Peter wrote:
I disagree.
This is the problem: you are very subjective in your “moderation”.
Peter wrote:
Loads of your posts were deleted because they were simply pointlessly rude.
They were not. I disagreed with you, which may be construed as rude. Hard to prove, now ain’t it?
Regarding post 148, it does seem unlikely but “law enforcement” is often done in batches – hence the Inspector Clouseau “arrest the usual suspects” trademark phrase is how most police work is done, and for a good reason.
He must have asked for it. In order to make a point he willingly provoked a reaction. If he really got checked and fined 3 times in 2 months, he may have done so much so that the BGTA made a point of ramp checking him everywhere he went.
Another thing is that if you do something to provoke them, they will give you a hard time.
They cannot allow members of the public to disrespect or spite them. Even more so in Britain where they are unarmed most of the time.
So if it is true, I am sure there is more to this story.
boscomantico wrote:
Aviathor,FYI, that guy on the German forum reporting those “fines” a few a years ago was a total troll. Nothing was true about it.
Thanks, boscomantico.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
What I would have looked at as logical would have been e.g a recognition of the corresponding level if a equal exam can be proven to the CAA, e.g. someone who holds a Proficiency Exam (C2) in English would get the LP6 automatically, someone with a C1 within the last 10 years gets LP5 to the renewal date and so on. But in any case, passing the exam for someone who has done any of those exams is a non-issue.Do the English exams you mention include understanding of poor quality radio transmissions? I would think not.
And there is one other thing: LP is intended for communications with ATC, that is controllers. However, on AFIS airports there are no controllers. So this is one way out for this.
LP is intended for communication over aeronautical radio, with includes A/A and communication with (A)FIS. The ICAO documents make no mention that it is intended specifically for communicating with ATC.
Peter wrote:
he Inspector Clouseau “arrest the usual suspects” trademark phrase
you are very subjective in your “moderation”.
It may seem that way to you. However, over any past 30 days sample, we have slightly over 200 contributors, and only about 3-4 of them require any mod involvement. So ask yourself how do the other ~98% manage it?
A mod on EuroGA could mark those 98% as permanently invisible and still do his job completely.
Actually it was police captain Renault in Casablanca.
I reckon he wasn’t the only one, but I don’t have the time to prove it 
that guy on the German forum reporting those “fines” a few a years ago was a total troll. Nothing was true about it.
How was it established? Was it another incarnation of some character?
Fined three times for no FLP ? Codswallop.
There are two issues to take into account, EASA regulations (FCL.055) and the national interpretation of those regulations, which can override the former if they are more stringent.
EASA says you must have EITHER English or the Local language on your licence.
The French national regulations say that the language used on the radio can be either English or French, EXCEPT if an aeronautical publication says otherwise (i.e. FR seulement).
Nowhere does it say you need a FLP qualification to speak French on the radio.
This has been confirmed both by asking the DGAC directly and from speaking to the BGTA (Airborne Gendarmerie).
As Aviathor rightly says, you can’t get a FLP endorsement on most non-French licences, with the exception of Belgium, Switzerland and Canada.
With regard to the DGAC English exam, I have taken it twice, first in VFR and then in IFR (at the center in Orly)
It is not really an English exam, but more a technical translation exam. I found it fairly easy because I have been a translator for ten years.
However, a non-French speaker could not pass it, because all the questions (including the introduction given by the examiners) are in French!
I can see how someone not used to semi-spontaneous translation could find it difficult (even a native English speaker).
Incidentally, the same test exists for foreigners wanting to gain a FLP qualification (if they are converting their licence to a FR one). I assume it works the other way around, with phrases written in English to translate into French.
Aviathor wrote:
. So in France level 6 is really hard to get, even for native English speakers. Not because they have such high standards. But just because they spill oil in the curve for you to skid off the road.
The fog begins to lighten and I fully agree. This is a travesty and not only that, to my understanding it violates EASA principles and should be legally challenged on a large scale.
gallois wrote:
In my case I took the ELP (Fcl 055d) in England and received a level 6.When this was transferred into my French licence the DGAC would only give me a level 5. The only place, at the time, that one could get a level 6 was at the DGAC Centre for examinations at Orly. I took the exam, found it much more difficult than the one I had taken in England and got a level 5.
To me, this sounds like France is in violation of EASA regulations when it comes to issuance of EASA licenses and they should be audited by EASA to this effect. Pilots being refused to have ELP ’s acknowledged should object to this ruling to EASA or consider moving their license elsewhere.
Unless France has very good reasons accepted by EASA to refuse LP6’s issued by any other EASA member state, I would have to say this should be challengable by EASA or by the European court. Clearly, this can not be done by a single pilot or candidate, as the DGAC would undoubtedly take revenge, but by national organisations such as the French Aeroclub or AOPA France or even IAOPA.
Aviathor wrote:
That is unfortunately standard procedure, not only in France I am afraid, but also in other countries. Actually the Norwegian CAA refused to accept my ELP 6 delivered by DGAC. They would not even give me level 5. I had to use a Norwegian language examiner.
Again, this is a violation of the EASA FCL principle. Either they are part of FCL or not. If so, they HAVE TO accept any other states exams or should face legal action.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Do the English exams you mention include understanding of poor quality radio transmissions? I would think not.
They are usually of a fair quality from the ones I have heard (my wife teaches those courses and has ample examples). Using deliberatly bad quality samlples should qualify as malpractice.
Airborne_Again wrote:
LP is intended for communication over aeronautical radio, with includes A/A and communication with (A)FIS. The ICAO documents make no mention that it is intended specifically for communicating with ATC.
That is what logic should dictate yes. But before I was told that applying logic means to be prejudiced.
I don’t think it is disputed anywhere that France was one of the countries whose pilots radio performance was motivation to introduce the LP, together with many others like Russia and a lot of asian countries but also some other European ones. It appears however that instead of getting their act together, their rulemakers still appear to be kind of traumatized by the very insult of asking their folks to polish up their English so now they screw everyone including their own people. Maybe they want to demonstrate just how hard they are on their people, in which case they further alianate their own pilots to that language. Whatever it is, it should be stopped and if necessary, sanctioned. EASA should put their collective feet down as they have done in other instances, preciously few as they may be.
As for the “troll” with his 3 fines, I don’t know about him. My attention was brought to the problem shortly after LP was introduced when a friend of mine whom I trusted not to tell rubbish was stopped by a ramp check from departing a FR only airfield and had to hire a local instructor to ferry his Stearman to an airfield with English. He was a A330/340 commander in professional life, 30 years FI and bilingual. Unfortunately he perished in Speyer last year. Later on I saw a letter sent to members of Geneva area clubs warning them not to go to FR only airfields unless they had FR LP. Subsequently the Swiss BAZL reacted and made FLP exams available to their pilots. I have to stress that since then (this was shortly after the introduction) I have no longer heard any fines or other stuff from France but the uneasiness remains. This apart from the fact that as I have said before that I myself would feel uneasy being forced to speak something I am not qualified for.
Noe wrote:
Putting a english ELP in these situations would likely decrease the incidents / potential accidents, but not because people would all talk better, but because there would likely just be much less traffic.
Noe, I never said they all should have the ELP, even though it would be helpful. All I am asking is that they remove this FR only restriction which implies that only French radio transmission is allowed and, like e.g. in Switzerland, use the rule that English RT may be used along French. It is less than ideal but it is what has been practiced for as long as I can think back. And if nothing else, someone calling in in English would alert the locals that there is a Gajin in the area and pay attention.
I can confirm that FR LP is not needed if you have ELP. We were ramp-checked in France several times and nobody asked for it.
As I speak French and do the radio in French, I just thought I want to try to get a FR LP.
They do it together with the ELP tests if you coordinate beforehand via email. I picked the next available date in Strasbourg, dealt some evenings with more and less common phrases and went there. DGAC people were friendly and after some talking eager to give me level 6, but as you described for the ELP, the audio test was extremely difficult and I was very happy to get a 5.
I sent the certificate to the authority (in my case the Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe) and got it:
So: it is possible, but really not required. The main thing with FR only airfields is that your French is good enough to report your position and intentions and to understand the French pilots.
Good to know the FR proficiency can also be added to German licences – I have had a few people asking for it.
