Pilot-translators wanted
http://www.iaopa.eu/contentServlet/iaopa-europe-enews-november-2013#More0
The European Union is looking for freelance translators with an understanding of the aviation sector who can improve the quality of its translations of aviation safety regulation into 19 European languages. IAOPA Europe believes it would be advantageous for high-quality translators who are involved in general aviation to take on this work.
I wonder if EASA FCL is just a case of bad translation?
Is this a tax free job? Just think… pay no income tax, get the fuel duty drawback if flying from the UK, the flight to EBBR and back and the €10000 landing and parking costs there would be tax deductable.
Have you forgotten, Peter? Only two certitudes in this world are death and tax. So there must be some taxation, somewhere, never doubt. That said, I can’t see why any flying needs to be involved, the whole job can be handled through the www – including the invoice, payment, and whatever taxes apply.
But yes, it did set me thinking, and I think I am not the only one round here…
BTW if you do want to get to Brussels, with the requirements you made known (IFR &c), better fly into EBAW Antwerpen or EBCI Charleroi; the former has especially good links, so that door-to-door travel time could be even shorter. And even if the various extortions at EBBR are not THAT galactic, still EBAW will make do with +/- 20%… Or combine with a bit of tourism and fly into EBOS Ostend.
> BTW if you do want to get to Brussels, with the requirements you made known (IFR &c), better fly into EBAW Antwerpen or EBCI Charleroi
But Charleroi IS Brussels: Ryanair says so…….. ;)
Well, if you still doubted their veracity, come and take a look for yourself.
And don’t forget, EBAW has at one time been advertised as “Brussels North Airport” …
> I wonder if EASA FCL is just a case of bad translation?
EASA-FCL is largely a copy of JAR-FCL, with some additions and changes. In my view, they made some quite unnecessary changes for the worse and it would seem nobody knows why. What is the gain?
Lobbyism from corporations who want to make money perhaps, or individuals in high places who want personal gain?
It seems like a bad case of misinterpretation. Not so unexpected when so many different nationalities and cultures want to have it “their” way.
Thanks for posting this Peter :)
I’ll investigate. Just hope the ‘tendering process’ isn’t so full of hoops one gives up before even getting started….
Here’s an idea:
We find one EuroGA member in each of the EASA countries. We create a company. That company offers to do all of the requires translations (what is it, 15 languages or so?). Extremely efficient of the EU just having to contract with one company!
Then the company, under the leadership of a certain PH, will put the translators to work and guess what, some things just get ‘lost in translation’ :)
I haven’t found a way to salvation yet for the Brits though.. But at least we probably can save the Irish and the Welsh from EASA? ;)
We Brits don’t need salvation as English is the language of aviation…..though most of us would probably be well and truly stuffed if we had to get level 6 proficiency in any other foreign language to be able to legally use R/T lol.
> We find one EuroGA member in each of the EASA countries. We create a company. That company offers to do all of the requires translations (what is it, 15 languages or so?). Extremely efficient of the EU just having to contract with one company!
Push Geo-return… Europe loves it – We would win the tender for sure :)
