Bleriot wrote:
Page 13:
Peter wrote:
AIUI the French speaking requirement is tied to the pilot’s license being DGAC-issued, not to his aircraft reg being F. Aviathor might know more; also where this law can be found. It might not be an aviation law. It is a national identity preservation issue.
Someone else already quoted the radiotelephony legislation for France, and I believe I quoted it in a previous thread concerning FCL.055. It is also my understanding that this applies to holders of French R/T certificates. It is not part of operations regulations so I do not see how it could apply to anything else than the pilot.
I do not think this is a national identity preservation issue, no more so that the brits are drinking beer to preserve their identity. Actually beer drinking makes you forget a lot of things. 
Although many think the contrary, I think one can argue that using your native tongue actually promotes safety because it reduces the potential for misunderstandings.
Aviathor wrote:
I do not think this is a national identity preservation issue,Then what is it?
PapaPapa wrote:
If the BIR is sub ICAO with exams decided nationally, what is really its worth ? It beats the purpose of EASA and becomes effectively a national IR available in all EASA countries.
The skill test for EIR is also in the soft law (AMC/ GM) and I doubt it means NAAs can do whatever they want. I don’t know the reason. Anyway, when NAAs want to do something contrary to the law, it being a hard law doesn’t seem to stop them.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Then what is it?
Pardon my French but why do the Swedes use Sigurd-Erik instead of Sierra-Echo? I used to hear just as much Swedish on the radio in Sweden as I hear French in France.
Why does everything need to come down to national identity whenever it concerns the French? As previously stated I believe this is rooted in safety, although foreigners would prefer English for situational awareness.
Well, I can only repeat what a number of French pilots have told me which is that this is a national identity protection measure. France, along with most of Europe, especially the “old” southern countries, are apparently unhappy about the dilution of their language by the constant diet of English and the anglicising of their language (e.g. “le weekend”) by most of the world’s media being in English.
I guess whatever the reason, this seems to be a very old rule, the simplicity of which long pre-dates any European aviation integration – because nobody would have written simply “pilote français” post JAA (1999), etc.
The relevance to the BIR is in the integration. It allows a nationally administered IR to be taught, which could then be used outside (in this case) France if the pilot gets the ELP signoff.
This is especially relevant given that France has / has had the “French National IR” which started a few years ago. They can probably just carry on with that and call it the BIR I always thought France did that to present the then hesistant EASA with a fait accompli and intended all along to turn it into a full ICAO IR, by any slight of hand including the pilot getting the ELP.
Actually, the ELP bit may turn out to be the biggest obstacle for pilots living in Portugal, Spain, France and Italy. They will be facing just the nationally usable IR, or nothing.
Peter wrote:
The relevance to the BIR is in the integration. It allows a nationally administered IR to be taught, which could then be used outside (in this case) France if the pilot gets the ELP signoff.
It’s not a national rating and it should be possible to train abroad just as it’s possible with other ratings (everything is administered on national level, EU just sets common rules). This doesn’t always work without a hitch (like recognizing ELP from a different country, especially level 6) but it should. I think an issue with the ELP alleviation is that getting LP in other languages is not always straightforward. And getting your authority to put another LP on your licence can also be a challenge. Not to mention R/T privileges.
Peter wrote:
I always thought France did that to present the then hesistant EASA with a fait accompli and intended all along to turn it into a full ICAO IR, by any slight of hand including the pilot getting the ELP.
Why? AFAIK nothing is stopping France from having an ICAO compliant national IR. However, ICAO wants ELP (at least when flying outside your own country like the FAA does it). And it would only be useful on Annex 2 machines because the rest is governed by EASA. Or am I missing something?
AFAIK nothing is stopping France from having an ICAO compliant national IR
EASA would not have allowed it, back in the bad old days when as an EU agency it was all-powerful and utterly arrogant. You should have been to some conferences back then
But France was too big to stop. The UK IMCR was almost too big… a compromise had to be done on that one.
(Not sure how to quote on iPad)
Being an adopted Portuguese citizen, I have to disagree with you on Portugals inclusion in the list. Contrary to the other countries, the English level is generally pretty good, and you’ll often hear ATC in English for privately pilots, and as far as I know CAT uses English
…and Portugal is also Britain’s longest standing ally (at least six centuries of uninterrupted diplomatic friendship)
