UK CAA report on language proficiency

Mooney_Driver wrote:

This cheating started almost immediately when the language proficiency requirements were introduced. The usual suspects, for whom this was originally introduced, basically gave away the LP4 qualifications, in some cases even LP5 and 6 to people who were the very reason ICAO decided that something had to be done.

And on the flip side, you have the situation in other countries only giving LP4 to existing pilots when the requirement came in, even though they had British names, were British citizens and lived in Britain their whole lives until someone could actually verify that these native English speakers could actually speak English natively :-)

Peter wrote:

probably works if you live in a place with a very low GA density. So low that even on the ground there is only one thing moving at a time.

I remember reading an 1970s article by Paul Poberezny, the founder of EAA and an ex-Air Force pilot. He was dismayed at the growing belief that you couldn’t operate an airport without radio communication, and thought the idea was completely wrong based on his (very) real world experience: USAF used to send out something like 100 planes simultaneously and return them to base without any radio equipment, and as he said “somehow it wasn’t much of a problem.” He closed the article by raising the specter that there might be people who thought you couldn’t even taxi to the ramp without following a car… which he intended as a joke…

I think a radio is an accessory for aircraft and for flying, sometimes useful, sometimes not, but hardly essential except to negotiate airspace constraints that are usually unnecessary.

Silvaire wrote:

USAF used to send out something like 100 planes simultaneously and return them to base without any radio equipment, and as he said “somehow it wasn’t much of a problem.

I wonder how much of a problem it would have been for the Air Force if, instead of 100 identical planes flown in the same direction at the same speed by pre-briefed pilots trained in formation flying and assisted by a navigator and several other pairs of eyes, it would have had to manage 100 planes of different makes and performances, flown in different directions and at different speeds by single amateur pilots having each followed a different training curriculum.

Peter wrote:

European PPLs have simply not been trained the way US PPLs are trained. What works in the USA today would not work here in Europe. Pilots here are mostly trained to have their hands held and to follow instructions. I have a US PPL, CPL, and IR, and the whole approach is different.

I think the main issue is having airport procedures that are mostly uniform between airports, like those in the US, and published in a widely available and decipherable manner. The relevant training is then on the ground, to understand the system. After that its just flying from airport to airport minus landing fees or other formalities, and learning. I did a lot of that on my student certificate. It probably helps too that there is no separate FAA radio license for US based pilots, so the neophyte pilot is not from Day 1 led into thinking that talking on the radio is an essential component of flying.

The Air Force example was for basic training with students isolated from easy two-way communication with anybody, even the instructor given open cockpit tandem seating aircraft, at all stages of training from first flight to aerobatics. The procedures for getting in and out of the airport were common. The accident rate was not low with so many non-radio planes operating simultaneously, but its a good example that serves well to make the point. Today there is no issue with non-radio aircraft at most US airports, as long as they and others are appropriately careful. A former owner of one my planes flew it coast to coast (and back), mainly operating non radio.

Peter wrote:

A US trained PPL can generally jump into some PA28 etc and fly across the USA while the ink is drying on his checkride certificate. In Europe? Not a chance – unless he/she has had loads of unlogged / mentored experience.

I am not sure this is due to the training. I think this is cultural. What I see is that Americans have much more of a can-do attitude than what I generally find in Europe. And not only when it comes to aviation.

to use their PPL for real

Define “real” ?

alioth wrote:

they had British names, were British citizens and lived in Britain their whole lives

As someone who came to the UK to learn English as a teenager and got a wonderful experience in a family consisting of a Cockney father and a Northumbrian mother I would suggest being British and having been born in Britain is no guarantee to speak something which a non-British speaker can easily understand. I must say I had the time of my life there and remember them very fondly indeed, even though my English teacher thought differently about the result . What I will be ever grateful for is the fact that they did introduce me to these interesting dialects and were a very funny couple.

To illustrate:

or the other classical sketch about four candles or was it?

@RWY20 yes, of course, those who do not need to talk on the radio may not need any LP exam, but those who do come to controlled airports and do talk to ATC (or even FIS and AFIS) should be able to do proper ATC English.

@Peter, you’ve said before that there are a lot of ATCO’s whose English is not good. Well, I have yet to come across one I don’t understand. Incidently, the only time that I had to really strain my listening skills trying to understand what was being said was talking to London Control very early in my career. Other than that, even the heavily accented English in say Bulgaria or France was never a problem on the ATC side. On the other hand, I’ve heard even native English speakers talking to ZRH tower in a fashion which did not suggest they knew what to actually say, expect or much less do.

The main problem are pilots and while today’s globalisation and people travelling HAS had a lot of influence on people getting better in foreign languages, there have been and are lots of pilots who simply are not up to the task of participating in a proper manner. And while the most horriffic examples of blunt language ignorance may come from lands far and away, some European countries still leave a lot to be desired as well when it comes to this. In ATC that is a safety problem and I am glad it got addressed via the LP legislation but it is also beyond me how these characters pass the relevant RT exams….

I love the English language above most others and actually spend most of my time talking English, writing and reading English and I enjoy listening to various accents and dialects, of which the English language is very rich. The trouble is, none of this has any place on the radio.

And if you really need your brain in a twist, check out this one.

Peter wrote:

To train pilots to fly from A to B in Europe, you need…

That’s where I beg to differ. I do not think that you do need specific training for that. You need to learn the basics of flight planning, navigation (and flying). That includes getting airport plates, the AIP, NOTAMs, filing a flight plan.

These days there are so many sources of information available at your fingertips, including forums, that there is no excuse. Back when I started we had the Jeppesen Bottlang VFR manual. My club had a subscription for all of Europe and it contained what you needed to plan a flight – basically excerpts of each country’s AIP. The VFR charts (sectionals) had to be mail ordered. Now you get them online. What more do you really need? It’s that simple.

So it’s down to attitude.