Anglophones Flying Out of Montreal

[TeePeeCreeper]

*yawn*

Edited: Anyone whom cites the BQ and Lucien Bouchard as someone they believe to be responsible for an aviation related fatality overseas is clearly not of sound mind and not worth arguing with.

[pelmet]

Prior to editing his post, Teepeecreeper said below...

I wish to thank you for your assumptions and condescending tone throughout this discussion.
Perhaps you'll have the privilege of ascertaining your holier than thou mindset when the TSB or Transport Canada start hiring again.

You would fit right in with the regulator's inability to objectively review valid arguments and or exercise a mordicum of comprehension.

By all means, I sincerely hope that your vain attempt to better position yourself within the public sector eventually pay dividends for you. I think it a sham that you've chosen to utize the aforementioned argument to promote your next career step though this website site?

A desperate attempt to garner accolades is what comes to mind, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Common Pelmet, if you think that admonishing anyone though the insinuation that the opposing party's grammar, manner of presenting their point of view and or based on what you perceive as a lack of comprehension would be considered as narrow minded.... Really? That's your counter???

You have continuously reposted accident reports which happen to already be public domain. I believe that your inability to convey your thoughts (A la citing Lucien Bouchard? Cut the crap out!) speaks volumes towards the lack of factual arguments that you bring forth.

Night'
TPC

As expected, you didn't provide any info on why you considered that earlier post by Supercharged to be narrow-minded, obviously because you can't. I won't dwell on that point any more as it is pointless.

While I might have worded it differently, you actually do bring up a good point when you say " the regulator's inability to objectively review valid arguments and or exercise a modicum of comprehension" as I do agree that there are occasions when this appears to be somewhat the case, although your statement is written in a way that says that it is always the case. Perhaps, it is some sort of attempt to try to strip the French TSB of its credibility but the accident report info that I posted was obvious in its accuracy even if you don't like it due to it shooting down your argument. And certainly my objectiveness on this thread has been reasonable and backed up by factual information as posted and provided with credible links.

You have continuously reposted accident reports which happen to already be public domain. I believe that your inability to convey your thoughts (A la citing Lucien Bouchard? Cut the crap out!) speaks volumes towards the lack of factual arguments that you bring forth.

Yes, I have provided safety reports from the public domain but they are usually not widely read and I plan to continue to do so. It is unfortunate that you have tied this in with a lack of factual arguments and an inability to convey thoughts but obviously this is how you feel. I feel that it has helped provide significant information to assist in safety related threads.

Edited: Anyone whom cites the BQ and Lucien Bouchard as someone they believe to be responsible for an aviation related fatality overseas is clearly not of sound mind and not worth arguing with.

As for Mr. Bouchard, he assisted in a campaign to lower the level of safety of aviation in France. According to your edited post above, I may not be of sound mind but I will let the facts as provided by links speak for themselves. Regardless of his level of influence, the end result of that combined campaign(a premier of Quebec will at least be listened to) probably cost the lives of two pilots and nearly a hundred or so more pax whose last level of defense was not given to them when it had been planned to do so.

As much as I have disdain for Bouchard, it was you who for some reason decided to mock the results of his near death experience which doesn't add much credibility to the arguments you bring forth. It is almost as credible as what appears to be your insinuations that I am posting on this thread to further my career by getting into the public sector. I have to admit, that is a new one.

UPDATE ....Edited to respond to the post below without having to start the debate again months later......

So far Pelmet was able to find 1 accident where the use of one language only could have helped stop the accident.
.
The language was NOT the main REASON why the accident happened.

Correct, in that if they had been speaking the same language instead of a separate language being spoken for political reasons only, this accident may have been avoided. Unfortunately, people are willing to lower safety and sacrifice lives in order to further their political agenda. Over 100 people could have died.

[timel]

Do you really think that AF pilots would accept speaking in English with a French ATC without a protest? You are dreaming in high definition.

That's the point. They won't either. But in Europe the Belgians do it, the Dutch do it, the Germans do it, the Swiss do it, the Italians do it. The French, not so much... Thousands of people learn English to fly, yet a certain language group has a significant lower than average use of the English language in aviation.

I don't blame the pilots for that, if the rules allow it, why bother. I'd like to see the rules change so one language becomes the standard.

Personnaly, I hate this debate. Because most of the times it goes beyond logic, some people behind their posts have an ideological or political agenda, or they simply hold a grudge and they want to express it, at the end it is not very constructive.

The fact is ICAO recognize 6 languages, it might be for political and democratic reasons maybe and so there is a right for not only the English, but for for the French, the Spanish, the Russian, the Chinese, the Arabs to speak in their own language. Chinese they are 1.3 billion, Spanish language is spoken in around 20 countries, Arabs are quite a few as well and French language is spoken as well in numerous countries. Is it completely democratic? No, but it is a bit fair for some nations.

ICAO made English mandatory for pilots who fly international routes (http://englishforaviation.com/ICAO-requirements.php) and this is more than fine for me.
So far Pelmet was able to find 1 accident where the use of one language only could have helped stop the accident.
.
The language was NOT the main REASON why the accident happened.

4.1.8. in the light of the analysis of this accident and previously acquired experience, the DGAC study the expediency and methods of implementation for the systematic use of the English language for air traffic control at Paris Charles de Gaulle aerodrome, as well as the extension of this measure to other aerodromes with significant international traffic.

One of many recommendation in the report is saying that they recommend English for CDG Airport and other international airports who have a high amount of traffic, not the whole country. I am not sure we can compare CDG to YUL or YQB.

4 - RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Runway Occupation
The investigation showed the importance for safety of great precision in runway usage and the grave risks created by any misunderstanding, especially when the aerodrome’s procedures allow for the occasional presence of more than one aircraft on the runway. Consequently, the BEA recommends that:
4.1.1. Aéroports de Paris and the DGAC together study all of the procedures and associated means for the simultaneous use of two different parts of a runway so as to guarantee, in all circumstances, the same level of safety as when the runway is used by only one aircraft. and in particular that:
4.1.2. terminology used in practice by the ground controller include the systematic identification of the holding point specific to the required taxiway during the instruction to taxi towards the runway;
4.1.3. terminology used in practice by the aerodrome air traffic control include the systematic identification of the taxiway from which the aircraft must line up;
4.1.4. terminology used in practice by the aerodrome air traffic control systematically include, where a clearance is issued to line up behind a departing aircraft, the formal and unambiguous identification of said aircraft;
4.1.5. the procedure for sequential line-up be defined, as well as conditions for its application;
4.1.6. the control positions at Paris Charles de Gaulle aerodrome be equipped with the latest ground radar equipment;
4.1.7. the use of high speed exits for line-ups be subject to the existence of arrangements which guarantee a level of safety equivalent to visual checks performed by the crew. In addition, and stressing that the investigation did not aim to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the systematic use of a single language, that:
4.1.8. in the light of the analysis of this accident and previously acquired experience, the DGAC study the expediency and methods of implementation for the systematic use of the English language for air traffic control at Paris Charles de Gaulle aerodrome, as well as the extension of this measure to other aerodromes with significant international traffic.


4.2 Organisation of ATC
The investigation brought to light the inadequacy of individual or cross check procedures for tasks, and the importance of a more systematic and rigorous definition of ATC methods and practices. Consequently, the BEA recommends that:
4.2.1. the DGAC establish a precise definition and a verification procedure for control tower operations manuals;
4.2.2. the DGAC study the implementation in ATC practices of systematic checking procedures;
4.2.3. the DGAC accelerate and systematize the implementation of an ATC resource management training course, specifically taking into account questions related to co-ordination. The BEA also recommends that:
4.2.4. the functions of an assistant (role, prerogatives and possible manning of the position) be defined;
4.2.5. it only be permissible for the tower manager to handle a control position where this remains compatible with his other responsibilities;
4.2.6. procedures for releasing controllers to duty be defined so as to exclude this being dependant on self-assessment

On a more personal note:
- Every time I have been flying in the Québec airspace, the bilingual ATC has never been a safety issue.
- Again in my experience in uncontrolled airspace, when AirCreebec, Provincial.. Whatever airline with pilots not all french speaking come in Québec, all the pilots make their intentions known in English to accommodate the traffics.
- If you are a general aviation traffic flying IFR, you will spend most of your time with ATC, UNICOM, AIRPORT RADIOS, all of these guys speak good English.
- If you are a general aviation on a VFR flight plan with no notions of French language, worst case scenario you will go in an ATF where pilots don't speak English, but you are VFR, so keep your eyes out because you are not supposed to rely on the radio for traffic, there could be a NORDO flying around. I was making the comment early in the discussion, on a sunny day on 126.7, good Luck understanding what's going on. By the way, the student pilots who fly in Mascouche, you can hear French and English on the frequency, it has never been an issue.
- Now the last thing, I heard so many times when I was flying around east of the Hudson bay people around Moosonee complaining on 126.7 that they were hearing French. I mean, OBVIOUSLY, if I am in Ontario, I am not going to be broadcasting my messages in French.