![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
USN R4Ds aboard USS Phillipine Sea for Operation High Jump 1947 | Dave Kearton | Aviation Photos | 0 | May 16th 07 08:32 AM |
question about instrument proficiency check | Sylvain | Instrument Flight Rules | 14 | October 20th 05 09:11 AM |
Perfect Proficiency Flight | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 39 | August 30th 05 06:06 PM |
What level of commercial operation can an owner operator goto under FAR91? | Peter Bondar | Owning | 3 | October 17th 04 02:40 AM |
Changes in Instrument Proficiency Check Requirements | Richard Kaplan | Instrument Flight Rules | 71 | June 10th 04 08:02 PM |