Does VFR Operation Require A High Level Of Language Proficiency?

Larry Dighera wrote in
news
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:10:09 -0000, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
.com:

On Oct 9, 4:41 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
Does VFR Operation Require A High Level Of Language Proficiency? It
looks like some in Europe would think it might:

IAOPA WINS LANGUAGE REPRIEVE
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#196325)
The International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has
successfully lobbied the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) to delay by three years implementation of onerous language
proficiency rules it says would severely limit VFR flight in much
of Europe. Under the ICAO proposal, all pilots would require to
demonstrate a high level of proficiency in either English or the
language of the country in which they are flying. In an interview
with AVweb at AOPA Expo in Hartford, IAOPA General Secretary John
Sheehan said the rule makes sense for IFR operations but not for
recreational flyers. "For VFR people it doesn't make any sense,"
Sheehan said. "I don't think [VFR] requires a high level of
[language] proficiency."

Given the US's provision for NORDO VFR operations, that has probably
been in the regulations since their inception, one can only conclude
that VFR operation doesn't even require any communication at all.

Most pilots would consider NORDO to be an emergency operation.

ATC controller, Mr. McNicoll does it all the time, as does Mr. Ford. I
doubt they would concur.

All public use airports need communication.

At controlled fields, light signals are quite effective for
communications, and they require no language ability.

Flying into an airport (even a very small one) without talking could
certainly be considered careless or reckless.

For some folks, flight of any kind might qualify as careless and
reckless, but the fact is, that the CFRs permit aircraft without
electrical systems (and hence radios) to operate at public use
airports, and it routinely occurs.

I haven't the time right now to research the NTSB database, but it
would be enlightening to know how the percentage of NORADO flights
that result in being the cause of or contribute to incidents and
accidents.

Don't get me wrong. If I were flying an aircraft certified without an
electrical system, you can bet I'd have a handheld radio. But that's
just me. I'm a cautious sort; I'd have a backup handheld too.




If you're that reliant on ATC do you carry matches so you can set your
seats on fire for smoke signals?


Bertie

On Oct 9, 12:00 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote innews




On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:10:09 -0000, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
.com:

On Oct 9, 4:41 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
Does VFR Operation Require A High Level Of Language Proficiency? It
looks like some in Europe would think it might:

IAOPA WINS LANGUAGE REPRIEVE
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#196325)
The International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has
successfully lobbied the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) to delay by three years implementation of onerous language
proficiency rules it says would severely limit VFR flight in much
of Europe. Under the ICAO proposal, all pilots would require to
demonstrate a high level of proficiency in either English or the
language of the country in which they are flying. In an interview
with AVweb at AOPA Expo in Hartford, IAOPA General Secretary John
Sheehan said the rule makes sense for IFR operations but not for
recreational flyers. "For VFR people it doesn't make any sense,"
Sheehan said. "I don't think [VFR] requires a high level of
[language] proficiency."

Given the US's provision for NORDO VFR operations, that has probably
been in the regulations since their inception, one can only conclude
that VFR operation doesn't even require any communication at all.

Most pilots would consider NORDO to be an emergency operation.

ATC controller, Mr. McNicoll does it all the time, as does Mr. Ford. I
doubt they would concur.

All public use airports need communication.

At controlled fields, light signals are quite effective for
communications, and they require no language ability.

Flying into an airport (even a very small one) without talking could
certainly be considered careless or reckless.

For some folks, flight of any kind might qualify as careless and
reckless, but the fact is, that the CFRs permit aircraft without
electrical systems (and hence radios) to operate at public use
airports, and it routinely occurs.

I haven't the time right now to research the NTSB database, but it
would be enlightening to know how the percentage of NORADO flights
that result in being the cause of or contribute to incidents and
accidents.

Don't get me wrong. If I were flying an aircraft certified without an
electrical system, you can bet I'd have a handheld radio. But that's
just me. I'm a cautious sort; I'd have a backup handheld too.

If you're that reliant on ATC do you carry matches so you can set your
seats on fire for smoke signals?

That's got to be the most sophomoric logic fallacy I've ever heard.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
ups.com:

On Oct 9, 12:00 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote
innews




On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:10:09 -0000, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
.com:

On Oct 9, 4:41 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
Does VFR Operation Require A High Level Of Language Proficiency?
It looks like some in Europe would think it might:

IAOPA WINS LANGUAGE REPRIEVE
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...974-full.html#
1963
25)
The International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has
successfully lobbied the International Civil Aviation
Organization
(ICAO) to delay by three years implementation of onerous language
proficiency rules it says would severely limit VFR flight in
much of Europe. Under the ICAO proposal, all pilots would
require to demonstrate a high level of proficiency in either
English or the language of the country in which they are
flying. In an interview with AVweb at AOPA Expo in Hartford,
IAOPA General Secretary John Sheehan said the rule makes
sense for IFR operations but not for recreational flyers.
"For VFR people it doesn't make any sense," Sheehan said. "I
don't think [VFR] requires a high level of [language]
proficiency."

Given the US's provision for NORDO VFR operations, that has
probably been in the regulations since their inception, one can
only conclude that VFR operation doesn't even require any
communication at all.

Most pilots would consider NORDO to be an emergency operation.

ATC controller, Mr. McNicoll does it all the time, as does Mr.
Ford. I doubt they would concur.

All public use airports need communication.

At controlled fields, light signals are quite effective for
communications, and they require no language ability.

Flying into an airport (even a very small one) without talking
could certainly be considered careless or reckless.

For some folks, flight of any kind might qualify as careless and
reckless, but the fact is, that the CFRs permit aircraft without
electrical systems (and hence radios) to operate at public use
airports, and it routinely occurs.

I haven't the time right now to research the NTSB database, but it
would be enlightening to know how the percentage of NORADO flights
that result in being the cause of or contribute to incidents and
accidents.

Don't get me wrong. If I were flying an aircraft certified without
an electrical system, you can bet I'd have a handheld radio. But
that's just me. I'm a cautious sort; I'd have a backup handheld
too.

If you're that reliant on ATC do you carry matches so you can set
your seats on fire for smoke signals?

That's got to be the most sophomoric logic fallacy I've ever heard.


Um, yeah, that was obviously an attempt at logic.
IIRC my philosophy correctly, the Shophists were big on just that sort
of reasoning.






Bertie

Robert M. Gary wrote:


Most pilots would consider NORDO to be an emergency operation.

I know of many pilots of both antique aircraft and gliders that would
likely disagree.

All
public use airports need communication. Flying into an airport (even a
very small one) without talking could certainly be considered careless
or reckless.

Considered careless or reckless by whom? Obviously the FAA doesn't think
so.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200710/1

On Oct 9, 2:04 pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:

Most pilots would consider NORDO to be an emergency operation.

I know of many pilots of both antique aircraft and gliders that would
likely disagree.

I fly antique aircraft but am not so cheap as to not be able to afford
a couple hundred dollars for a portable radio. This isn't the 1920's
you know.

Robert M. Gary wrote:


I fly antique aircraft but am not so cheap as to not be able to afford
a couple hundred dollars for a portable radio. This isn't the 1920's
you know.

I'm not sure which one's you're flying, but the unshielded ignition systems
in many of the ones I've flown made my handheld radio just about useless. It
has nothing to do with being cheap.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

Robert M. Gary writes:

Most pilots would consider NORDO to be an emergency operation.

But some wouldn't, and it's perfectly legal.

All public use airports need communication. Flying into an airport (even a
very small one) without talking could certainly be considered careless
or reckless.

It's legal and safe if done correctly (at small airports). It may not be as
flexible or prudent as having a radio, but it's allowed and it isn't careless
or reckless.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Robert M. Gary writes:

Most pilots would consider NORDO to be an emergency operation.

But some wouldn't, and it's perfectly legal.

All public use airports need communication. Flying into an airport
(even a very small one) without talking could certainly be considered
careless or reckless.

It's legal and safe if done correctly (at small airports). It may not
be as flexible or prudent as having a radio, but it's allowed and it
isn't careless or reckless.


How would you know?

You don't fly.

Never will.


bertie

On Oct 9, 2:34 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Robert M. Gary writes:

It's legal and safe if done correctly (at small airports). It may not be as
flexible or prudent as having a radio, but it's allowed and it isn't careless
or reckless.

I think there is an upgrade available from Microsoft where you can
have full ATC.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
oups.com:

On Oct 9, 2:34 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Robert M. Gary writes:

It's legal and safe if done correctly (at small airports). It may
not be as flexible or prudent as having a radio, but it's allowed and
it isn't careless or reckless.

I think there is an upgrade available from Microsoft where you can
have full ATC.


God forbid you should sim without guidance from someone on the ground to
keep you out of trouble, eh?

Bertie