Bad Engrish?

Shirl:
I admit, I quoted the wrong reg -- that *is* what the reg says,
verbatim, for a US pilot;

Larry Dighera wrote:
Are you able to identify that particular regulation? I am unaware of
an FAA regulation that requires reading and writing English.

61.103 Eligibility requirements
General.
To be eligible for a private pilot certificate, a person must:
[a, b...]
(c) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language.
If the applicant is unable to meet one of these requirements due to
medical reasons, then the Administrator may place such operating
limitations on that applicant's pilot certificate as are necessary for
the safe operation of the aircraft.

I don't know what it says for a foreign pilot
flying in the US on a foreign certificate. Do you?

In this case:
d. handle successfully and with relative ease the linguistic
challenges presented by a complication or unexpected turn of
events that occurs within the context of a routine work situation
or communicative task with which they are otherwise familiar; and

e. use a dialect or accent which is intelligible to the
aeronautical community.

I doubt anyone would consider "were you cleared to the ramp" to be a
"linguistic challenge" and *could* be a question asked about a VERY
routine communicative task (being cleared to the ramp).

Further:

Therefore, pilots on international flights shall
demonstrate language proficiency in either English or the language
used by the station on the ground. Controllers working on stations
serving designated airports and routes used by international air
services shall demonstrate language proficiency in English as well
as in any other language(s) used by the station on the ground.

The controller speaking to the China Air pilot demonstrated language
proficiency in English; what I heard from the China Air pilot did not --
he couldn't even read back his instruction accurately.

Structu
(Relevant grammatical structures and sentence patterns are
determined by language functions appropriate to the task.)
Basic grammatical structures and sentence patterns are used
creatively and are usually well controlled. Errors may occur,
particularly in unusual or unexpected circumstances, but rarely
interfere with meaning.

Obviously, hearing and understanding "November" when the controller
clearly said "Mike/Alpha" multiple times definitely would have
interfered with meaning if the controller hadn't pursued it to confirm
that the China Air pilot knew where he was supposed to go.

Vocabulary:
Vocabulary range and accuracy are usually sufficient to
communicate effectively on common, concrete, and work-related
topics. Can often paraphrase successfully when lacking vocabulary
in unusual or unexpected circumstances.

Does that apply to the controller, too? Asking "were you cleared to the
ramp?" is just another way to paraphrase "confirm your clearance to the
ramp".

Comprehension:
Comprehension is mostly accurate on common, concrete, and
work-related topics when the accent or variety used is
sufficiently intelligible for an international community of users.
When the speaker is confronted with a linguistic or situational
complication or an unexpected turn of events, comprehension may be
slower or require clarification strategies.

Okay, on this, it could be argued whether or not "were you cleared to
the ramp?" could be considered a "linguistic or situational complication
or an unexpected turn of events"! I sure don't interpret that question
as such ... doesn't seem a question could be much more straightforward
than that about a routine event to an airline pilot after landing.

Interactions:
Responses are usually immediate, appropriate, and informative.
Initiates and maintains exchanges even when dealing with an
unexpected turn of events. Deals adequately with apparent
misunderstandings by checking, confirming, or clarifying.
For information on the complete ICAO language proficiency rating
scale, please refer to the Attachment to Annex 1.

I heard the controller checking, confirming and clarifying, but the
China Air pilot didn't answer the question until the 4th or 5th time he
was asked, and read back the WRONG taxi clearance more than once also.

I'd be surprised if it says or implies that ONLY English "aviation
phraseology" is required.

It seems to imply that in the US, English is required:

Therefore, pilots on international flights shall demonstrate
language proficiency in either English or the language used by the
station on the ground.

Yes, it does. And that clip I heard of the China Air pilot is not what I
would call a demonstration of "language proficiency" in English.

Shirl

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:29:32 -0700, Shirl
wrote:

To be eligible for a private pilot certificate, a person must:
[a, b...]
(c) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language.

But the pilot in question almost certainly never applied for a (US)
private pilot certificate, or indeed any American pilot certificate.

Is there a requirement that a pilot holding a foreign certificate and
flying in US airspace "read, speak" etc the English language? Or
merely that he communicate with ATC in English?

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

Shirl:
To be eligible for a private pilot certificate, a person must:
[a, b...]
(c) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language.

Cubdriver:
But the pilot in question almost certainly never applied for a (US)
private pilot certificate, or indeed any American pilot certificate.

Yeah, I realized that afterwards.

Is there a requirement that a pilot holding a foreign certificate and
flying in US airspace "read, speak" etc the English language? Or
merely that he communicate with ATC in English?

I don't know. Haven't seen one, so far. Again, just seems any pilot
flying into JFK, SFO or LAX should speak and understand English well
enough to be able to answer a question as basic, whether it's "standard
aviation phraseology" or not, as "Have you been cleared to the ramp?"
and to understand and accurately read back a clearly spoken taxi
clearance without having to hear it four times.

Maybe it's just me, but if a controller asked me the same question a
second time, I'd think about what I didn't answer instead of just
repeating the same response without even thinking about it.

Cubdriver usenet AT danford DOT net writes:

But the pilot in question almost certainly never applied for a (US)
private pilot certificate, or indeed any American pilot certificate.

He still has to communicate in English.

Is there a requirement that a pilot holding a foreign certificate and
flying in US airspace "read, speak" etc the English language? Or
merely that he communicate with ATC in English?

If he's in a movement area of JFK, he needs to speak English.

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:29:32 -0700, Shirl
wrote in
:

Shirl:
I admit, I quoted the wrong reg -- that *is* what the reg says,
verbatim, for a US pilot;

Larry Dighera wrote:
Are you able to identify that particular regulation? I am unaware of
an FAA regulation that requires reading and writing English.

61.103 Eligibility requirements
General.
To be eligible for a private pilot certificate, a person must:
[a, b...]
(c) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language.
If the applicant is unable to meet one of these requirements due to
medical reasons, then the Administrator may place such operating
limitations on that applicant's pilot certificate as are necessary for
the safe operation of the aircraft.

Thank you.

In deed it appears that US regulations require an applicant for any
airmans certificate (private, instrument, commercial, ATP, ...) issued
by the FAA to " Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the
English language."*

However, it would seem that "PART 129—OPERATIONS: FOREIGN AIR CARRIERS
AND FOREIGN OPERATORS OF U.S.-REGISTERED AIRCRAFT ENGAGED IN COMMON
CARRIAGE" may be more applicable in the Air China incident. It would
appear that there is no such requirement for English usage by foreign
air crews operating in the US. Instead, foreign air carriers must
provide bilingual ground personnel for handling their traffic:



http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...1.4.21.0.11.11
§ 129.21 Control of traffic.

Link to an amendment published at 72 FR 31683, June 7, 2007.

(a) Subject to applicable immigration laws and regulations, each
foreign air carrier shall furnish the ground personnel necessary
to provide for two-way voice communication between its aircraft
and ground stations, at places where the Administrator finds that
voice communication is necessary and that communications cannot be
maintained in a language with which ground station operators are
familiar.

(b) Each person furnished by a foreign air carrier under paragraph
(a) of this section must be able to speak both English and the
language necessary to maintain communications with the aircraft
concerned, and shall assist ground personnel in directing traffic.



http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...tart=1;size=25
Amendment from June 07, 2007

14 CFR--PART 129
View Printed Federal Register page72 FR 31683in PDF format.
Amendment(s) published June 7, 2007, in 72 FR 31683
Effective Date(s): August 6, 2007

46. Revise §129.21 to read as follows:

§ 129.21 Control of traffic.
(a) Subject to applicable immigration laws and regulations, each
foreign air carrier must furnish sufficient personnel necessary to
provide two-way voice communications between its aircraft and
stations at places where the FAA finds that communication is
necessary but cannot be maintained in a language with which
station operators are familiar.

(b) Each person furnished by a foreign air carrier under paragraph
(a) of this section must be able to speak English and the language
necessary to maintain communications with its aircraft and must
assist station operators in directing traffic.


Given the number of foreign air carriers and the numerous FAA
facilities they must communicate with, this regulation seems
unworkable in the event that they should ALL attempt to comply with
it.

*
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....1.1.2&idno=14