The question is not what is reasonable to interpret or not. It’s what is written or not.
The word “or” is clear.
This has been in force for many years now, and if EASA had had the intention to change the wording, they could have done so many times now. EASA does not want to change it.
To put it in other words: if they hadn’t wanted to give the English language a “superior” role over the other languages here, then they could just as well skipped the part about English and just say: “needs an LP in the language used”.
Aviathor wrote:
It is unreasonable to interpret Part-FCL as authorising anyone to land at an airport where FR R/T is required as long as they have ELP
Not only that, it is outright dangerous. And that is the whole idea ICAO had when they came up with language proficiency requirements.
In my view, the interpretation of ICAO rules EASA has implemented in FCL.55 is not in the spirit of the original rule. And it is very sloppily written with the result that it leaves people to believe it to mean something it doesn´t.
tomjnx wrote:
You need to speak french at LFPN outside ATS hours. And in order to be allowed to do this, you need, according to FCL.055, either an english LP or a LP in the language spoken, i.e. FR.
What good does an LP in English do at a FR only airport? Ok, basically what the interpretation is and how it is handled here in Switzerland for instance is that English is allowed to be used even if the predominant language used at an airport is other than English. However, none of our airports have French only written in the AIP.
In France, FR only means that: French only, period. NO OTHER LANGUAGE IS ALLOWED to be used while communicating on the frequencey assigned with FR only.
And that is the problem! An English Language Proficiency allows you to conduct RT in English. And English only. Not in German, not in French, not in any other language. In order to conduct any RT in another language, you do need the correspondent Language proficiency AND correspondent RT license. That means, in order to operate on a FR only airport, you need BOTH, the Language Proficiency Exam in French and a French Radio Endorsement.
All EASA Part FCL sais is that it is sufficient to hold a LP in English if English is an accepted language at the place you fly to. And it suggests that, as most countries do it, English SHOULD be accepted as the primary language at ANY airport. However, the French with their FR ONLY restriction do NOT accept English to be used at such airports.
Likewise, the EASA Part FCL formulation does NOT allow you to use a language you have no language proficiency for. The formulation “or” does not give you the authority to speak French if you don´t have a French LP, all it does is it sais that the intent of FCL 55 is that English should be the accepted language everywhere.
So if you speak French on the radio without a French radio endorsement as well as LP 4 you are in violation. Likewise if you speak German without a German radio edorsement and a German LP4. Likewise for any language.
And that makes absolutely sense. The biggest annoyance in radio communication in ANY language are people who are unfit to speak the language and to understand and reply safely to instructions or information given on a frequency. It would be totally idiotic if an ENGLISH Language Proficiency would allow you to conduct RT in any language you please, because it sais exactly NOTHING about the level of competence you have in that language.
And it is highly irresponsible too if anyone who is NOT able to speak and understand the language he employs uses it for RT.
So if someone lands at a French airport using French RT and is found not to have the qualifications, it is perfectly correct if he is charged with a violation, even if the airport is not FR only (I´ve heard people trying to do that too… ) BUT if an air crew where nobody has a French LP / RT endorsement is found at a FR only airport, then it is CLEAR that he is in violation only by the fact that they are there, as there was no legal way for them to use the RT in accordance to the law.
And it appears that while this is tolerated in other countries (e.g. Germany for German RT) the French do not tolerate it and fine people accordingly. Which, I have to admit, is more to the letter of the initial ICAO initiative.
In my view, the interpretation of ICAO rules EASA has implemented in FCL.55 is not in the spirit of the original rule.
Indeed, I agree. LPRI3 was meant for English proficiency of Airline Operators. It is easy to see that by a quick read through the suite of documents available on the ICAO website, under that section.
But then EASA isn’t a signatory to ICAO, the individual states are… The individual states are also signatories to EASA… So have to muddle through both… Another European merry-go-round
The action plan is in the LPRI3 section as well, independent of the debate on scope of the ICAO proposal, it should all have been completed in 2008. I tried to get a German LP, but that hasn’t been established yet for foreign pilots (well hadn’t about 18 months ago when I tried to do it). Which, if this remains true, will only further prevent foreign use of smaller German airports by additional regulation; and other nations as well, except I don’t know the details for each.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
And that is the problem! An English Language Proficiency allows you to conduct RT in English. And English only. Not in German, not in French, not in any other language.
I am not sure this is what FCL.055 actually says either. I believe it is written in the spirit that ATS should be provided in English in all countries, and pilots need to have one language in common with ATS.
I do not myself have French LP so I have been wondering about my own situation. I have now passed 3 skill tests with French R/T but have no formal proof of my language proficiency. I have not asked them, but if I believe what has been written previously on EuroGA, my issuing authority will not enter French LP into my license.
When no ATS is provided you need to be understood and understand those who do not have ELP (for good reasons) in order to endanger yourself and others.
But now some would argue that you actually could land NORDO.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
An English Language Proficiency allows you to conduct RT in English.
Use the source, Luke Read FCL.055 for yourself. I have done so in English, German and French and all of these language versions clearly agree, you need either english or the language used on the radio.
Nobody contests that you should speak french on the radio at FR only airfields outside ATS hours. The question is whether formal proof of your ability to speak french is required. In my opinion it is none for noncommercial operation.
Urs, I don’t understand you. On one hand, you always lament how difficult everything is, yet now you seem to be arguing for more bureaucracy??
the French do not tolerate it and fine people accordingly
Mon Dieu! Is this really the practice. There must be dozens and dozens of visitors who have got by, quite safely, albeit at a grassroots VMC level, with the equivalent of circuit pattern crib sheet. Mooney_Driver might you have specific examples in mind? Were there circumstances that might have explained why there was an enforcement and fine, for example poor airmanship?
I mean to order Michael Wright’s book, but I would be surprised if his Luscombe and crew carried French LP4.
RobertL18C wrote:
Mon Dieu! Is this really the practice. There must be dozens and dozens of visitors who have got by, quite safely,
You never hear of those cases because the pilots are thrown into jail and rot there forever. I heard they are eventually sent to St. Helena where they have to fly NORDO traffic patterns until they die…
All this fearmongering…
Aviathor wrote:
I am not sure this is what FCL.055 actually says either. I believe it is written in the spirit that ATS should be provided in English in all countries, and pilots need to have one language in common with ATS.
That was the idea of the ICAO initiative as well. Only it did not work that way.
Aviathor wrote:
I do not myself have French LP so I have been wondering about my own situation. I have now passed 3 skill tests with French R/T but have no formal proof of my language proficiency.
Interesting that nobody noticed this when you did those checks.
Aviathor wrote:
I have not asked them, but if I believe what has been written previously on EuroGA, my issuing authority will not enter French LP into my license.
You can get it in France and you can get it in Switzerland. Both require though that you have an RT endorsement in French as well, which again can be gotten in both countries. I don’t have it either, my French is fluent when speaking but I don’t think I could get an LP4 at this stage and I would need to get the RT endorsement as well.
Aviathor wrote:
But now some would argue that you actually could land NORDO.
Actually, that is what some people did. And at least one case where they got held up and eventually fined concerned exactly a case like that, where the crew had decided to go NORDO to avoid this. They got held up and had to get the plane ferried out by a FI who had the endorsement. Whether they actually got fined was not written anywhere and that was some years back.
italianjon wrote:
I tried to get a German LP, but that hasn’t been established yet for foreign pilots (well hadn’t about 18 months ago when I tried to do it). Which, if this remains true, will only further prevent foreign use of smaller German airports by additional regulation
As far as I understand it Germany does NOT insist on a German LP for the use of their small airports, they do accept the wording of “or” in the FCL55 and do not state that these airports are GE only. You can get the German endorsement however in either Switzerland or Germany, possible in Austria too. I understand that quite a few people have done that.
tomjnx wrote:
Nobody contests that you should speak french on the radio at FR only airfields outside ATS hours. The question is whether formal proof of your ability to speak french is required. In my opinion it is none for noncommercial operation.
In order to speak French on the radio, you need both the LP and the French RT endorsement. If you have sufficient language skills for that, then why not get it and be safe? Unless we call everyone who has reported those problems in France liers, which is basically what several people here do, it is quite obvious that with all these reports France has not changed its stand on this.
tomjnx wrote:
On one hand, you always lament how difficult everything is, yet now you seem to be arguing for more bureaucracy??
I am not agruing for more bureaucracy. I, as EASA and ICAO as well, would be more than satisfied if finally the French and other countries could agree to allow English as the universal aviation language and stop this nationalist thing of “FR only” airports and other such stuff. And actually, that is what all European countries do other than France. And I feel that is where EASA should put their feet down and stop this practice.
But I have to say that while the French still practice this to excess, communicating on the radio in a language you don’t fully master and can safely understand what is going on and reply in kind is a huge risk, particularly if you have to assume that if you do your reports in English the local folks in the circuit will not understand you. We have this ruling in Switzerland that everyone has to have the English RT endorsement and LP, so here even in the places like Bex or Neuchatel or others there where French is spoken, your reports will be understood and AFIS will communicate with you in English if necessary. That is how it should be. In France this is not the case. I personally would not feel safe flying into an airport where a language is spoken that I don’t understand and where I can not do proper RT. I speak French pretty well but I never took a course in French RT nor do I have the LP so I stay away.
Apart from that, being based at an airport where proper RT is required at all times (in English of course, no such nonsense as German here) I am getting very annoyed if I hear people who are unable to perform proper RT. They damage the chances of all GA to be able to continue using our airport and are giving arguments to those who would like GA out. So personally I did think that the original idea of language proficiency in English was very good and way overdue, seeing how a lot of even airline pilots were not able to speak properly. that the French took revenge action was not unexpected, to them English is not a language they like very much and they took the obligation to having to prove they can speak it quite angrily. They also initially sabotaged the initiative by giving out LP’s quite liberally to their own people. And they say to this day that if they can force us to speak English, we’ll force them to speak French or stay away.
As for the source: Where in that source does it tell you that you are authorized to use French RT on the basis of an English Language proficiency? I would think that most non-french people can’t do that, even if it was legal. And would you think it safe if someone with a little cheat sheet of some French words would start talking on a radio where only French is understood and not be able to understand what comes back to him? I wouldn’t.
RobertL18C wrote:
Mooney_Driver might you have specific examples in mind? Were there circumstances that might have explained why there was an enforcement and fine, for example poor airmanship?
We were told this in Switzerland a few years ago the first time, coming from a FI and airline pilot whose club had to repatriate an airplane from a nearby French training field after the pilot there was blocked from leaving. Since then, reports have been coming in not very often but still steadily via different sources. Most flying schools here do advise their students accordingly. And you have one very recent eye withness report right here on this thread. Probably the risk of being caught is small, but it is there and I lack understanding why this is denied so vigorously. Maybe if one of them ends up in such a situation this will change… I won’t risk it in the first place.
I heard they are eventually sent to St. Helena where they have to fly NORDO traffic patterns until they die…
So that is why the UK taxpayer is finally building an international airport there.
That whole topic of language for R/T is a can of worms in Europe when you fly West. On IFR frequencies in France and Spain you hear a lot of transmissions in the local language. Because those languages are official ICAO languages and thus their use is allowed for IFR. In Germany everything is done in English but as soon German ATC wants to explain to a German pilot something a bit more complicated they switch to German. For everything else the standard phraseology is used.
Yes, it would be great to use the same language at all times. Unfortunately language skills and piloting skills don’t come in the same package.
When a flight is controlled separation is ATC’s job. I might want to gain more situational awareness from the radio chatter around me but in the end there is someone who already has the job to keep aircraft apart from each other. Something like TCAS or TAS helps a bit further and provides some comfort.
When a flight is NOT controlled it is mostly a VFR flight and then looking out – although not always the most successful way to find conflicting traffic – remains the most important tool. Even if we all speak the same language or I can understand what everybody else says that doesn’t stop people from not reporting their position and intentions.
There are places, like Germany, where people are not used to report every part of the traffic pattern. THAT practice of not speaking at all is far more dangerous than not being able to understand much beyond a few basic words.
When I was flying VFR into La Cerdanya LECD in the mountains close to Barcelona the other pilot in the area switched to English as soon as I was on the frequency. He was a local but then they have a lot of glider pilots from other countries there during the summer so are probably used to that.
At the very end a little bit of courtesy and common sense goes a long way. I believe that is called airmanship in some places.
The other question is about landing during lunch time at a small French airfield. During lunch supposedly there is nobody there. I would guess any enforcer will be at lunch too and nobody will listen anyway. If I announce myself a bit in French and on the ground don’t speak French it is likely that nobody will take offense.
What I really would like to see is the receipt for a fine anyone has paid for doing R/T in French without French LP or only English LP in their license. Or a court order, or some other proof of police actions that resulted in fines or impounding the aircraft of whatever action. Please post a link to it, if it exists somewhere.
