Aviathor wrote:
In all other threads on this topic on EuroGA, noone has ever managed to come up with a text that explicitly states that you need French LP in your license to legally use FR R/T
Yes. The regulation says you can’t fly (exercise privileges) without it if it’s needed. That for sure puts damper on things. Whether they can do me for saying “vielen Dank, auf Wiederhören” to a German unit without having R/T privileges for German, who knows. I guess not since it’s not proper phraseology (I would expect that to be the issue, if anything). But talking to a unit wholly in German… Using it when you don’t need it is somehow not covered in that regulation.
However, as I wrote, why have specific languages written in your licence when you can speak whatever language you want? That could work if there was no examination what so ever for holders of licences issued in that country. Can you get French issued licence with French R/T privileges without speaking French? I doubt it.
For example, I know of a country where you have to do theoretical and practical exam in the same language to get a licence (SPL/ LAPL(S)) from them. Why? Because there is no separate LP examination. And you get the language in which you did your exams written in it, IIRC. AFAIK they won’t normally put additional languages in. If you do your training abroad, that could mean you can’t speak your mother tongue in your motherland. I think similar system was used to give English LP to UK nationals (that is, oral part of examination served as a proof of LP). If there is such examination going on even for native speakers, why assume that foreigner who happens to speak the language can just use it?
There is the risk of causing confusion if you can’t speak the language well enough. If you can really speak the language well, you just don’t have the paperwork, I doubt it would hold in court. They could only build it on you being in no position to judge whether your proficiency is sufficient. Just my opinion, I’m not a lawyer. But I doubt you would take it to court, you would just pay the fine and be done with it. But then I don’t know how telecommunication regulations fit into all this – what I read about it was a bit confusing and I chose not to continue.
Aviathor wrote:
on top of that several have reported that the NAA (other than FR) refuse to enter other LP than that of the country and English.
Yes, that’s PITA. I guess the logic is that the local language is for local flights and English is for international flights, you don’t need more. Because those bureaucrats probably don’t have any practical experience in this. What a sorry state. As I wrote, I saw licences without the required information for “other than English” languages which makes it about as good as not being there at all if you follow letter of the regulation.
Back the the OP, I think France has some such exams because I heard of them. But finding information about them is not easy. Especially if you’re not currently proficient in French.
Martin wrote:
Yes. The regulation says you can’t fly (exercise privileges) without it if it’s needed.
Which regulation says exactly what? I’d be interested in specific links, yet this is more vague handwaving.
Any country/culture with the slightest bit of self-respect will naturally use local language.
Next time you fly to Le Touquet and ATC clear you to fly right base in English and clear another pilot to fly left base at the same time in French, see how “liberal” you feel after the resulting very close airprox.
Nothing can be done about the practices at LTQ of course, especially as many French-only (in terms of both language, and never flying outside France) pilots fly there, but at big-jet airports this is really a pointless bit of self indulgence especially as all the pilots will be speaking English once outside France, which they probably do on several sectors per day. It massively compromises safety, via reducing situational awareness.
Sorry Peter. LFAT is a VFR-only airfield and nothing ATC says, not even in Swahili, will legally allow you to switch off your Mk1 eyeball. Same for the other pilot, of course. But I’d be much surprised if ATC would knowingly and willingly do such a thing, especially if it might result in an airprox. They can make mistakes of course, like all of us.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
But I’d be much surprised if ATC would knowingly and willingly do such a thing, especially if it might result in an airprox. They can make mistakes of course, like all of us.Precisely! And if everyone uses a common language than everyone gets better situational awareness and such mistakes can be more easily spotted.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
Any country/culture with the slightest bit of self-respect will naturally use local language.
Actually, this could just as well be seen as snobbism rather than self-respect if the people involved understand English.
Radio transmissions at my (uncontrolled) home airport are usually made in Swedish. But if I hear an English-speaking voice appear on the frequency, I would instantly switch to English. As so would, I believe, most other of the local pilots.
LFAT is a VFR-only airfield
and here is me on short final after following some mysterious radio transmissions to the runway 
this could just as well be seen as snobbism rather than self-respect if the people involved understand English
That’s basically my point. I have absolutely zero problem with everybody speaking locally (obviously!) but where people do it
that is not good at all.
If I was running a cafe in Malaga I would make sure the waitress can speak English (including the East London version) and Russian, and I would do the same if recruiting airport staff. What is happening in aviation is the equivalent of her speaking only Spanish, but for some reason this is accepted in aviation.
If I was running a cafe in Malaga
Café’s are businesses. Aerodromes like LFAT are not, and can never be. Not at least in a sustainable way. You know very well that this kind of field is operated by public servants, who follow the rules that be to the last comma; and for good reasons too. Either you accept that or you stay away from such a field (sorry if that sounds harsh, I have no way to make simple truths sound gentle).
That said, I agree snobbishness is a poor excuse, and there may have been some of that in the making of the rules. No blame on those who live by them.
You know very well that this kind of field is operated by public servants, who follow the rules that be to the last comma;
That’s often true (1)
and for good reasons too
To stuff their public service pension entitlement, probably (1)
Café’s are businesses. Aerodromes like LFAT are not, and can never be. Not at least in a sustainable way
… and (1) is probably why.
Most of “us” here know how this stuff works, and we will fly to some place because we want to go there, but the vast majority of PPLs struggle to get from Shoreham to some place along the UK coast (and one could make the same respective caricature for every other country in Europe and it would be equally correct there) and if they get what they regard as excessive hassle, they simply won’t go there, and LFAT (etc) loses the 20-30 quid, plus the much bigger fuel margin (some €0.40/litre).
Some would be amazed on how thin a thread GA activity hangs on, in many quarters. I did a little fly-out to LFAT with some others in club planes, 2-3 years ago. 3 of them, and they flew 3 legs from Shoreham to Le Touquet and back so they could land somewhere to swap around and cost-share it 3 ways. And all but one of the people stayed at the airport (LFAT) to save on the cost of food.
Especially as, on the UK scene, you have the “cross channel checkout” logbook signoff which is a hugely complex aviation adventure to Le Touquet and this drives home the point that this pinnacle of aviation achievement is not to be undertaken lightly
I got that left base + right base airprox on that trip, too. Plus one more recent one, but on that one I had the other guy on TCAS.
tomjnx wrote:
Which regulation says exactly what? I’d be interested in specific links, yet this is more vague handwaving.
It was already written here, but be my guest:
FCL.055 Language proficiency
(a) General. Aeroplane, helicopter, powered-lift and airship pilots required to use the radio telephone shall not exercise the privileges of their licences and ratings unless they have a language proficiency endorsement on their licence in either English or the language used for radio communications involved in the flight. The endorsement shall indicate the language, the proficiency level and the validity date.
From No 1178/2011. Copying this now I noticed it doesn’t mention sailplane pilots. This escaped me previously.
