Airborne_Again said :
…so as soon as the tower controller observes the aircraft leaving the maneuvering area…
With the call “au parking” you notify the controller that you have left his area, and you don’t rely on the controller having to observe all A/C leaving.
As gallois said, this might be just a mark of politeness so no real rationale behind.
As I was flying in LFCL I found it was useful when operating from one north or south most club to know if people were still on the taxiway for another traffic pattern or to the fuel station or if they stopped and are out of the manoeuvring area.
I am not saying this must be done, but it is nice.
Anyway, in Rome do as the Romans, is what I also try to do abroad.
Valtime wrote:
As gallois said, this might be just a mark of politeness so no real rationale behind.
That is all of it really, some places (e.g. LeTouquet LFAT) have strict line between parking/ramp/pump area and controlled taxiway, there is a big “C” painted on that line, you can freely move 5m before hitting that big “C” between parking/ramp/pump and the yellow taxiway lines
You can just start up and go to that “C” before calling LeTouquet Ground, never had any issue or remark doing that, well except once when I called on 121.5 by mistake to go to the fuel pump, they monitor that and got a funny reply as asking for fuel on ground is not considered an emergency 
The same applies when asked for taxi & park over some grass sitting outside of taxi/manoeuvring areas at your own risk, I had to do that once at Nantes/Toulouse as they did not have tie-downs on their tarmacs, Ground ATC clearly stated those grass spots do not belong to them, actually in theory it’s forbidden in AIP to manoeuvre engine off/on over those spots but let’s say 45kts forecasted winds is a far bigger worry for a C172 pilot that sitting on that grass but it is a sensible thing for a B737 to stick on the hard
lionel wrote:
More seriously, all languages have some of this. Like 90 5 and 95 in English or a young person saying “I’m 22” or “I’m 20, too”.
Which is the VERY REASON that in Aviation English you do not ever say “twenty-two” or “ninety-five”, but “two-two” and “niner-fife” and additionally you never say “climbing to one thousand feet”, but “climbing one thousand feet”… To stop exactly that ambiguity, which, incidentally I actually heard yesterday on Aquitaine Info amusingly enough.
Regards, SD..
boscomantico wrote:
When others are sharing a busy circuit, it is not only not helpful, but also detrimental to safety. Immagine you are in the circuit, looking for a couple other aircraft, and paying attention to their radio calls. Then somebody starts a call „Aubenas, N228RM….“, which really gets your attention… but then he continues “… at the parking, leaving the frequency“, i.e. you realize the position call was useless (a „custom“). So it not only blocks the frequency, it also increases stress on the other pilots trying to gain a good picture.
Yes, in this case as in many others in aviation, less is more. In the US we make no calls to leave the frequency when airborne either. Once you leave the controllers area of authority, whether on the ground or in the air, you no longer have the requirement to talk to him and therefore it is logical to leave his frequency at your discretion. Chatting on the radio is in any case not flying, it is a distraction from flying,
Do you know if EASA has any rules requiring a national aviation authority to accept a foreign (non-English) language proficiency certificate? For example, if I wished to add French to my Danish issued licence, could I do a French proficiency test in France and send the certificate to Denmark and get the proficiency added to my licence?
I have French level 6 on my Canadian licence, and enquired many years ago about adding it to my (at the time) UK EASA licence, and was told by the UK CAA that they do not add any language proficiencies other than English. I presume this is still the case across EASA land, but was curiously if you had heard of any cases otherwise.
derek wrote:
Do you know if EASA has any rules requiring a national aviation authority to accept a foreign (non-English) language proficiency certificate?
For ELP between EASA NAAs yes but it’s not an easy battle: I have done DGAC to CAA while ago and recently CAA to DGAC, you have to yell (in English )
Not sure how this would work for non-English LPs? but I lost my DGAC FLP when I transfered to CAA but I got it back from DGAC after I insisted… maybe DGAC will accept your Candian FLP6 if you send them some documents (e.g. university degree, work contract…)
Ibra wrote:
maybe DGAC will accept your Candian FLP6
I would be willing to do the DGAC French proficiency test, but I doubt Denmark would issue a licence with French proficiency on it. I don’t think it is worth the hassle in any case, as I can’t really imagine a scenario where I would really need it. If I flew to a French only airfield and misunderstood something, whether I had FLP in the licence or not probably wouldn’t matter!
How irritating that the UK CAA did not automatically recognise your ELP on transfer from DGAC. I have discovered other limits to EASA harmonisation in my transfer to Denmark…
Peter wrote:
Is there any current scenario where a French LP endorsement is required?
For non-DGAC holders, NO as long as they have English LP they can fly to any airport in France (speak French if they like or when it’s mandatory without having FLP), but if they don’t have English LP, the will surely need French LP
It’s not rocket science !
Of course some people will say they got ramp checked and fined by customs/police blabala, or to make a better pilot forum story a fine from “Le Bureau des Postes, Télégraphes et Téléphones”…obviously, someone with FLP only can’t fly to Germany, so I guess teh same someone with German LP only can’t fly to France? so maybe some fines stories are actually real but fall under this case
Ibra wrote:
For non-DGAC holders, NO as long as they have English LP they can fly to any airport in France
That is good news. If one were challenged, what regulation could one reference to prove that this is the case?
