Rwy20 wrote:
I would of course reply to both statements that being able to do a pilot’s license has nothing to do with the ability to learn foreign languages.
Of course not. But this is not about learning a language but about learning the phraseology required for safe flight. Two very different things. And like it or not English just happens to be the world’s aviation language.
With only learning the “phraseology” you cannot safely fly a small French airfield. Reason: They might answer.
Alexis wrote:
With only learning the “phraseology” you cannot safely fly a small French airfield. Reason: They might answer.
It seems that you don’t fly to uncontrolled (A/A) airfields. There, nobody answers to anything, except maybe if you ask “is there anyone on the frequency” or for a radio check.
Alexis wrote:
With only learning the “phraseology” you cannot safely fly a small French airfield. Reason: They might answer.
LOL !! You are right, but at least it’s a step in the right direction. Btw, I was referring to English phraseology, or, as you have called it earlier, Code.
It seems that you don’t fly to uncontrolled (A/A) airfields.
No, I don’t do many in France. I’ve only flown to maybe seven. I was just saying that learning some phrases is not enough, especially if there’s a lot of traffic and you want to have better situational awareness.
I disagree with much of the above. France is French. It belongs to the froggies. They ought to be able to speak whatever the hell language they like in their airspace.
French is spoken by some 220 million people worldwide, but there’s no equivalent of Glaswegian “English” to contend with in mainland France. It’s an unadulterated Romantic language, easy to learn, with limited vocabulary, simple grammar and few idioms. It’s one of the two principal languages of international treaties and trade – as the letters TIR on the back of Eddie Stobart’s trucks ought to remind us.
Aviation history is rooted in France, which is how we got good old English words like “altitude” and “aileron”.
If pilots can’t understand enough Frogspeak to maintain situational awareness in a mainly-francophone airspace, whether it be over Quiberon or Québec, they should get off their idle butts and make the effort – or stay at home.
Alexis wrote:
I was just saying that learning some phrases is not enough, especially if there’s a lot iof traffic and you want to have better situational awareness.
And I think it’s enough to go and land at some small uncontrolled airfield, given the alternatives we have (prohibit a lot of local pilots across Europe from being able to fly or making everybody learn each language to a high conversational standard). The other pilots will also be using the same phraseology, and it’ll be easy for you to gather the following information by only knowing a few basic phrases and numbers:
- runway in service
- number of other aircraft
- position of the other aircraft (with maybe a little uncertainty, but then how many times have I heard pilots call not where they were or at non-existant reporting points etc., which all isn’t a language issue)
What else do you need? OK, it would be good to know what “glider winch in operation” and “dropping completed” mean as well. But the radio still is an aid and not a primary flight instrument, if you’re a bit shaky in the language then you’d better open your eyes even more. But I think it is an acceptable risk, it has worked like that for ages.
…. It’s an unadulterated Romantic language, easy to learn
I think that’s a pretty exclusive view, and for most people English is much easier to learn. I travel a lot, but English is spoken in Russia, China and Japan (although they don’t speak well), Hungary, Greece, Egypt … Almost every German speaks English, and many very well … not so with French although it is taught in every high school.
I’m not saying it is without issues. I just think you need to be prepared to learn a bit of the language and accept a certain residual risk if you want to fly to small airfields in other countries. The alternatives are worse in my opinion.
