English Vs French on the Radio.

[rookiepilot]

Posted this on the ATC forum "YUL vectors" -- but deserves its own thread.

An ATC controller wrote in response to another post there:

"As for the French/English issue...like you said, I don't think it is a negative or positive, it's just there. I have visited terminals in other countries and they all, to some extent, spoke in their local language with at least some aircraft"

I'll bite hard on this, because in light of the recent midair in carp, and uncontrolled airports in particular becoming ever busier, if we're purely talking about safety, "it's just there" isn't an acceptable viewpoint for anything aviation.

First, this isn't the same as "other countries do it" as the ATC Controller referenced --this is North America, so I'm not accepting that as an answer. Not remotely comparable in any conceivable way --- pilot language experience, density of traffic, many other reasons. Not comparable to Europe, for example.

Why is English not mandatory on the radio in Canada? To my knowledge Spanish is not an acceptable alternative for pilots in Texas-- and there are millions of Spanish speaking people there. English is acceptable and expected. Period.

I'm a GA pilot who has flown into Quebec but more often into Eastern Ontario. I'd heard French both in controlled and uncontrolled airspace, the latter certainly is a safety concern for someone with extremely rusty French when it gets really busy.

Before I hear someone say "use your eyes" -- we aren't debating the wisdom of keeping your head on a swivel as a primary risk management tool. We are talking about using all of the tools available, including the radio, especially listening.

To me: Everyone's safety trumps anyone's language rights. 2 "official languages" isn't a good defence -- if the primary directive is safety.

ICAO agrees: It appears TC doesn't strictly follow this. Why?

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/o ... y-2085.htm

I'd like someone to explain how using 2 languages in one part of the country -- doesn't compromise safety, even in controlled airspace!

Safety arguments only. "My rights" doesn't cut it with me. Or should anyone.

Fire away.......

[digits_]

That's easy. It's not safer to use 2 languages. It does compromise safety a little bit. But hey, politics trump safety any day!

[ahramin]

If we were in the business of launching rockets or designing new technology I could understand the philosophy of randomly trying to figure out potential problems and possible solutions. In aviation though, new accidents are so rare that it's far more profitable to look at what accidents are already happening and work on those. In this case, multilingualism is used all over the world (ICAO has 6 official languages) including Canada and there has never been a fatal accident or serious incident with use of French as a factor. It may feel unsafe, but that doesn't make it unsafe.

What I always find interesting is those pilots who feel that it's unsafe enough to warrant someone else learning English in order to fly in a French province, but it's not unsafe enough to warrant learning French in order to fly in a French province. You'd think if rookiepilot actually thought is was unsafe, they would learn French before flying into Québec.

[digits_]

What I always find interesting is those pilots who feel that it's unsafe enough to warrant someone else learning English in order to fly in a French province, but it's not unsafe enough to warrant learning French in order to fly in a French province. You'd think if rookiepilot actually thought is was unsafe, they would learn French before flying into Québec.

That's just silly. Will you learn Chinese if your next flight goes to/over/through China?

Just because it hasn't resulted in a crash yet, doesn't mean it's safe. The 737 max was deemed to be a safe airplane. Smoking on board an airplane was also considered safe.

[rookiepilot]

there has never been a fatal accident or serious incident with use of French as a factor. It may feel unsafe, but that doesn't make it unsafe.

What I always find interesting is those pilots who feel that it's unsafe enough to warrant someone else learning English in order to fly in a French province, but it's not unsafe enough to warrant learning French in order to fly in a French province. You'd think if rookiepilot actually thought is was unsafe, they would learn French before flying into Québec.

Interesting response. I find this implication language has never been an accident factor....rather challenging to accept. Anyway --

There's a heck of a lot more Spanish speakers as their first language in the southern US than French speakers in Canada. Should they have the right to use Spanish in the circuit? Do I need to learn Spanish before flying down there?

Why should we be different?

You mentioned flying into Quebec. Read my post. I'm talking flying in Ontario.

Do I need to become proficient in French to not compromise safety, flying into Ottawa / carp? How about Kingston? Oshawa? After all, it's legal.......

Why are easily preventable safety compromises acceptable to protect someone's "rights"?

[photofly]

I have an instinctive mistrust of any argument that says that a great number of other people need to go to a great deal of trouble in order to improve my safety. If I really thought I would be significantly safer understanding everything on the radio while flying in French speaking areas, in any province, I'd just learn French. Job done.

[digits_]

I have an instinctive mistrust of any argument that says that a great number of other people need to go to a great deal of trouble in order to improve my safety. If I really thought I would be significantly safer understanding everything on the radio while flying in French speaking areas, in any province, I'd just learn French. Job done.

They don't need to go through more trouble. The majority of people speaking french on the radio do know English, as you can hear them crossing the border into the US. So they speak French because they can, not because the can't speak English.

The only time the "extra trouble" argument holds, is if a French pilot does not know how to speak English. Going out on a limb here, I'd say that this is a minority of the pilots that are speaking French.

What's wrong with asking pilots who know how to speak English, to actually speak English? The only reasons I can come up with not to do this, are pride, ego and politics, in random order.

[photofly]

From a practical point of view, it's still easier to learn French than to get other people to change their habits. If Rookiepilot really thought he was in danger in French speaking areas, he'd learn French too.

[rookiepilot]

From a practical point of view, it's still easier to learn French than to get other people to change their habits. If Rookiepilot really thought he was in danger in French speaking areas, he'd learn French too.

When did I say this was anything to do with me?

This is an aviation safety discussion. Stay on point.

By your logic, pilots in Spanish speaking areas should be able to speak Spanish (Texas)
--- pilots in Chinese speaking areas be able to speak Manderin, Cantonese or any number of dialects (Richmond BC comes to mind)
And pilots in Brampton -- Punjabi!

large numbers of all of those cultural groups -- exist.

And to fly there you should learn all of them? Why stop at 2?

"2 official languages" -- is NOT an aviation safety argument. It says "this is the way it's always been".

[ahramin]

That's just silly. Will you learn Chinese if your next flight goes to/over/through China?

No, I won't. Because a quick look at the accident rate shows that there is no safety risk in flying through China without being able to speak Mandarin. What's silly is claiming that not learning a language is safe unless it's someone else that doesn't learn a language in which case it's dangerous.

I would have thought the hypocracy would have been obvious. If we stipulate that having 2 different languages on the radio is very unsafe, wouldn't that make the decision to fly in that airspace knowing only one of the two languages unsafe as well? Or is there some magic about unilingual English speaking that changes math? (Funny, I find normally it's the Québecers who have magic math).

[rookiepilot]

If we stipulate that having 2 different languages on the radio is very unsafe, wouldn't that make the decision to fly in that airspace knowing only one of the two languages unsafe as well?

Which airspace are we referring to exactly?

Is the airspace where pilots are speaking French shown on a VNC?

[ahramin]

I find this implication language has never been an accident factor....rather challenging to accept.

II'll try explaining it again (in English). I cannot find a single example of a fatal accident because one pilot was speaking French and the other pilot was speaking English. Your incredulity towards the facts may affect how you feel about this issue, but it doesn't actually change the reality of what accidents are happening. If you are going to make a safety case for language, your first step should be to quantify how many accidents there are, and how many of them are due to the language issue you are talking about. Not all language issues, just the one you are claiming is unsafe.

There's a heck of a lot more Spanish speakers as their first language in the southern US than French speakers in Canada. Should they have the right to use Spanish in the circuit? Do I need to learn Spanish before flying down there?

There is no official language in the U.S. but if someone was flying around in uncontrolled airspace down there speaking Spanish, I'd be surprised if the FAA could find a rule they had broken.

You mentioned flying into Quebec. Read my post. I'm talking flying in Ontario.

I mentioned flying into Québec in reference to this statement: "I'm a GA pilot who has flown into Quebec"

I am unfamiliar with Carp airport and don't know anything about the recent midair. What is the problem at Carp? Is there any indication that language was a contributing factor to the midair?

[rookiepilot]

If you are going to make a safety case for language, your first step should be to quantify how many accidents there are, and how many of them are due to the language issue you are talking about. Not all language issues, just the one you are claiming is unsafe.

Actually I don't have to. It's completely obvious, that a circuit on a busy Saturday with 8 aircraft, all speaking English in a clear, understandable matter, would be much safer than 4 speaking English and 4 speaking French, all stepping on each other and asking "repeat".

The only defence, as I buy Digits Argument that most every pilot flying in Ontario, likely CAN speak English, is the cultural assertion that they are ENTITLED to speak French.

And to reiterate-- I've heard it well, well into Ontario....

It's safe to say I don't buy the pandering to Quebec on every issue under the sun.

What if I told you, even if your search of the subject is accurate, I believed there was NO way in our politically correct paradise of Canada -- if an accident DID occur because of language, I have an itsy bitsy doubt -- that would make It into a report?

Cause we know those reports are all accurate, complete, impartial....right?

[ahramin]

Just because it hasn't resulted in a crash yet, doesn't mean it's safe. The 737 max was deemed to be a safe airplane. Smoking on board an airplane was also considered safe.

You make my point for me. French on the radio since the 70s, no accidents. Max in the air for a couple years, 2 fatal accidents. Which one of these two are unsafe?

Personally I have never considered the 737 a safe airplane even before the Max crashes, but that's because of the previous fatal accidents that can be directly traced to the "No New Training" philosophy. Like I said, no new accidents, just the same old ones over and over again.

As for smoking on board, that practice was ended for political reasons, not safety. For a while it resulted in less safety, as the nicotine addicts would smoke in the bathroom and then throw the cigarette in the garbage bin full of paper, starting a fire. This is why PAs are made about not smoking in the washrooms and why washrooms still all have ashtrays. Was there a single crash due to smoking in the aircraft BEFORE they banned it?

[photofly]

By your logic, pilots in Spanish speaking areas should be able to speak Spanish (Texas)

Um... no... because (as far as I know) pilots in Spanish speaking areas speak English on the radio. Now if they all spoke Spanish, and I thought there was a safety issue, and I wanted to fly there, then yes, I'd learn Spanish. Certainly before insisting they all change their practice for my benefit.

You're taking this issue up not because you think there's a safety issue for you personally but because you're worried about everyone else?

I don't think it's pandering to Quebec. It's current practice. You have to be on very solid ground before you change things. I don't see the evidence for the need, personally. If I did, I'd learn French.

[digits_]

That's just silly. Will you learn Chinese if your next flight goes to/over/through China?

No, I won't. Because a quick look at the accident rate shows that there is no safety risk in flying through China without being able to speak Mandarin. What's silly is claiming that not learning a language is safe unless it's someone else that doesn't learn a language in which case it's dangerous.

I would have thought the hypocracy would have been obvious. If we stipulate that having 2 different languages on the radio is very unsafe, wouldn't that make the decision to fly in that airspace knowing only one of the two languages unsafe as well? Or is there some magic about unilingual English speaking that changes math? (Funny, I find normally it's the Québecers who have magic math).

Not sure where the hypocrisy is.

If you were to redesign the airspace, would you choose one common language for Canada/North America/the World, or would you allow a bunch of different languages *at the same airport*? The majority of people would most likely decide one language is the most practical solution which allows the least amount of confusion between all airspace and airport users. I stipulate that an option with less confusion is safer than an option with more confusion.

Ok. Then the question becomes: which language do we choose? Well, english is the only language that is spoken at (almost) every international airpot, so it makes sense to use that language for regional airports and small airports as well.

I don't care if it is English or French or Spanish or Esperanto, but we need a single language. Looks like ICAO has decided English is the best choice.

I'll ask again: why would you object to a French pilot who knows English to be obligated to speak english on the radio?

[digits_]

Here's another question: why even bother with an MF if there can be 2 pilot groups on the frequency that don't understand each other?

NavCanada determined an airfield needs an MF, but the pilot group/regulator decides it's not an issue if you only understand half the planes in the circuit.

[rookiepilot]

viewtopic.php?f=68&t=131608

I read this and this is why I brought it up -- it's so ridiculous!

You have professional Airline pilots coming into Montreal -- don't tell me they can't speak English --- hard to believe that -- - who (logically) Refuse to do so. And ATC communicates back in French, as they do in Ottawa.

Ontario, that is.

Then the English only speakers -- have no idea where the traffic is, situation is degraded.

Yeah is that safer? I say no.

Is that pandering?

You decide.

[AuxBatOn]

I have flown in many countries in my career so far and in most every country, ATC will speak in both English and the native language. Never had safety issues, even when I didn’t understand the local language. Uncomfortable? Yes. Unsafe? No.

I will speak French when I fly in Quebec. Partly because most people can understand and partly because I want to speak my native language.

[rookiepilot]

I have flown in many countries in my career so far and in most every country, ATC will speak in both English and the native language. Never had safety issues, even when I didn’t understand the local language. Uncomfortable? Yes. Unsafe? No.

At busy uncontrolled airports?

[ahramin]

If you are going to make a safety case for language, your first step should be to quantify how many accidents there are, and how many of them are due to the language issue you are talking about. Not all language issues, just the one you are claiming is unsafe.

Actually I don't have to. It's completely obvious, that a circuit on a busy Saturday with 8 aircraft, all speaking English in a clear, understandable matter, would be much safer than 4 speaking English and 4 speaking French, all stepping on each other and asking "repeat".

I'll admit I'm having trouble following you. Is this happening at the Carp airport or is this a hypothetical example? I don't know your area at all.

If your entire argument is that it would be safer if everyone spoke the same language on the radio, I'm forced to agree. It would also be safer if everyone installed TCAS. We can spend all day listing things that would make aviation safer, starting with grounding all non 705 aircraft and every pilot without an ATPL.

Without being able to say HOW unsafe something is (by pointing out the actual consequences) it's not enough to say safety would be improved therefore the rules should change. Again, it's completely obvious that a pilot with a Commercial Licence level of experience and training is safer than a Private Pilot with 45 hours. Does it then follow that the rules should be changed to eliminate the Private Pilot Licence?

So again, you claim that we should change the rules on which languages are used on the radio. Do you realize this is the same claim Air Canada pilots made over 40 years ago when they went on strike over this very issue? It was the same case you are making today. "If French is allowed on the radio, there are going to be fatal crashes, people are going to be killed". 40 years later, no accidents. Does it really make sense to bring up the same opinion over and over again when history has already proven that opinion wrong?

If there is a recent accident with French as a contributing factor that I am unaware of by all means bring up the subject. Perhaps pointing out that traffic levels are higher than before and that what was working before is no longer working. But if you're going to try to get Transport Canada to change the rules because "It's obviously safer", don't expect to convince anyone but the echo chamber.

And to reiterate-- I've heard it well, well into Ontario....

First of all, it sounds like the airspace you are talking about doesn't even require a radio, let alone position reports. There is uncontrolled airspace where position reports are required (MF), are you claiming some pilots are making those position reports in French outside of Québec? Or is it just that you hear French on the radio? If the latter, how would you know where they are? I believe this was your point so how are you claiming you know where they are? How many NM are "well, well into Ontario"? How high were you?

[rookiepilot]

If your entire argument is that it would be safer if everyone spoke the same language on the radio, I'm forced to agree. It would also be safer if everyone installed TCAS. We can spend all day listing things that would make aviation safer, starting with grounding all non 705 aircraft and every pilot without an ATPL.

Perhaps pointing out that traffic levels are higher than before

Unlike your other examples:

Having everyone who Can speak English -- be obgligated to do so -- costs nothing except people's pride.

It's hard to believe Ottawa based pilots can't speak English. Yet it's a flurry of French on the radio going into that area. I don't know about the carp accident. I do wonder.

Digits is absolutely correct on these points.


To answer, I know enough French to make out position reports, with difficulty (and a headache) . We are talking easily 100 nm into Ontario, maybe more. Very common in Eastern Ontario.

I've expressed my opinion on NORDO before. Not what's required, it's what's smart, in both cases.

[C.W.E.]

I have flown in many countries in my career so far and in most every country, ATC will speak in both English and the native language. Never had safety issues, even when I didn’t understand the local language. Uncomfortable? Yes. Unsafe? No.

I agree totally having spent decades flying in over sixty different countries without ever having a language safety problem.

[ahramin]

So if I understand correctly rookiepilot, you're not suggesting an end to French on the radio? Just an end to French on the radio by those capable of speaking English? That's always been my position, and I've had to tell a few morons that I'm a professional pilot here to do a job, not play the clown (I'm not super popular at work, la faute a qui?)

But it sounds like you are talking about the weekend warrior crowd. Seems like a pretty big waste of time advocating this change of rules. How are you going to determine who is able to speak English and who's English is poor enough that they are allowed to use French? What about all the airspace that doesn't require position reports but still benefit from them? If they are that stubborn, I doubt they'll make position reports in English when none are required.

It sounds like a net decrease in safety rather than an increase.

[rookiepilot]

Not advocating an impractical change in any "rules".

Maybe people will instead think about what they are doing out there.

Use common sense.

Quiet circuit? Do whatever you want for all I care.

Nutty circuit or area? Use more common sense, Nordo, language, or still the all time favorite--- ACTPA!

I will say -- you're right good luck changing the weekend fliers -- but why the pros do this too, I don't get at all, which is why I raised it in the first place