't fly!

>> I wrote a recommendation for a graduate student
>> applying to Harvard for a PhD program. I had no doubt whatever that
>> she could handle the work with ease, but I had to admit that I was
>> sometimes mystified by her speech. ("Wolf" for example. She
>> pronounced it with a long O, and it became another word entirely.)
>
> I feel sorry for any students she ends up teaching.

Bwawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahhwha hwhhahw!

No you don't.

Bertie
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

June 30th 07, 11:00 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> El Maximo writes:
>
>> You've admitted you don't make a very good living at it, therefore
>> you must be a poor instructor.
>
> There is no correlation between the quality of the instructor and the
> pay she receives in my area.
>

IOW you haven't got two francs to rub togetherm bankruptcy boi

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

June 30th 07, 11:01 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> Yes, there is. I know instructors in Paris.
>
> So do I, and there is no correlation.

Sez bankruptcy boi

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

June 30th 07, 11:02 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Richard writes:
>
>> Bad situation but I was amused that the person who produced the video
>> felt it necessary to provide subtitles for the ATC as well.
>
> Maybe it was just for the sake of consistency or political
> correctness.
>
> Radio communication is often hard to understand for the uninitiated.
> Even experienced users often make mistakes, unfortunately.
>

How would you know?

You don't fly

Bertie

El Maximo

June 30th 07, 12:36 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> Yes, there is. I know instructors in Paris.
>
> So do I, and there is no correlation.

Poor teachers earn poor money.

You earn poor money.

You are a poor tea.

Deny the correlation all you want. You're still broke.

Thomas Borchert

June 30th 07, 01:34 PM

C,

> So what would have been the standard way to ask if he had been cleared
> to the ramp?
>

"Confirm you have been cleared to..." or some such. Anything that is not
recognizable as a question by a change in inflection only.

-- e
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

June 30th 07, 01:34 PM

Shirl,

> The reg is that you can speak, read, write, and understand English.
>

Which one, for someone flying in US airspace, with a foreign
certificate in a foreign-registered aircraft?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

June 30th 07, 01:34 PM

Mxsmanic,

> So do I, and there is no correlation.
>

There is. It's just that you build yourself an excuse for your
failures.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

El Maximo

June 30th 07, 01:51 PM

The correlation is clear to an intelligent person.

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic,
>
>> So do I, and there is no correlation.
>>
>
> There is. It's just that you build yourself an excuse for your
> failures.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

Paul Tomblin

June 30th 07, 02:16 PM

In a previous article, said:
>Here is the NTSB report, but it is very brief and doesn't go into the
>detail that I heard from the Boeing chief mechanic:
>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA85AA015&rpt=fi

The full report is at:
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/ChinaAir/AAR8603.html

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Real programmers don't comment their code. It was hard to write, it
should be hard to understand.

Larry Dighera

June 30th 07, 04:02 PM

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:35:21 -0700, Shirl >
wrote in
>:

>The reg is that you can speak, read, write, and understand English.

Are you able to cite the regulation to which you refer that requires
reading and writing English?

El Maximo

June 30th 07, 04:40 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:35:21 -0700, Shirl >
> wrote in
> >:
>
>>The reg is that you can speak, read, write, and understand English.
>
> Are you able to cite the regulation to which you refer that requires
> reading and writing English?
>

That would involve admitting to a mistake. It will never happen. He'll
either ignore the request entirely, or answer a question you didn't ask.

Cubdriver

June 30th 07, 08:45 PM

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:44:17 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>I feel sorry for any students she ends up teaching.

In fact, she has been teaching at the university level for the past
three years, and any student in her class in my opinion is blessed to
have her. She's now on the faculty at the University of Washington.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

Cubdriver

June 30th 07, 08:48 PM

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:54:57 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Yes, you can,. there is actually no requirement, in Franc,e for
>instance, that the pilot should speak english to ATC.=

Indeed, there was quite a fuss a year or two ago when controllers at
Charles de Gaulle demanded that American and British pilots speak in
French.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

Shirl

July 1st 07, 04:45 AM

Shirl:
> >>The reg is that you can speak, read, write, and understand English.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> > Are you able to cite the regulation to which you refer that requires
> > reading and writing English?

"El Maximo" > wrote:
> That would involve admitting to a mistake. It will never happen. He'll
> either ignore the request entirely, or answer a question you didn't ask.

El Maximo, I was the one (Shirl) who said that about the reg. I did not
see the request until this moment -- I wasn't ignoring it.

I admit, I quoted the wrong reg -- that *is* what the reg says,
verbatim, for a US pilot; I don't know what it says for a foreign pilot
flying in the US on a foreign certificate. Do you? I'd be surprised if
it says or implies that ONLY English "aviation phraseology" is required.
IMO, it's common sense that flying into airports as busy as JFK, SFO or
LAX, you'd have to have ENOUGH understanding of something as simple as
"were you cleared to the ramp?" even if it isn't "standard" aviation
phraseology.

If there had been a runway incursion or accident, I don't think the
controller would have been held responsible for the China Air pilot not
understanding because he used the words "were you cleared to the ramp?"
instead of "confirm clearance to the ramp". I know you can't stand
*what's his name* here, but I agree that if the China Air pilot's
English isn't good enough to understand something THAT basic, or the
difference between "Mike/Alpha" and "November" after it was repeated 4
times, that should be an issue.

Dallas

July 1st 07, 04:58 AM

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:48:17 -0400, Cubdriver wrote:

> Indeed, there was quite a fuss a year or two ago when controllers at
> Charles de Gaulle demanded that American and British pilots speak in
> French.

Why do I not find that surprising.

--
Dallas

Larry Dighera

July 1st 07, 05:52 AM

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 20:45:02 -0700, Shirl >
wrote in
>:

>Shirl:
>> >>The reg is that you can speak, read, write, and understand English.
>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> > Are you able to cite the regulation to which you refer that requires
>> > reading and writing English?
>
>I admit, I quoted the wrong reg -- that *is* what the reg says,
>verbatim, for a US pilot;

Are you able to identify that particular regulation? I am unaware of
an FAA regulation that requires reading and writing English.

>I don't know what it says for a foreign pilot
>flying in the US on a foreign certificate. Do you?

This follow up article was posted earlier in this message thread:

From: Dallas >
Message-ID: >
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 04:47:54 GMT

The ICAO will require as of March of 2008, that all pilots flying
internationally and all Air Traffic Controllers must pass the ICAO
level 4 language standards exam for English proficiency.

In this case:
d. handle successfully and with relative ease the linguistic
challenges presented by a complication or unexpected turn of
events that occurs within the context of a routine work situation
or communicative task with which they are otherwise familiar; and

e. use a dialect or accent which is intelligible to the
aeronautical community.

Details:
http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#20

There's a lot of additional information at that link:

In which languages does a licence holder need to demonstrate
proficiency?

Amendment 164 to Annex 1 has introduced strengthened language
proficiency requirements for flight crew members and air traffic
controllers. The language proficiency requirements apply to any
language used for radiotelephony communications in international
operations. Therefore, pilots on international flights shall
demonstrate language proficiency in either English or the language
used by the station on the ground. Controllers working on stations
serving designated airports and routes used by international air
services shall demonstrate language proficiency in English as well
as in any other language(s) used by the station on the ground.

For more information, please refer to Annex 1, Chapter 1,
paragraph 1.2.9 and Attachment to Annex 1, and also to Annex 10,
Volume II, Chapter 5. Please, also refer to the FAQ "Guidance on
the evaluation of language proficiency".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICAO Rating Scale for Operational Level 4

A speaker will be rated at Operational Level 4 if the following
criteria are met:

Pronunciation: (Assumes a dialect and/or accent intelligible to
the aeronautical community.)
Pronunciation, stress, rhythm, and intonation are influenced by
the first language or regional variation but only sometimes
interfere with ease of understanding.

Structure:
(Relevant grammatical structures and sentence patterns are
determined by language functions appropriate to the task.)
Basic grammatical structures and sentence patterns are used
creatively and are usually well controlled. Errors may occur,
particularly in unusual or unexpected circumstances, but rarely
interfere with meaning.

Vocabulary:
Vocabulary range and accuracy are usually sufficient to
communicate effectively on common, concrete, and work-related
topics. Can often paraphrase successfully when lacking vocabulary
in unusual or unexpected circumstances.

Fluency:
Produces stretches of language at an appropriate tempo. There may
be occasional loss of fluency on transition from rehearsed or
formulaic speech to spontaneous interaction, but this does not
prevent effective communication. Can make limited use of discourse
markers or connectors. Fillers are not distracting.

Comprehension:
Comprehension is mostly accurate on common, concrete, and
work-related topics when the accent or variety used is
sufficiently intelligible for an international community of users.
When the speaker is confronted with a linguistic or situational
complication or an unexpected turn of events, comprehension may be
slower or require clarification strategies.

Interactions:
Responses are usually immediate, appropriate, and informative.
Initiates and maintains exchanges even when dealing with an
unexpected turn of events. Deals adequately with apparent
misunderstandings by checking, confirming, or clarifying.
For information on the complete ICAO language proficiency rating
scale, please refer to the Attachment to Annex 1.

>I'd be surprised if it says or implies that ONLY English "aviation phraseology"
>is required.

It seems to imply that in the US, English is required:

Therefore, pilots on international flights shall demonstrate
language proficiency in either English or the language used by the
station on the ground.

But I've never seen a requirement to read and write English as you
stated.

Mxsmanic

July 1st 07, 06:16 AM

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Which one, for someone flying in US airspace, with a foreign
> certificate in a foreign-registered aircraft?

ICAO covers all.

Mxsmanic

July 1st 07, 06:18 AM

Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> writes:

> Indeed, there was quite a fuss a year or two ago when controllers at
> Charles de Gaulle demanded that American and British pilots speak in
> French.

Are you confusing France and Québec?

Shirl

July 1st 07, 07:29 AM

Shirl:
> >I admit, I quoted the wrong reg -- that *is* what the reg says,
> >verbatim, for a US pilot;

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Are you able to identify that particular regulation? I am unaware of
> an FAA regulation that requires reading and writing English.

61.103 Eligibility requirements
General.
To be eligible for a private pilot certificate, a person must:
[a, b...]
(c) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language.
If the applicant is unable to meet one of these requirements due to
medical reasons, then the Administrator may place such operating
limitations on that applicant's pilot certificate as are necessary for
the safe operation of the aircraft.

> >I don't know what it says for a foreign pilot
> >flying in the US on a foreign certificate. Do you?
>
> In this case:
> d. handle successfully and with relative ease the linguistic
> challenges presented by a complication or unexpected turn of
> events that occurs within the context of a routine work situation
> or communicative task with which they are otherwise familiar; and
>
> e. use a dialect or accent which is intelligible to the
> aeronautical community.

I doubt anyone would consider "were you cleared to the ramp" to be a
"linguistic challenge" and *could* be a question asked about a VERY
routine communicative task (being cleared to the ramp).

Further:

> Therefore, pilots on international flights shall
> demonstrate language proficiency in either English or the language
> used by the station on the ground. Controllers working on stations
> serving designated airports and routes used by international air
> services shall demonstrate language proficiency in English as well
> as in any other language(s) used by the station on the ground.

The controller speaking to the China Air pilot demonstrated language
proficiency in English; what I heard from the China Air pilot did not --
he couldn't even read back his instruction accurately.

> Structure:
> (Relevant grammatical structures and sentence patterns are
> determined by language functions appropriate to the task.)
> Basic grammatical structures and sentence patterns are used
> creatively and are usually well controlled. Errors may occur,
> particularly in unusual or unexpected circumstances, but rarely
> interfere with meaning.

Obviously, hearing and understanding "November" when the controller
clearly said "Mike/Alpha" multiple times definitely would have
interfered with meaning if the controller hadn't pursued it to confirm
that the China Air pilot knew where he was supposed to go.

> Vocabulary:
> Vocabulary range and accuracy are usually sufficient to
> communicate effectively on common, concrete, and work-related
> topics. Can often paraphrase successfully when lacking vocabulary
> in unusual or unexpected circumstances.

Does that apply to the controller, too? Asking "were you cleared to the
ramp?" is just another way to paraphrase "confirm your clearance to the
ramp".

> Comprehension:
> Comprehension is mostly accurate on common, concrete, and
> work-related topics when the accent or variety used is
> sufficiently intelligible for an international community of users.
> When the speaker is confronted with a linguistic or situational
> complication or an unexpected turn of events, comprehension may be
> slower or require clarification strategies.

Okay, on this, it could be argued whether or not "were you cleared to
the ramp?" could be considered a "linguistic or situational complication
or an unexpected turn of events"! I sure don't interpret that question
as such ... doesn't seem a question could be much more straightforward
than that about a routine event to an airline pilot after landing.

> Interactions:
> Responses are usually immediate, appropriate, and informative.
> Initiates and maintains exchanges even when dealing with an
> unexpected turn of events. Deals adequately with apparent
> misunderstandings by checking, confirming, or clarifying.
> For information on the complete ICAO language proficiency rating
> scale, please refer to the Attachment to Annex 1.

I heard the controller checking, confirming and clarifying, but the
China Air pilot didn't answer the question until the 4th or 5th time he
was asked, and read back the WRONG taxi clearance more than once also.

> >I'd be surprised if it says or implies that ONLY English "aviation
> >phraseology" is required.
>
> It seems to imply that in the US, English is required:
>
> Therefore, pilots on international flights shall demonstrate
> language proficiency in either English or the language used by the
> station on the ground.

Yes, it does. And that clip I heard of the China Air pilot is not what I
would call a demonstration of "language proficiency" in English.

Shirl

Cubdriver

July 1st 07, 12:32 PM

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:29:32 -0700, Shirl >
wrote:

>To be eligible for a private pilot certificate, a person must:
>[a, b...]
>(c) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language.

But the pilot in question almost certainly never applied for a (US)
private pilot certificate, or indeed any American pilot certificate.

Is there a requirement that a pilot holding a foreign certificate and
flying in US airspace "read, speak" etc the English language? Or
merely that he communicate with ATC in English?

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

Cubdriver

July 1st 07, 12:33 PM

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 07:18:11 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>> Indeed, there was quite a fuss a year or two ago when controllers at
>> Charles de Gaulle demanded that American and British pilots speak in
>> French.
>
>Are you confusing France and Québec?

No. Is there a CdG airport in Quebec?

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

Cubdriver

July 1st 07, 12:35 PM

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 11:31:38 +0200, Wolfgang Schwanke >
wrote:

>> Indeed, there was quite a fuss a year or two ago when controllers at
>> Charles de Gaulle demanded that American and British pilots speak in
>> French.
>
>Unless I missed that news item, you may be mixing some facts up. They
>are speaking in French to French crews and English to everyone else.

No, they spoke to the English-speaking flight crews in French. That
was the cause of the celebre.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

Larry Dighera

July 1st 07, 02:41 PM

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:29:32 -0700, Shirl >
wrote in
>:

>Shirl:
>> >I admit, I quoted the wrong reg -- that *is* what the reg says,
>> >verbatim, for a US pilot;
>
>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> Are you able to identify that particular regulation? I am unaware of
>> an FAA regulation that requires reading and writing English.
>
>61.103 Eligibility requirements
> General.
>To be eligible for a private pilot certificate, a person must:
>[a, b...]
>(c) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language.
>If the applicant is unable to meet one of these requirements due to
>medical reasons, then the Administrator may place such operating
>limitations on that applicant's pilot certificate as are necessary for
>the safe operation of the aircraft.

Thank you.

In deed it appears that US regulations require an applicant for any
airmans certificate (private, instrument, commercial, ATP, ...) issued
by the FAA to " Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the
English language."*

However, it would seem that "PART 129—OPERATIONS: FOREIGN AIR CARRIERS
AND FOREIGN OPERATORS OF U.S.-REGISTERED AIRCRAFT ENGAGED IN COMMON
CARRIAGE" may be more applicable in the Air China incident. It would
appear that there is no such requirement for English usage by foreign
air crews operating in the US. Instead, foreign air carriers must
provide bilingual ground personnel for handling their traffic:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=4a8e94614d1333eb053648231934d13f&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.4.21&idno=14#14:2.0.1.4.21.0.11.11
§ 129.21 Control of traffic.

Link to an amendment published at 72 FR 31683, June 7, 2007.

(a) Subject to applicable immigration laws and regulations, each
foreign air carrier shall furnish the ground personnel necessary
to provide for two-way voice communication between its aircraft
and ground stations, at places where the Administrator finds that
voice communication is necessary and that communications cannot be
maintained in a language with which ground station operators are
familiar.

(b) Each person furnished by a foreign air carrier under paragraph
(a) of this section must be able to speak both English and the
language necessary to maintain communications with the aircraft
concerned, and shall assist ground personnel in directing traffic.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=4a8e94614d1333eb053648231934d13f;rg n=div2;view=text;node=20070607%3A1.59;idno=14;cc=e cfr;start=1;size=25
Amendment from June 07, 2007

14 CFR--PART 129
View Printed Federal Register page72 FR 31683in PDF format.
Amendment(s) published June 7, 2007, in 72 FR 31683
Effective Date(s): August 6, 2007

46. Revise §129.21 to read as follows:

§ 129.21 Control of traffic.
(a) Subject to applicable immigration laws and regulations, each
foreign air carrier must furnish sufficient personnel necessary to
provide two-way voice communications between its aircraft and
stations at places where the FAA finds that communication is
necessary but cannot be maintained in a language with which
station operators are familiar.

(b) Each person furnished by a foreign air carrier under paragraph
(a) of this section must be able to speak English and the language
necessary to maintain communications with its aircraft and must
assist station operators in directing traffic.

Given the number of foreign air carriers and the numerous FAA
facilities they must communicate with, this regulation seems
unworkable in the event that they should ALL attempt to comply with
it.

*
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=4a8e94614d1333eb053648231934d13f&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.2&idno=14

C J Campbell[_1_]

July 1st 07, 03:20 PM

On 2007-06-30 05:34:01 -0700, Thomas Borchert
> said:

> C,
>
>> So what would have been the standard way to ask if he had been cleared
>> to the ramp?
>>
>
> "Confirm you have been cleared to..." or some such. Anything that is not
> recognizable as a question by a change in inflection only.
>
> -- e
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Ah. And his reply would have been so much more clear. "Roger, confirm I
have been cleared to ramp."
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell[_1_]

July 1st 07, 03:31 PM

On 2007-06-28 12:00:26 -0700, Dallas > said:

>
> Scary.
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWDEIvjwaFU

International pilots on international flights are required under ICAO
to either maintain level 4 proficiency in English or to understand the
language spoken on the ground. Level 4 proficiency is defined by ICAO
as being able to understand language well enough to communicate
promptly with only very rare errors. Level 4 proficiency means you have
to understand the meanings of different pronunciation, intonation, and
rhythm. You have to be able to understand and communicate about unusual
situations. Arguably, asking someone if they are cleared to the ramp is
neither unusual nor unreasonable under these rules. If the pilot does
not understand an instruction, he is supposed to be able to know
English well enough to ask for clarification. There is no way that this
pilot could be considered to speak English at Operational Level 4.

ICAO Rating Scale for Operational Level*4
A speaker will be rated at Operational Level*4 if the following
criteria are met:
Pronunciation: (Assumes a dialect and/or accent intelligible to the
aeronautical community.)
Pronunciation, stress, rhythm, and intonation are influenced by the
first language or regional variation but only sometimes interfere with
ease of understanding.

Structure:
(Relevant grammatical structures and sentence patterns are determined
by language functions appropriate to the task.)
Basic grammatical structures and sentence patterns are used creatively
and are usually well controlled. Errors may occur, particularly in
unusual or unexpected circumstances, but rarely interfere with meaning.

Vocabulary:
Vocabulary range and accuracy are usually sufficient to communicate
effectively on common, concrete, and work-related topics. Can often
paraphrase successfully when lacking vocabulary in unusual or
unexpected circumstances.

Fluency:
Produces stretches of language at an appropriate tempo. There may be
occasional loss of fluency on transition from rehearsed or formulaic
speech to spontaneous interaction, but this does not prevent effective
communication. Can make limited use of discourse markers or connectors.
Fillers are not distracting.

Comprehension:
Comprehension is mostly accurate on common, concrete, and work-related
topics when the accent or variety used is sufficiently intelligible for
an international community of users. When the speaker is confronted
with a linguistic or situational complication or an unexpected turn of
events, comprehension may be slower or require clarification strategies.

Interactions:
Responses are usually immediate, appropriate, and informative.
Initiates and maintains exchanges even when dealing with an unexpected
turn of events. Deals adequately with apparent misunderstandings by
checking, confirming, or clarifying.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[email protected]

July 1st 07, 04:35 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Thomas Borchert writes:

> > Which one, for someone flying in US airspace, with a foreign
> > certificate in a foreign-registered aircraft?

> ICAO covers all.

Clueless.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

El Maximo

July 1st 07, 05:34 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> Which one, for someone flying in US airspace, with a foreign
>> certificate in a foreign-registered aircraft?
>
> ICAO covers all.

If ICAO covers all, and my airport doesn't have an ICAO identifier, I guess
it doesn't exist.

Or could it be that you are mistaken (again)

El Maximo

July 1st 07, 05:34 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> writes:
>
>> Indeed, there was quite a fuss a year or two ago when controllers at
>> Charles de Gaulle demanded that American and British pilots speak in
>> French.
>
> Are you confusing France and Québec?

Last time I checked, CDG was in France.

Guess you're wrong again.

El Maximo

July 1st 07, 06:40 PM

"Shirl" > wrote in message
...
> Shirl:
>> >>The reg is that you can speak, read, write, and understand English.
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> > Are you able to cite the regulation to which you refer that requires
>> > reading and writing English?
>
> "El Maximo" > wrote:
>> That would involve admitting to a mistake. It will never happen. He'll
>> either ignore the request entirely, or answer a question you didn't ask.
>
> El Maximo, I was the one (Shirl) who said that about the reg. I did not
> see the request until this moment -- I wasn't ignoring it.

Shirl,

I apologise for confusing you with Mr-Know-it-all. I'll try to pay better
attention.

Flydive

July 1st 07, 08:40 PM

Cubdriver wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 11:31:38 +0200, Wolfgang Schwanke >
> wrote:
>
>>> Indeed, there was quite a fuss a year or two ago when controllers at
>>> Charles de Gaulle demanded that American and British pilots speak in
>>> French.
>> Unless I missed that news item, you may be mixing some facts up. They
>> are speaking in French to French crews and English to everyone else.
>
> No, they spoke to the English-speaking flight crews in French. That
> was the cause of the celebre.
>
> Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
>
> Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
> forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

Actually it was the opposite, they wanted French crews to use English
instead of French as they were used to, big opposition by French pilots
and the requirement was dropped.

Thomas Borchert

July 1st 07, 08:42 PM

C,

> Ah. And his reply would have been so much more clear. "Roger, confirm I
> have been cleared to ramp."
>

No idea. Fact is, the controller didn't use standard phraseology.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Shirl

July 1st 07, 10:46 PM

Shirl:
> >To be eligible for a private pilot certificate, a person must:
> >[a, b...]
> >(c) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language.

Cubdriver:
> But the pilot in question almost certainly never applied for a (US)
> private pilot certificate, or indeed any American pilot certificate.

Yeah, I realized that afterwards.

> Is there a requirement that a pilot holding a foreign certificate and
> flying in US airspace "read, speak" etc the English language? Or
> merely that he communicate with ATC in English?

I don't know. Haven't seen one, so far. Again, just seems any pilot
flying into JFK, SFO or LAX should speak and understand English well
enough to be able to answer a question as basic, whether it's "standard
aviation phraseology" or not, as "Have you been cleared to the ramp?"
and to understand and accurately read back a clearly spoken taxi
clearance without having to hear it four times.

Maybe it's just me, but if a controller asked me the same question a
second time, I'd think about what I didn't answer instead of just
repeating the same response without even thinking about it.

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

July 2nd 07, 02:05 AM

Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in
:

> On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 11:31:38 +0200, Wolfgang Schwanke >
> wrote:
>
>>> Indeed, there was quite a fuss a year or two ago when controllers at
>>> Charles de Gaulle demanded that American and British pilots speak in
>>> French.
>>
>>Unless I missed that news item, you may be mixing some facts up. They
>>are speaking in French to French crews and English to everyone else.
>
> No, they spoke to the English-speaking flight crews in French. That
> was the cause of the celebre.
>

Happens all the time. Mostly in error. It's only a problem if you can't
count in French (to recognise your own flight number if they are calling
you )
I doubt they were insisting the crews speak in French though, unless the
crews were acting like tits, which is often the case.

Bertie
> Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
>
> Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
> forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com
>

Mxsmanic

July 2nd 07, 05:47 AM

Thomas Borchert writes:

> No idea. Fact is, the controller didn't use standard phraseology.

Whether he used it or not is not important in this case.

Mxsmanic

July 2nd 07, 05:49 AM

Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> writes:

> But the pilot in question almost certainly never applied for a (US)
> private pilot certificate, or indeed any American pilot certificate.

He still has to communicate in English.

> Is there a requirement that a pilot holding a foreign certificate and
> flying in US airspace "read, speak" etc the English language? Or
> merely that he communicate with ATC in English?

If he's in a movement area of JFK, he needs to speak English.

Mxsmanic

July 2nd 07, 05:51 AM

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> That's not the point. The point is that an American accent, even
> "standard" American without any noticeable regional dialect, can be an
> obstacle to foreigners who were taught British English, especially if
> their command of the language is not perfect.

This is incorrect. If they are sufficiently fluent in English, the accent
will not be an obstacle. Any accent strong enough and different enough to be
a problem would also be a problem for native English speakers. In this case,
the native speakers understood easily, and so the problem was the incompetence
of the pilot. Rest assured, he wouldn't understand any British accent,
either.

Mxsmanic

July 2nd 07, 05:52 AM

Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> writes:

> No. Is there a CdG airport in Quebec?

Then perhaps you can point me to a record of the incident, as I would be
interested in reading about it. I've never heard of a problem like this in
France before.

Mxsmanic

July 2nd 07, 05:53 AM

El Maximo writes:

> Last time I checked, CDG was in France.

The last legitimate incident of this kind that I heard of was in Québec.

> Guess you're wrong again.

How can one be wrong with a question?

Where's the article on this incident?

El Maximo

July 2nd 07, 10:43 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> No idea. Fact is, the controller didn't use standard phraseology.
>
> Whether he used it or not is not important in this case.

Intelligent people can see that it is critical.

El Maximo

July 2nd 07, 11:58 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> How can one be wrong with a question?

I don't know, but you always seem to manage.

>
> Where's the article on this incident?

My library has one. Try yours.

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

July 2nd 07, 01:30 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> El Maximo writes:
>
>> Last time I checked, CDG was in France.
>
> The last legitimate incident of this kind that I heard of was in Québec.
>
>> Guess you're wrong again.
>
> How can one be wrong with a question?

Questions use question marks, fjukktard

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

July 2nd 07, 01:31 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> writes:
>
>> No. Is there a CdG airport in Quebec?
>
> Then perhaps you can point me to a record of the incident, as I would
> be interested in reading about it. I've never heard of a problem like
> this in France before.

That's because you're not a pilot

Fjukkwit

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

July 2nd 07, 01:33 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Wolfgang Schwanke writes:
>
>> That's not the point. The point is that an American accent, even
>> "standard" American without any noticeable regional dialect, can be
>> an obstacle to foreigners who were taught British English, especially
>> if their command of the language is not perfect.
>
> This is incorrect. If they are sufficiently fluent in English, the
> accent will not be an obstacle. Any accent strong enough and
> different enough to be a problem would also be a problem for native
> English speakers. In this case, the native speakers understood
> easily, and so the problem was the incompetence of the pilot. Rest
> assured, he wouldn't understand any British accent, either.
>

Wrong agian, fjuktard.

I am a pilot and accents are a problem for all pilots. As well as
syntax.

But then you don't fly, so how could you know that?

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

July 2nd 07, 01:34 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> No idea. Fact is, the controller didn't use standard phraseology.
>
> Whether he used it or not is not important in this case.
>

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

Bertie

Mxsmanic

July 3rd 07, 01:08 AM

El Maximo writes:

> Intelligent people can see that it is critical.

It is not critical if all parties are competent in English. And if they are
not competent, "standard phraseology" will not hhelp.

Mxsmanic

July 3rd 07, 01:08 AM

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> I am a pilot and accents are a problem for all pilots.

I'm the King of England, and I have many castles.

Mxsmanic

July 3rd 07, 01:09 AM

El Maximo writes:

> I don't know ...

I agree.

El Maximo

July 3rd 07, 01:49 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> El Maximo writes:
>
>> Intelligent people can see that it is critical.
>
> It is not critical if all parties are competent in English. And if they
> are
> not competent, "standard phraseology" will not hhelp.

Intelligent people can see that it is critical

Thomas Borchert

July 3rd 07, 09:42 AM

El,

> Intelligent people can see that it is critical
>

Is that a standard phrase? <gd&r>

FWIW, I obviously agree with you.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

El Maximo

July 3rd 07, 01:06 PM

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> El,
>
>> Intelligent people can see that it is critical
>>
>
> Is that a standard phrase? <gd&r>
>
> FWIW, I obviously agree with you.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

As usual, s/he wrote nothing in response to my statement, however the
statement is still applicable to his posting.

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

July 3rd 07, 06:17 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> I am a pilot and accents are a problem for all pilots.
>
> I'm the King of England, and I have many castles.
>

In your world, I'm sure you believe that.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

July 3rd 07, 06:18 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> El Maximo writes:
>
>> I don't know ...
>
> I agree.
>

We already know you don't know

Bertie

RomeoMike

July 5th 07, 12:27 AM

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

>
> Native-like fluency is not a requirement for pilots. For real life
> foreign speakers, an accent different from the one they were taught in
> is a problem.

From personal experience I agree, but don't you think they should know
the difference between Alpha and November?

Mxsmanic

July 5th 07, 11:13 AM

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> Native-like fluency is not a requirement for pilots. For real life
> foreign speakers, an accent different from the one they were taught in
> is a problem.

If a different accent is a problem, their fluency is too low for aviation
purposes.

El Maximo

July 5th 07, 12:24 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

>
> If a different accent is a problem, their fluency is too low for aviation
> purposes.

Get a clue.

Thomas Borchert

July 5th 07, 01:18 PM

Mxsmanic,

> If a different accent is a problem, their fluency is too low for aviation
> purposes.
>

Everytime one is sure you have demonstrated the maximum idiocy achievable,
you manage to top it again.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

July 6th 07, 08:56 AM

Wolfgang,

> Did he really expect the poor
> pilot to understand _that_? "Interrogative" isn't a word that a less
> than fluent speaker will know.
>

Reminds me of the story of an avid English learner who, after months of
learning, decides his English is finally good enough to go to
McDonald's for a burger. He places his order and the girl behind the
counter goes "foheatogo?" He smiles apologetically (sp?), she repeats
"foheatogo?". This goes on five times with her being too dumb to phrase
the question a different way (a typical behaviour). After a while, he
thinks "I can't go wrong if I say this": "Just a little bit, please"

True story.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mxsmanic

July 8th 07, 02:45 AM

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Reminds me of the story of an avid English learner who, after months of
> learning, decides his English is finally good enough to go to
> McDonald's for a burger. He places his order and the girl behind the
> counter goes "foheatogo?" He smiles apologetically (sp?), she repeats
> "foheatogo?". This goes on five times with her being too dumb to phrase
> the question a different way (a typical behaviour).

No, he was too dumb to understand what was being said. It's not her
obligation to phrase things twenty different ways in the hope that he'll catch
on, it's his responsibility to be competent in understanding the language to
begin with.

Mxsmanic

July 8th 07, 02:46 AM

El Maximo writes:

> Get a clue.

Most air traffic controllers have accents. Any pilot who cannot understand
English with an accent isn't going to fly very far.

Mxsmanic

July 8th 07, 02:47 AM

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Everytime one is sure you have demonstrated the maximum idiocy achievable,
> you manage to top it again.

Which type of English counts as "without an accent" for you?

Thomas Borchert

July 8th 07, 10:47 AM

Mxsmanic,

Did they switch the power back on?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

El Maximo

July 8th 07, 12:16 PM

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic,
>
> Did they switch the power back on?
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

When your power gets switched off, it's because you used power that you
didn't pay for. That is known as theft.

A thief would simply steal from his neighbors when the authorities shut him
off.

Or maybe he stopped posting because he was too bust teaching engrish to
chinese pirates.

Either way, it was a nice break from his stupidity.

Blanche

July 8th 07, 06:21 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote:
>Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> Reminds me of the story of an avid English learner who, after months of
>> learning, decides his English is finally good enough to go to
>> McDonald's for a burger. He places his order and the girl behind the
>> counter goes "foheatogo?" He smiles apologetically (sp?), she repeats
>> "foheatogo?". This goes on five times with her being too dumb to phrase
>> the question a different way (a typical behaviour).
>
>No, he was too dumb to understand what was being said. It's not her
>obligation to phrase things twenty different ways in the hope that he'll catch
>on, it's his responsibility to be competent in understanding the language to
>begin with.

No, it's NOT the customer's responsibility to understand nor comprehend
poorly enunciated jargon.

Shirl

July 8th 07, 08:02 PM

> >> Reminds me of the story of an avid English learner who, after months of
> >> learning, decides his English is finally good enough to go to
> >> McDonald's for a burger. He places his order and the girl behind the
> >> counter goes "foheatogo?" He smiles apologetically (sp?), she repeats
> >> "foheatogo?". This goes on five times with her being too dumb to phrase
> >> the question a different way (a typical behaviour).
> >
> >No, he was too dumb to understand what was being said. It's not her
> >obligation to phrase things twenty different ways in the hope that he'll
> >catch
> >on, it's his responsibility to be competent in understanding the language to
> >begin with.

Blanche > wrote:
> No, it's NOT the customer's responsibility to understand nor comprehend
> poorly enunciated jargon.

I agree. I've never understood places of business that *depend* on clear
communication for accurate transactions (i.e., drive-up windows, bank
tellers, or any business that is conducted over the phone) that have
people who can barely speak English in those jobs.