Bad Engrish?

Cubdriver,

he controller should speak a
standard English, like that used by network announcers and news
readers.


And, just like pilots, they should use standard phraseology! (Hint:
Neither "with you" nor "out of thirtyfivehundred" is)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert writes:

And, just like pilots, they should use standard phraseology! (Hint:
Neither "with you" nor "out of thirtyfivehundred" is)

Standard phraseology would not have helped here. The Chinese pilot was simply
incompetent in English.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Standard phraseology would not have helped here.
The Chinese pilot was simply incompetent in English.

How much more standard can it get than, "Were you cleared to the ramp?"
The question couldn't GET any more basic than that, and even after
asking four times, the guy *did not understand* that it was a
*question*, NOT a clearance. IMO, that clearly falls under the heading
of not "understanding" English. Not to mention his inability to LISTEN
and comprehend. How many times did the controller have to repeat that he
was saying "Mike/Alpha", NOT November? The guy was so intent on reading
back his instruction that he failed to even HEAR what it was accurately.

Shirl

Shirl,

How much more standard can it get than, "Were you cleared to the ramp?"


It's an easy sentence, agreed. However, it is NOT a sentence in the AIM
nor the Pilot/Controller Glossary or the ICAO standard phraseology. It is
also not the proper way to phrase a question in standard phraseology. It
is plain English, but that doesn't help a foreigner trained to expect
standard aviation phraseology. And THAT is exactly what standard
phraseology is for.

So, to sum up: It's a non-standard phrase and a non-standard way to ask
something. How much LESS standard can it get?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert writes:

It's an easy sentence, agreed. However, it is NOT a sentence in the AIM
nor the Pilot/Controller Glossary or the ICAO standard phraseology.

The AIM and glossary do not provide sentences, only sentence fragments (with
rare exceptions).

It is
also not the proper way to phrase a question in standard phraseology. It
is plain English, but that doesn't help a foreigner trained to expect
standard aviation phraseology. And THAT is exactly what standard
phraseology is for.

If the foreigner can understand English, he can understand "non-standard"
phrases.

Mxsmanic,

The AIM and glossary do not provide sentences, only sentence fragments (with
rare exceptions).

Read them (again)!

If the foreigner can understand English, he can understand "non-standard"
phrases.

He is not required to understand general English, he is required to understand
aviation English and standard phraseology. There's a reason common language
questions are a no-no in radio work. Even you can figure it out.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic,

The AIM and glossary do not provide sentences, only sentence fragments
(with
rare exceptions).

Read them (again)!

If the foreigner can understand English, he can understand "non-standard"
phrases.

He is not required to understand general English, he is required to
understand
aviation English and standard phraseology. There's a reason common
language
questions are a no-no in radio work.

Even you can figure it out.

Apparantly not.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On 2007-06-29 12:29:15 -0700, Thomas Borchert
said:

Mxsmanic,

The AIM and glossary do not provide sentences, only sentence fragments (with
rare exceptions).

Read them (again)!

If the foreigner can understand English, he can understand "non-standard"
phrases.

He is not required to understand general English, he is required to understand
aviation English and standard phraseology.

That is not what the regulations say. He is required to understand
English. Believe it or not, people have to be able to talk to pilots.
It is impossible to have a book with every possible phrase that might
be needed in aviation.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Thomas Borchert writes:

Read them (again)!

Reading them again will not change what they say.

He is not required to understand general English, he is required to understand
aviation English and standard phraseology.

There is no difference between the two, unfortunately.

This is similar to the illusion that there exists a "business English" that is
somehow easier to learn than standard English. In fact, there is no such
thing--English is English--but language schools promote the illusion because
it brings in more customers (who mistakenly believe that they can get away
with learning something "simple" instead of standard English to communicate).

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Thomas Borchert writes:

It's an easy sentence, agreed. However, it is NOT a sentence in the
AIM nor the Pilot/Controller Glossary or the ICAO standard
phraseology.

The AIM and glossary do not provide sentences, only sentence fragments
(with rare exceptions).

It is
also not the proper way to phrase a question in standard phraseology.
It is plain English, but that doesn't help a foreigner trained to
expect standard aviation phraseology. And THAT is exactly what
standard phraseology is for.

If the foreigner can understand English, he can understand
"non-standard" phrases.


God you're an idiot.

Bertie