As pilots, we tend to often extrapolate what is written based on assumptions. What legal basis would there be to assume that the statement applies to those with non-French licences? I suspect that the quoted statement is simply wrong, has no basis in law, and agree with @Peter that this should be reported to @bookworm. I think the quote from him is very clear that an ELP is always sufficient since only EASA can mandate licence requirements.
My read of the various comments in the thread is that any airfield can make some sort of airfield usage comment about fluency in French (or other local language in other countries). However, they cannot place requirements on the licence that go beyond EASA regulations. It then boils down to a discussion about what “fluency” means and who decides, but definitely not a licencing issue.
I think that a pragmatic approach is that each of us judge for ourselves if we are fluent enough to use the local language for a given airfield, FR in France or GE in Germany, or other. Honestly, I’ve given up worrying about this, at least for Germany or France where I personally have no problem with the language despite only having LPE in my licence. I’ll deal with any challenge on a case by case basis.
Any national attempt to restrict airfield usage based on a specific non-English licence LP is obviously trying to destroy GA by limiting it to nationals. How many of us have Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Polish, Czech, Hungarian, Croatian, Slovenian, Romanian, Bulgarian (Urs?)…. LP entries in our licences? The whole idea of trying to use licence LP entries to limit access to airfields is rather nonsense.
Noe wrote:
… But none have seen enforced ever? (Assuming they knew how to speak minimal french)
That is the question. In the beginning there definitly were harassments, even if not followed up by fines, but this statement out of the DGAC for the first time in my knowledge puts forth the legal opinion of the DGAC in writing. And who would rely on non-enforcement of any law? Not me certainly.
Bordeaux_Jim wrote:
It is not really an English exam, but more a technical translation exam. […] However, a non-French speaker could not pass it, because all the questions (including the introduction given by the examiners) are in French!
Sorbonne Confidential (available in French and English) is the lightly-fictionalised inside story of an American trying to become an English teacher in France. Some of it is so weird it’s funny, but it does become a rant against the Éducation Nationale. She fails an exam for translating dépendu as ‘cutting down the body’ , when the correct answer was clearly ‘dehanged’ or possibly ‘unhanged’ 
chflyer wrote:
As pilots, we tend to often extrapolate what is written based on assumptions. What legal basis would there be to assume that the statement applies to those with non-French licences? I suspect that the quoted statement is simply wrong, has no basis in law, and agree with @Peter that this should be reported to @bookworm. I think the quote from him is very clear that an ELP is always sufficient since only EASA can mandate licence requirements.
OK, noted. I was hoping you might give me a slightly easier one to start with. There is a difference between an NAA requiring LP as a condition of licence issue and requiring the holder of a licence issued by another NAA to hold a particular LP. I don’t think there is a rule that requires the DGAC to recognise a UK ELP qualification at all, so be careful what you wish for.
I think I may approach this one delicately.
I don’t think there is a rule that requires the DGAC to recognise a UK ELP qualification at all, so be careful what you wish for.
What is the risk there? EASA requires ELP and “some country” has to issue the ELP. Do you think France could say only France can issue an ELP which is permitted for France?
I can see a spread of FR-only airports if there was a political desire to keep Brits out (taking present-day political climate into account) and it would work since (a) few Brits speak French and (b) even fewer Germans or Swiss fly to France. However I think this is unlikely, despite “localised sentiment”
I’m usually quite good at find the missing piece of legislation. But I couldn’t fine anywhere a legal basis for fining someone who doesn’t hold a French level 4 LP. So if it ever happened (which I very much doubt) I’d like to see the court/police document that imposed the fine.
I think that if the DGAC Lady who wrote a level 4 in French is mandatory did not give any legal reference, it’s because there is none.
For those of you who do feel they need a piece of paper, get a French microlight license. It’s fun and easy, and it comes with an RT license with no extra charge!
Peter wrote:
I can see a spread of FR-only airports if there was a political desire to keep Brits out (taking present-day political climate into account) and it would work since (a) few Brits speak French and (b) even fewer Germans or Swiss fly to France
You know there’s only one reason you have FR only airfields, and it has nothing to do with “sentiment”, but with not having ATC. In these circumstances, either you make everyone speak english, or french. And the latter both 1) (likely) serves more users and 2) is fairer (since it’s the french pilots that pay for the airports)
I prefer “local language/traffic”-only airfields than airfields closed in abscence of ATC/ATS but some may have a different opinion on “needs of the many/few” (another John Stuart Mill/Jeremy Bentham vs Emmanuel Kant justice debate) but at least in the fomer you can sneak in !
You know there’s only one reason you have FR only airfields, and it has nothing to do with “sentiment”, but with not having ATC. In these circumstances, either you make everyone speak english, or french. And the latter both 1) (likely) serves more users and 2) is fairer (since it’s the french pilots that pay for the airports)
Several angles here…
I agree it is nothing to do with sentiment, currently.
Firstly, you could have English speaking AFIS, too. Here in the UK, it has been reported that the difference in salary between an ATCO and an FISO is only GBP 5k, which is barely significant on the scale of airport overheads, but ATC is required for instrument approaches, but France doesn’t have that problem. And I would not expect French FISOs to be vastly cheaper than French ATCOs, given that these job grades are governed by ICAO, trade unions, etc… One might ask “why bother to cater for foreigners?” Well, if you were running a beach bar in Malaga, you would make sure the waitress can speak English, preferably with a Liverpool accent Anything less is just totally dumb.
Secondly, all arriving pilots contribute to the airport, via landing fees, and (this is directly relevant to the fairly common chamber of commerce airport funding in France) by spending money in the local economy. I would suggest that a foreigner flying into [pick your favourite AFIS-run French airport] is way more likely to spend a few hundred € in the area than a French aeroclub pilot. This may be putting it bluntly (and is not to be taken as an attack on France, please!… I know these are sensitive areas which normally only French pilots are allowed to venture into) but it reflects the reality of GA activity everywhere. If you fly 50nm you will likely have some food at the airport and fly back. If you fly 300nm then you will likely spend €100-200 on a hotel and another €100 on presents for your wife, and buy 200 litres of fuel, etc, etc… That, after all, is why the chambers of commerce are encouraging tourism by foreigners! Go to any French CofC funded airport (well, one which accepts UK flights) and it is full of brochures about local attractions. Local pilots are unlikely to be going to these attractions. So I would not expect the local CofC to be particularly enthusiastic about funding an airport which prevents foreigners spending money in the local area A cosy relationship between the airport manager and the CofC chief is going to work only so far 
In any country, loads of people can be dug up who can speak just enough English and it brings money to the local area.
I don’t disagree with your analysis, but I think either the french local authorities decide that it’s worth getting some sort of Air traffic service (I wasn’t making a distinction of ATC vs AFIS) during out of hours, for all non french speaking pilots, and then everyone can come, or it’s not, and they have to chose between FR only or EN only. Economic argument is hard to define (More local pilots who on average spend less vs pilots coming from far spending more), but politics argument / perception “we are the ones paying most of the costs of the airport” is going to be hard to sway in favour of UK only.
Incidentally, on Sunday, at Calais, there was no ATA but both languages on the radio. Lille ATC didn’t give any issue to English speaking PH place. There were no airproxes and I don’t think anyone died while while i was there
