A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bad Engrish?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 30th 07, 02:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Paul Tomblin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 690
Default Bad Engrish?

In a previous article, said:
Here is the NTSB report, but it is very brief and doesn't go into the
detail that I heard from the Boeing chief mechanic:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...85AA015&rpt=fi

The full report is at:
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publ...r/AAR8603.html



--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
Real programmers don't comment their code. It was hard to write, it
should be hard to understand.
  #2  
Old June 30th 07, 01:58 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Orval Fairbairn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 824
Default Bad Engrish?

In article . com,
wrote:

Air China had an incident (I think it was in the late 80's) involving
a 747 bound for LA. The plane lost its outboard engine in flight, and
while the pilots were distracted with the engine shutdown checklist,
the plane slowed down as the autopilot struggled to deal with the
adverse yaw and began to pitch up and apply aileron to attempt to stay
straight and level. By the time the Captain noticed the problem, the
plane had slowed way down. The captain disengaged the autopilot and
applied rudder to straighten out of the nose, which caused a cross-
control situation and an immediate stall. The 747 abruptly snap-
rolled into a split-S, pulling over 10Gs in the process. Damage
included a twisted engine pylon, a crumpled aileron, loss of several
feet of the horizontal stabilizer, and numerous popped rivits. The
damage to the tail was symmetrical.

The pilots regained their orientation as they passed through a cloud
deck at 10,000 feet and recovered to climb back to altitude, unaware
of the extent of the damage to the plane. The controllers contacted
them to see if they were OK (due to the large and sudden altitude
excursion), and they said that they were. Asked if they wanted to
divert to San Francisco, they opted to continue to LA until they were
informed that at least one of the PAX had been injured.

Upon arrival at San Francisco, the FAA impounded the plane to conduct
an investigation, and the Boeing AOG team couldn't touch it until
after almost a month had passed while the investigation was
conducted.

The 747 does not have a G meter. They determined the G force of the
snap-roll by the fact that the flight data recorded had stopped laying
down data during the roll. Concluding that the head had pulled away
from the tape in the data recorder, they put the unit in a centrifuge
and spun it until the head pulled away from the tape at about 10Gs.

The Air China captain didn't understand what had happened until the
tapes were replayed in a simulator, at which point he was reportedly
quite shocked.

I originally heard the story from Jack Hessburg, chief mechanic on the
777 program in an air-carrier operations class that he gave at
Boeing. I also saw a segment on this incident on a TV documentary a
year or two ago...


I saw the plane sitting at SFO after the incident. It was a B747SP and
China Airlines. Both horizontal stabilizers were shredded! You could see
chromated metal parts sticking out!
  #3  
Old June 29th 07, 05:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
AJ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default Bad Engrish?

On Jun 28, 3:00 pm, Dallas wrote:
Scary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWDEIvjwaFU

--
Dallas


Oh ... good ... God!

  #4  
Old June 29th 07, 05:40 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 597
Default Bad Engrish?

AJ wrote:
On Jun 28, 3:00 pm, Dallas wrote:
Scary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWDEIvjwaFU

--
Dallas


Oh ... good ... God!




Yes?




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com


  #5  
Old June 29th 07, 08:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 516
Default Bad Engrish?

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:40:15 -0400, Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

Oh ... good ... God!




Yes?


No, no. The "good" one was being invoked.

- Andrew

  #6  
Old July 1st 07, 03:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
C J Campbell[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 799
Default Bad Engrish?

On 2007-06-28 12:00:26 -0700, Dallas said:


Scary.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWDEIvjwaFU


International pilots on international flights are required under ICAO
to either maintain level 4 proficiency in English or to understand the
language spoken on the ground. Level 4 proficiency is defined by ICAO
as being able to understand language well enough to communicate
promptly with only very rare errors. Level 4 proficiency means you have
to understand the meanings of different pronunciation, intonation, and
rhythm. You have to be able to understand and communicate about unusual
situations. Arguably, asking someone if they are cleared to the ramp is
neither unusual nor unreasonable under these rules. If the pilot does
not understand an instruction, he is supposed to be able to know
English well enough to ask for clarification. There is no way that this
pilot could be considered to speak English at Operational Level 4.

ICAO Rating Scale for Operational Level*4
A speaker will be rated at Operational Level*4 if the following
criteria are met:
Pronunciation: (Assumes a dialect and/or accent intelligible to the
aeronautical community.)
Pronunciation, stress, rhythm, and intonation are influenced by the
first language or regional variation but only sometimes interfere with
ease of understanding.

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.

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.

Fluency:
Produces stretches of language at an appropriate tempo. There may be
occasional loss of fluency on transition from rehearsed or formulaic
speech to spontaneous interaction, but this does not prevent effective
communication. Can make limited use of discourse markers or connectors.
Fillers are not distracting.

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.

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.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.