PapaPapa wrote:
Come again ? where does it say that ?
It’s a fundamental principle of European law. Where EU regulations exist, member states cannot make their own rules.
The EU has not, to my knowledge, made any law regulating radiotelephony privilieges, with the exception of the ability of entering these privileges on an EASA FCL licence. The licences, how you get them, etc. are all national. Their existence, names, how you get them is different in each country.
Cobalt wrote:
The EU has not, to my knowledge, made any law regulating radiotelephony privilieges
Don’t mix LP and R/T privileges please, else we will not be able to have a meaningful discussion. bookworm is 100% correct with his statement about language proficiency. His reply was about LP, not R/T privileges. He said that a state or aerodrome may require someone to use a certain language, but not to hold a certain LP endorsement on the licence. The reason is that the whole legislation about LP is on EU level, and that precludes any “lower” government entity going beyond (or not as far as) that EU law, unless this power was given to them in the EU law itself. This is not the case in PART-FCL. So if for example Toussus-Le-Noble wants to see a French LP before granting you PPR for out-of-hours landings, that is illegal. But they can force everyone to use French on the radio because this is not regulated on EU level and they have the power to regulate this under a french law.
Only then comes the question if your R/T licence allows you to speak anything other than English, but that was not what bookworm was referring to.
tomjnx wrote:
Where does that concept come from?
I wrote I’m convinced, not that I have proof. I have no interest in digging through ITU treaty, national law governing telecommunications, etc. I’ll leave that “pleasure” to someone else. ICAO Annex 1 talks about this but I don’t have the English version available. However, radio really isn’t in ICAO’s purview. I wouldn’t expect their documents forbidding something (putting aside they must be implemented to be legally binding).
I don’t know about your licence, but on those I have seen there is a field titled Radiotelephony privileges and it contains a list of languages. I wouldn’t think they put it there just because they didn’t know what else to do with that space.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Amazing that they actually put the IFR voice privileges into the LP
And left out validity. There should be something like “valid permanently,” or “valid for life.” Without it (by strict interpretation since L6 implies this), it doesn’t satisfy FCL.055(a). So it should be for example “English level 6 valid permanently.” And I have seen it written this way.
PS: Thank you, Peter, for separating it.
Martin wrote:
I wouldn’t think they put it there just because they didn’t know what else to do with that space.
That’s kind of a difficult argument. To put it mildly, it’s not entirely unheard of that civil servants do something without knowing why they do it…
tomjnx wrote:
To put it mildly, it’s not entirely unheard of that civil servants do something without knowing why they do it…
I’m not saying they knew why, that is buried who knows where (in civil service it’s often “understanding is not required”), but I doubt they did it just because they fancied it. I’ve seen it on licences from several countries. Annex 1 might give some answers, but I would need the English original to go digging that deep (things get easily lost in translation).
On practical note, my solution is typically simply to ask. For self announcing, standard phraseology should be enough. As long as everyone sticks to it.
Martin wrote:
I’ve seen it on licences from several countries.
It’s on Swedish licenses as well. The wording on my license is almost exactly the same as in @Rwy20’s 4th license version with “Swedish” substituted for “French”. (The only differences that the validity period of the LP is also given – “unlimited” – and that there is no mention of flight rules.)
Official French phraseology manual, both French an English language
I recommend Chapter 3 Déroulement chronologique d’un vol.
French native speakers will learn official French phraseology
The others will in addition to that brush up their French language skills.
I’m looking for the same in Spanish.
PapaPapa wrote:
That’s how FR pilots are still flying…
If you impose EN in France you instantly kill about 90% of GA ’cause french people speak English as well as english people speak French :)
Sorry, that is wrong on many aspects.
First of all, this was the moaning and shouting elsewhere too. I remember AOPA meets here where that was said prior to the LP4 implementation and no, it did NOT happen. People got their act together and did their exams. Quite a few got 5 and some got 6.
Secondly, if France were to take the same stand as other countries or even protect their own turf as they usually do, there is nothing which prevents them from allowing people with French RT and LP to fly within France. As long as they tolerated people from outside France to fly with the internationally valid English RT and LP without any restriction, nobody would really notice, it would just be the continuation of the status before. And if they do so now as many imply, they might as well make it clear.
Another way of getting a French RT permission is to get a French microlight license, which is a simple exercise, as the RT license comes with it.
