I think I will call the DGAC and ask. I will keep you posted.
I’d suggest a written enquiry. That way you’ll be able to rely on the response afterward.
I would be interested to hear the answer that they give.
The only thing I wonder about, bearing in mind some of the past characters that have written here, if he indeed did yield to the request to come to EuroGA and we never knew about it…
You mean the “Askild” character? Not here, from anything I can see. But that is far from definitive, as we all know…
I have many times tried to chase down some hard-to-believe claim or statement posted on some forum. Some were amazingly specific, right down to how somebody was successful in a legal action against Lycoming, or how somebody had his fuel totaliser wired up… (both of those came from one of UK’s biggest forum post generators). Almost always it proved bogus. Especially this famous one which would have been very useful had it been true 
I spent quite some time on that one.
Anyone notice that France seems to be the place which the largest amount of FUD relates to?
However I spend very little time on other forums these days, especially as the UK ones have mostly melted down into a mess.
this discussion makes no sense.
It may just illustrate that somebody may have placed a regulation into the AIP (or even into some national law whose source document nobody can find – e.g. look at the endless threads on non-F-reg homebuilt residence limits in France) which nobody thought about properly.
Quite a lot of that goes on in mainland Europe. Speak to any UK barrister and he will explain why and how. It’s just a different system. Less rigorous.
I’d suggest a written enquiry. That way you’ll be able to rely on the response afterward.
In UK law, you can rely on a response OK (you could tape the phone call for example) but it doesn’t create an estoppel. It merely makes it impossible to prosecute you and merely makes it impossible to prosecute you on that occassion.
For example if some UK CAA person told you that you can fly a G-reg TBM700 on a Mongolian microlight PPL, IFR in Class A, and you did it, and they caught you, they would not be able to prosecute you for it (insurance might be another matter). But the next time you did it you would not have the protection.
I could cite a famous UK CAA failed prosecution in this vein but won’t because it relates to a character who is best not discussed.
IANAL, etc etc.
jfw wrote:
I know this might sound silly but does French pilots have something stating that the can speak French and thus land to FR-only airports ?
Although I might qualify as a French pilot, I do not have anything saying I am French-proficient on my license. I do however have something that says I am proficient in Norwegian and English although I have virtually no clue about Norwegian radio-telephony which is virtually not used at all. All my training was done with R/T in English, in Norway.
jfw wrote:
I know this might sound silly but does French pilots have something stating that the can speak French and thus land to FR-only airports ?
I had posted the evolution of the entries relating to R/T and LP on my French PPL somewhere on this forum already, but yes, it now states that I may do R/T in English or French, and that I am language proficient in English and French, for VFR and IFR (since the French somehow misunderstood the LP exam to be an R/T exam, at least that is how it is conducted). But that really hasn’t much to do with the “FR only” limitation on a VAC chart, which only means you must use French.
An LP English is sufficient for that as per FCL.055, and for R/T privileges, you have to look at how your home state implements this, not how France does it. It is strictly speaking an ITU issue, not an ICAO one. France for example has always written the R/T privileges on the PPL and you were awarded them after your PPL test flight. It wasn’t language specific at first, but now they have snuck in the words “English” and “French” on my licence paper (once for the R/T and then again for the LP!). This makes me wonder if I fly to Germany and do R/T in German there, if that now makes me contravene some French radio regulation or not. Certainly not FCL.055.
Rwy20 wrote:
Yes, 95 % of the plates include a note stating that the use of R/T is mandatory. On the other few, yes, you could land NORDO, but it would be bloody bad airmanship to have a radio on board and not use it
I strongly disagree. The intention of an increasing number of small uncontrolled airfields of using the radio as they were Dallas Fort Worth it’s a plague that would make a better world if eradicated.
But I reckon this would be a new topic for another looooooong thread, so maybe better not to open this new can of worms.
Just in case someone is still awake and interested, I’ve done some more digging and found the legal texts referred below, which constitute the legal basis for the FR-only AFAIU.
Making a long story short:
1. All crew members authorised to utilise the radiotelecommunication equipment must be capable of expressing themselves in one or more than the specified languages without any difficulties that may impede radio communication
2. The languages that may be used are published in aeronautical information publication.
The languages that may be used for R/T in French airspace are
3. If the flight is conducted under IFR, use of English R/T requires that at least one of the crew members must have demonstrated their ability to use that language
4. French language shall be used between a French pilot and French ATC, except in special circumstances, for example for training purposes.
In other words, there is a legal basis for FR-only stated on VAC or IAP, and it can be enforced. On the other hand I have so far not found what enforcement actions can be taken against offenders.
LP in French does not need to be demonstrated. However, anyone engaging in French R/T must have some level of mastery of the French language – must be able to express themselves beyond just reading some cheat cards.
The relevant texts are referred below in their original language.
4.3.3. Radiotéléphonie
Tout détenteur d’une licence de membre d’équipage, habilité à assurer les fonctions d’opérateur de stations radioélectriques d’émission du service mobile aéronautique ou du service mobile aéronautique par satellite, doit être capable de s’exprimer dans la ou les langues spécifiées par les organismes du contrôle de la circulation aérienne sans difficulté de nature à gêner les communications radio.
Quand le vol est effectué en appliquant les règles du vol aux instruments, l’usage de la radiotéléphonie en langue anglaise nécessite qu’au moins un des membres d’équipage de conduite ait démontré son aptitude à utiliser cette langue conformément aux réglementations relatives aux brevets, licences et qualifications de membre d’équipage de conduite d’aéronef
Arrêté du 27 juin 2000 modifié
relatif aux procédures de radiotéléphonie
à l’usage de la circulation aérienne générale.
Radiotéléphonie
Annexe
Edition 3 du 01 mai 2016
Arrêté du 27 juin 2000 modifié
2 Langues utilisables
2.1 Langues de base
Les langues utilisables sont publiées par la voie de l’information aéronautique.
Dans les espaces aériens exploités par l’administration française, les langues utilisées sont :
* La langue française ;
* La langue anglaise, sauf indication contraire publiée par la voie de l’information aéronautique.
2.4. Usage de la langue française
La langue française est, sauf cas particulier (entraînement par exemple) utilisée entre pilote français et contrôleur français.
French language shall be used between a French pilot and French ATC, except in special circumstances, for example for training purposes.
Does that say what I think it says?
Dunno. What do you think it says? It is consistent with the excerpt from the AIP posted earlier.
To me it forces French pilots to use French even when they can use English.
Exactly. I suppose it is because they perceive it is safer for French pilots and ATC to use French, which they supposedly are fluent in, rather than English which most are far from fluent in – probably rightly so.
