Martin wrote:
I agree that in my interpretation English is redundant – the second part would cover it. But I can imagine someone wanting to push English in there as the common language (not that it is a hundred percent common). I agree with your line of thinking, I thought the same thing but I can’t come up with a better reason.
I think the rationale is that air traffic controllers in Europe are all required to have English language proficiency. So there is certainty that a pilot and an ATCO will always have a common language at level 4 or higher, to deal with abnormal situations.
FCL.055(a) has been discussed extensively at EASA. The conclusion was very clear: English language proficiency satisfies FCL.055(a) everywhere. There may be regulations that require you to speak a different language on the radio, but nothing can require you to have a language proficiency endorsement on your Part-FCL licence other than English.
Thanks, Bookworm for putting it so succinctly.
As an aside, the DGAC issues their qualification montagne to foreign pilots (who can not obtain French LP) so that they may use restricted-use airfields, almost all of which are A/A FR only.
That said, making an effort to understand the local A/A phraseology is a matter of courtesy and common sense, whether in Haute Savoie or Quebec.
Peter wrote:
A lot of French ATIS is illegible – to me and any passengers. I recall La Rochelle, most recently.
Reminds me of a flight through France where I and my co-pilot could not understand the controller. We were asked to report at point ? After three atempts to figure out what he was saying, my colleague repeated the reporting point phonetically. It sounded like " report at Noh,Noh,Noh,Noh". It didn’t raise a query!
This reminded me of another incident, posted here, and again at La Rochelle.
Very often I find that I cannot work out the name of the next radio station to call. I get the frequency but have to ask “say again the station name”. Often I cannot work it out even then. Obviously regulars will just know it… This happens a lot in N Europe so it isn’t just the usual Spain/France/Italy ATC ELP problem. But in the end you can just call up that frequency with your callsign and forget the name; they don’t seem to care…
Airborne_Again wrote:
I don’t know in what language they were originally written, but there are versions for every EU member state language and all of them have equal status, so it is bad news if there are translation errors.
Since EASA itself publishes them only in English, I’m assuming they are written/ drafted in English. Regulations are an “EC thing” so they are translated and made available in all languages of EU. I don’t know how this works in EC or EP. Normally, I would say the version that was voted on is authoritative, because that’s what passed. I have, however, a bad feeling that representatives from different countries might be voting on different documents. And even if they use just one language version, I doubt their proficiency (well, with politicians, I normally doubt they ever bothered to read it in the first place). Although I like the cultural diversity and all the languages we have, it can be a big hurdle.
@bookworm So it is along the lines of what I wrote: You have English for flying to places where they speak different language and that strange concoction (“language used…”) basically for “local” flying, so people that don’t speak English could still get licences. So far so good.
What you’re saying then is that FCL.055 doesn’t take into account that English might not always be an option. Which doesn’t help us. I hate it when national law is involved because it’s a potential trap for foreigners. But I guess if the French want you to have some particular piece of paper to use an airport, they should write so explicitly in the AIP or stuff it.
Thank you for your explanation.
PS: And there is still the problem of the “other than English” language missing any information about level or validity. If that person doesn’t have an English LP, it would mean that he can’t fly.
Jacko wrote:
the DGAC issues their qualification montagne to foreign pilots
Is it still so when Part-FCL has the Mountain rating?
@Martin
Are you sure EASA publishes European regulations in English only? They usually provide you with a link to The European Regs website, and then you may choose the language you like.
I’ve been looking into details at the issue at stake, as I have a UK licence and no French ELP endorsed on it.
I could not find any French or European reg that would require me to have such an ELP.
Nevertheless, I could obtain from the DGAC a letter saying that I may speak French in France on the radio, both under IFR and VFR. Just in case.
I get on a regular basis permission to use Toussus on no-ATC days, I get the name of the lady at the DGAC to whom you must ask( pm if you want her email address), she wants to make sure you know the airfield, that you speak French, and that you read the last consignes locales. Permission usually granted within an hour.
@Piotr_Szut Do you see any other languages at easa.europa.eu? Frankly, I have never looked hard, English is fine for me. And in the past (when I started reading them), all the links for regs (I used) were directly to English PDFs on eur-lex.europa.eu (they are law). But it has been a bit more of a hit and miss since then, IIRC. I have to admit I’m using almost exclusively the consolidated versions. While the rest were English PDFs on easa.europa.eu. They have recently published some consolidated version (I think it was crew licensing) that is on easa.europa.eu, but I never read it (it’s a zip, IIRC, I wasn’t interested enough), so I have no idea what languages might be there. I think they work with that.
@Piotr Szut: I leave it to you to annoy the Paris ladies 
but I would be grateful if you could communicate how to obtain said letter entitling one to use FR language in R/T.
PapaPapa wrote:
’m sure that Switzerland being a country with 3 languages, the average English level is much better there than in France
4 actually, though the 4th is definitly not used in aviation even though they do have a pretty big airport 
PapaPapa wrote:
There was a native English speaker who missed at least 2 messages on the recording so he will probably not get 6 either…
So really, what is level 6 for them ?
I don’t know where you did it. Here in Switzerland where I did my level 6 it was quite straightforward. BUT, I hasten to add, the listening and comprehension part is where most fail and it is damn hard. I actually got to watch while the examiner checked mine and she did it 3 times just to be sure. But it is achievable. 2 mistakes should actually still give him a 6.
As for native speakers… one of my pet peeves. Not by far all native speakers of ANY language speak that language coherently. Dialects for starters? There are areas in Britain, the US of A, France, Germany and this country where I won’t understand the respective language without paying real good attention if at all. Native speakers of a language don’t mean they are capable of passing a Level 4 even, let alone level 6. They need to be able to communicate in what has been defined as the standard of that language. And by far not all can do that. Same garbgage about language schools who only hire native speakers too. Total arrogance, as much as if they are saying they need a typist with a phd…. who will be better in teaching a language, someone who has had to analytically learn it himself, has studied the grammar inside out and when he opens his mouth everyone in that country thinks he must be from somewhere else because they can’t place the accent, because he doesn’t have any? Or some lug out of East London who’s idea of English is “popping across the frog for some jockeys?” For French refer to “Bienvenu chez les chti’s”…
Aviathor wrote:
PapaPapa, can you share a document (FCL, French air law) that explicitly states that you need a French LP th use French R/T? I am very interested, because I could be illegal to speak French in France.
That is the bit over which people start bad fights. It would be logical according to the whole idea of the language proficiency, the whole idea being that nobody speaks a language on the radio he can’t certifyably master AND understand. Therefore, do we need a law for that or is it common sense to say, I won’t parttake in radio telephony in a language I am not sure to understand sufficiently, even if I can brabble the correct wordings for my own transmissions?
A_and_C wrote:
French langue has no place in aviation, in 1944 ICAO decided that English was to be the international language of the air and the rest of the world has no problems with this.
Not quite. Almost everywhere local languages are spoken by the locals. Germany, France, Russia, Italy, wherever.
The main problem is that English should be ALLOWABLE everywhere. What really makes problems in connection with the LP principle is if there are places where people insist that ONLY the local language MUST be spoken such as the infamous “FR ONLY” airports.
Martin wrote:
When the destination is FR only, you need the language or you can’t fly (FCL.055(a) I believe).
(1) Well, there is an interpretation basically saying that having English on a licence allows you to speak whatever language you want. I think it’s a daft notion and I doubt that’s the intended meaning.
bookworm wrote:
FCL.055(a) has been discussed extensively at EASA. The conclusion was very clear: English language proficiency satisfies FCL.055(a) everywhere. There may be regulations that require you to speak a different language on the radio, but nothing can require you to have a language proficiency endorsement on your Part-FCL licence other than English.
English language proficiency satisfies FCL.055(a) everywhere: Where is that written down? In that wording?
And if there is “other regulation” which requires to speak another language, then it is in frontal contradiction to that statement.
I am with Martin here, 100%. The whole idea of the LP was to stop people from using languages on the radio which they don’t master. If the English LP is enough to speak whatever language even if that means you won’t understand a word of the reply, then there would be only one logical consequence: Do away with it altogether as it’s useless.
I really think this example does show how a mutual understanding in Europe is impossible. Even a very straight and logical law gets abused to the point where it’s useless. The reason, that is clear to me, is lack of language proficiency.
Then EASA should consider something else: Namely to force the national authorities going against this by declaring certain airfields “xx” only.
What I really do not understand is: Why won’t the fraction which goes for “English is enough” not finally prove it by getting a WRITTEN statement out of the DGAC which replies to that question with a simple OUI or NON. It should be easy enough to do for AOPA or even an individual. Then ask EASA the same question. As far as I am concerned, there are at least 2 different answers on record out of EASA’s legal staff.
