Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Who decides what language must be used at which airport?

Thank you sir, I am sure that was meant as a compliment.
Or did you miss the emoticon?

Last Edited by at 14 Mar 17:13
EBZH Kiewit, Belgium

The illegible LR ATIS was a male voice

Female voices are usually much clearer.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

[drift]
Just picked up on your joke, Jan. I did get your humourous trait.

I did want to make a point though; it does seem like sexism is a one-way street. When a woman makes a comment about a man, it is never considered as sexist.
[/drift]

Last Edited by Aviathor at 14 Mar 17:19
LFPT, LFPN

ok, Aviathor, your sense of humour is obviously more subtle than mine, and possibly drier. Incident closed, then. And I certainly agree with the point you made, whence my – serious! – annoyance at the existence of female-only pilot clubs. Let us have a glass of wine over it at the first opportunity. Women allowed – on condition, of course

Peter: yes, I suppose it has to do with the ancient habit band filtering of 300-3000 Hz on voice communications radio. Traditional musicology has it that a female voice is an octave above its male counterpart – doubling the frequency. That must also increase the effective throughput, less content getting filtered away. I have always wondered how much sense such filtering makes with today’s electronics – even on an 8,33 -M-Khz channel, there’s ample room for, say, 100-12000 Hz.

[[edit: 8,33 KHz, not Mhz – the 12000 doesn’t make any real sense, either. Peter rightly stated 4000 is more realistic.]]

Last Edited by at 14 Mar 17:53
EBZH Kiewit, Belgium

it does seem like sexism is a one-way street. When a woman makes a comment about a man, it is never considered as sexist

Having been an employer for 37 years, I am keeping out of that one

BTW single sex societies/clubs are not illegal in the UK – e.g. the Freemasons (a worldwide organisation, whatever you may think of the way they operate…). There has been a lot of litigation in this area and there is a line drawn somewhere but I have no idea where it lies.

even on an 8,33 Mhz channel, there’s ample room for, say, 100-12000 Hz.

Using AM, a 12kHz modulation will shift the carrier 12kHz either side of the centre so you would need ~25kHz channel spacing. With SSB you could do it with ~13kHz channel spacing but for some reason SSB is not used in aviation comms. The highest modulation frequency you can use with 8.33kHz channel spacing is under 4kHz. But 4kHz is still, in this context, very high quality audio. I think all the cases where we hear illegible comms (like illegible ATIS for example) are due to equipment which is simply crap. Here in the UK, many RAF airfields bought truly crap mikes and/or radios in the 1980s, for example. Top class digital telephony (eg. ISDN) still lowpass filters to about 4kHz.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Hm, looks like I again mixed up the units. Still, I think the difference in readability between “male” and “female” voices might rather be on the low side. A bass singing voice can go well below 200 Hz, if wikipedia is to be believed, though perhaps few ATC staff would search such extremes.

EBZH Kiewit, Belgium

Top class digital telephony (eg. ISDN) still lowpass filters to about 4kHz.

Not anymore, “HD Voice” aka Wideband Audio is all the rage now

LSZK, Switzerland

I’ve read lots of very knowledgeable people argue each side of the issue (you need a French endorsement or you don’t need a French endorsement to fly to a FR only airfield), with references supporting their position.

Perhaps it’s time that someone wrote to the DGAC asking for clarification?

I’d be happy to write, but it would probably not be productive to getting a sympathetic opinion, if I wrote in English. My French isn’t really up to writing a formal letter, which too is likely to prompt an unfavourable reply.

Those who have fluent French, probably don’t want to write because they use these airfields, and if it’s illegal, then getting caught doing so, after being told by the DGAC that it wasn’t allowed, wouldn’t be good!

If someone who is a fluent or native French speaker, would like to draft a letter to the DGAC, asking for clarification on the issue, I’d be happy to send it as the writer. I won’t visit a FR only airfield again, unless it becomes clear that it’s legal to do so, so wouldn’t have a problem with my name being associated with the enquiry.

Colm

I would consider myself nuts to try to fly to a busy French-only airfield, just with some phrases like “downwind” memorised but zero language understanding. Yet that is often taught in the UK to people who want to fly to French-only airfields.

Any FR only airfield that I’ve gone to in the past, have been virtual ghost towns.

EIWT Weston, Ireland

In aviation, there is often a big case for letting sleeping dogs lie.

If you force a regulator to clarify a previously ambiguous point, he is likely to clarify it to a more strict position.

This is not only human nature; it is also likely right now because EASA has stripped a lot of jobs out of the national CAAs, and as always the brighter people jump off the sinking ship first. This leaves the national CAA staffed with people of diminishing competence, which in today’s legal climate leads to them always going for the safe option.

Anybody who compares their emails with the UK CAA from say 2003 with the emails they get today will know exactly what I mean. When it comes to FCL, the people at the public interface don’t even understand the question, let alone have a clue as to the answer.

So, what sort of position has the DGAC previously adopted on this?

I am sure many pilots have obtained written replies but they may not want to go public with them, in case the concession (which that person could rely on) is publicly withdrawn. For example I know one pilot, shall we say southern Europe, whose national CAA told him he can fly his plane (national reg) on an FAA PPL/IR, worldwide IFR, provided he has a national PPL. Anybody who knows this stuff will know that while his CAA is entitled to offer such a concession, this is PROB99 a perverted opinion. But it would have been impossible for his CAA to prosecute him. They could prosecute anybody else, just not him (because the letter was addressed to him only). That is, until the position got publicly clarified some years later, and the concession removed

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

there is often a big case for letting sleeping dogs lie.

Ah, but these dogs aren’t sleeping; they are barking

I, and it would seem many others, won’t visit such airfields anymore, for fear that doing so is illegal, and leaving ourselves open to prosecution.

(For me, a successful prosecution could have significant implications for my livelihood.)

EIWT Weston, Ireland
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top