Airborne_Again wrote:
if the people involved understand English.
But they don’t have to, that’s the point. And when everyone capable of speaking English switches to English, because of one foreigner, what do those that don’t understand English do? Unless everyone speaks one language, this isn’t a solution.
Martin wrote:
they have a language proficiency endorsement on their licence in either English or the language used for radio communications involved in the flight
Exactly. Notice the “either english or the language used for radio communication”. It couldn’t be clearer that if you have an english endorsement, you don’t need an endorsement for any other language.
And note that it says exactly the same thing in the french and the german translation, so it’s not a simple translation error, but actually meant like it is written.
Martin wrote:
Yes. The regulation says you can’t fly (exercise privileges) without it if it’s needed.
I still would like to see the text.
Edit: I was referring to some French text – not FCL.055 above.
Martin wrote:
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.
I agree on both counts. I actually do not even think you would even get prosecuted. When I did my MEP skill test ATS at LFPT were closed, which means FR only. When I did my IR-ME skill test, ATS at LFPN was closed so French only. In both cases I did RT in French. Unfortunately I forgot to ask the examiner to give me French LP, but the Norwegians would probably not have entered it into my license anyway.
In my case I have Norwegian LP in my license. I would never use Norwegian RT though, because I never learned the phraseology although I did my PPL in Norway. I speak Norwegian like a native, but that does not mean that I master the phraseology.
Regarding French I am also a native speaker, and prior to my first flying trip to France I made the effort to learn French phraseology. I still prefer English RT (feel more comfortable) especially IFR.
@tomjnx I wrote about this in a previous post that it’s a daft notion, IMO. I can’t see the logic behind thinking that English LP enables you to fly into a French only airfield, or through a controlled airspace where controllers don’t speak English. I don’t think that’s the intended meaning. Obviously, this matters only when radio is required. If I can land there without any radio, language isn’t important.
If I had to guess, I would probably go with either it’s international (you need English) or local (you need “language used for radio communications involved in the flight”) as an explanation of what lies behind that strange wording. And it uses that expression (“language used for radio communications involved in the flight”) because ATC could be using a different language than is normally used in that region (also my guess at reasoning behind it, although I read somewhere about this possibility, I don’t remember where).
Why should it be an error in translation? I thought those regulations are written in English.
This bizzare rule could be a cockup.
How about the EASA FCL “operator” residence in the UK forcing the pilots to get EASA papers, in addition to State of Registry papers? That piece of FUD has generated gigabytes of bandwidth on the internet. I spoke to CAA head of licensing a year or so ago and he said he has no idea what it means. In response to my direct Q he said EASA or anybody else has not clarified the meaning. Yet, this piece of Cologne strip club “regulation” is law.
I know a lawyer who works for the CAA sometimes and his view is that the EASA FCL stuff above was indeed drafted in a bar.
What it comes down to is this
So these crappy regs are bad news all around.
Martin wrote:
I can’t see the logic behind thinking that English LP enables you to fly into a French only airfield
I do not think it does. And as you pointed out earlier, if one endeavours to fly in to a FR only field, one better should make sure one’s French is up to snuff.
Martin wrote:
or through a controlled airspace where controllers don’t speak English
Now I am curious. Where would that be?
BTW, I was just ramp checked in Besancon. One Gendarme was in the AFIS, and the other was waiting on the ramp. They heard me speak first English, then French. None of them bothered to check my LP, and they did take due note that I had a license issued by another MS (member state)
Martin wrote:
I wrote about this in a previous post that it’s a daft notion, IMO
This would be a very bad place to live if everything was forbidden that somebody in a forum thought was daft…
Martin wrote:
I can’t see the logic behind thinking that English LP enables you to fly into a French only airfield
Just because you don’t see the logic doesn’t mean (a) there actually is logic, and (b) nobody else can see any logic behind it.
Fact is, if your interpretation was correct, the regulator could simply have written “… in the language used…”. However, they explicitly wrote “… english or the language used…”, which IMO cannot be accidental or an oversight. This singling out of english looks very much deliberate to me.
While it is true that courts look at what the legislator might have meant if a paragraph is unclear, this is not the case here, that sentence is so crystal clear there is no room for interpretation IMO.
Martin wrote:
Why should it be an error in translation?
Aviathor wrote:
I actually do not even think you would even get prosecuted.
I wouldn’t expect them to prosecute you for that straight away. I would expect a fine. And you either accept that and pay it or you don’t and then there is a possibility of it getting to court, eventually.
Now I am curious. Where would that be?
I can imagine a military controller responsible for some military airspace doesn’t have to speak English. Locals can call him up, ask for a clearance.
Peter wrote:
How about the EASA FCL “operator” residence in the UK forcing the pilots to get EASA papers, in addition to State of Registry papers?
Well, at least some EU countries keep records of operators in their registries. In those countries, there is no doubt about who it is.
tomjnx wrote:
Just because you don’t see the logic doesn’t mean (a) there actually is logic, and (b) nobody else can see any logic behind it.
And that’s exactly why I wrote it. I’m not claiming that’s the truth. And I like to operate on the premise that there is some reason, maybe lost somewhere, perhaps bizarre, but is.
I agree that in my interpretation English is redundant – the second part would cover it. But I can imagine someone wanting to push English in there as the common language (not that it is a hundred percent common). I agree with your line of thinking, I thought the same thing but I can’t come up with a better reason.
Because gross translation errors happened before
Isn’t it written there that it’s the German version which contains errors (so you should also read the English original)? Original text can’t contain translation errors, because it’s original, it’s the source for translations. And the originals are written in English, aren’t they? So are ICAO documents. But it’s a bit more complicated, I don’t want to go into too much detail.
Martin wrote:
Why should it be an error in translation? I thought those regulations are written in English.
I don’t know in what language they were originally written, but there are versions for every EU member state language and all of them have equal status, so it is bad news if there are translation errors.
I spotted a rather bizarre translation error in the Swedish version of part-FCL and asked the Swedish Transport Authority about it. They said that they regarded the English version as authoritative. However, if there is ever a court case, I’m 99% certain the court would only consider the wording in the Swedish version. If the case escalates to the European court of Justice, then things will get really interesting. But there are tons of EU regulations and something like this must have found its way to the EU court before.
