Worst ATC of the DEVELOPED WORLD

At the risk of sounding harsh… “I work within the aviation industry” could also mean a baggage handler or a ticket agent… 🙂

Perhaps LOL.

Whilst I don’t wish to further heat the debate, this webpage www.aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20000525-0&lang=en , details an accident that took place in Paris in 2000.

One of the contributing factors (accidents are very rarely, if ever, caused by one factor) was the ‘language barrier’ (and im not suggesting it was the primary cause). The French controller gave ‘cleared for take off’ instructions to a French aircraft, in French.

The controller also gave instructions to another aircraft [Shorts 330] to takeoff on the same runway at the same time. The pilots were English, didnt understand French. Had the controller given the clearance instructions [to the MD-83] in English, it is possible (not definate, just possible) that the pilots in the Shorts (and perhaps other pilots involved) would have realised the error and averted the accident.

The accident killed the FO of the Shorts.

I work within the aviation industry, as a consultant and hear lots of talk of it being a notorious problem. No fact to back it up directly, and I do think I should say that its not something you hear much of nowadays in Canada, but it wasn’t long ago that it was a regular issue. I was aiming the comment MORE at France itself though to be honest (hence talking about CDG), where even the national airline wanted all communications to be in English because it felt it was safer, but the pilots and controllers wouldn’t allow it.

At the risk of sounding harsh… “I work within the aviation industry” could also mean a baggage handler or a ticket agent… 🙂

I don’t have a problem with anyone having an “opinion” on a subject and state it as such . However, it’s disingenuous to make generalizations about an important issue when you have no first hand information on the subject and tell the reader, “it’s true”. Myths, innuendo and urban legends seem to be the derigeur for most internet sites.

You will be interested to know that I was afraid that you were going to tell me that you were a BA Capt or 1st officer who flys over here. Happily I see we have nothing to worry about concerning planes crashing into one another because someone isn’t speaking, (or speaking well) in the federally and internationally mandated ATC language of English.

It would be rather embarrassing to have such an issue cause an incident over Montreal Quebec – home to the headquarters of the IATA…

Canada also has responsibility for the operation of the “Gander Oceanic Control Center” in which this center handles anywhere from 2000-3000 messages per day using HF radio equipment. There are many francophone controllers in this center. There has never been an incident attributed to language.

FYI: I cannot find one incident where a language issue has initiated a report in either the NAV Canada database or the TSB (Transport Safety Board) database nor does a google search reveal anything.

If anything, most ATC issues are caused by plain old procedure sloppiness, for example:

9.0 Information Transfer*

In 197 of the 362 Fact Finding Boards included in the database of this Special Investigation, a contributory or cause-factor relating to “communications” was assigned by Transport Canada; e.g., incorrect or unclear phraseology, failure to acknowledge or verify, inadequate coordination, inadequate sector briefing, transposition error, data posting error, data processing error, etc. In other words, in over half of the ATS occurrences investigated, communications- or information-transfer-related problems were found to be contributory.

_________________________________

*Further background information on information-transfer problems is contained in chapter 10 of the Staff Report on the CASB’s Special Investigation into ATC Services in Canada.

In the United States, the frequency of communications-related problems may be even higher. Based on an analysis of approximately 70,000 reports to the U.S. Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS), approximately 80 per cent of the reports filed by pilots and controllers referred to ineffective information transfer via verbal communications. Consequently, in the United States, an industry working group was formed to identify significant communications areas of concern. The working group identified 12 areas for concern:

— Similar sounding alphanumerics

— Controller hearback problems

— Phraseology

— Enunciation

— Head-sets vs. speakers

— Radio discipline

— Intra-cockpit communications

— Inter-controller coordination communications

— Blocked or simultaneous transmissions

— Stuck microphones

— Readback problems

— Initial radio contact

The working group concluded that, if each and every pilot and controller recognized the 12 areas of concern identified by the working group and took action to eliminate the occurrence of particular problems existing in their own verbal communications loop, the benefits would be immediate in the quest to eliminate communications breakdowns.

Most of the concerns raised by the American working group pertain to the Canadian occurrence experience. In addition, the file review and field survey phases of this Special Investigation revealed considerable mutual misunderstanding between pilots and controllers of their respective workloads. For example, one Boeing 737 pilot traversed 140 miles of Toronto Centre’s airspace prior to contacting the Centre. On the other hand, one Fact Finding Board Report was critical of a pilot who allowed 66 seconds to elapse before contacting an arrival controller as instructed. While these are extremes, these two occurrences reflect a mutual lack of understanding and respect for the workload and responsibilities of other personnel key to the aircraft separation function.

In view of the frequency of irregularities and failures in the oral information transfer process and given the importance of effective inter-controller and controller/pilot communications to the safe separation of aircraft, the CASB believes that industry-wide action is required. Transport Canada, the professional associations such as CALPA and CATCA, and owners and operators could all play a role in improving the information transfer process. Promotional materials (e.g., safety articles, posters, videos, etc.) and familiarization visits (by pilots to ATC facilities and by controllers to cockpits of aircraft in flight) could help improve mutual understanding of the vulnerability of the oral communications process to human error.

– From: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/studies/90sp001/90sp001.asp#9

I’m wondering something here; when was the last time you have been in contact with ATC personnel while flying in or over Quebec? Just wondering where you got your “facts” from. Funny how one can have an opinion on a subject and by using a simple statement such as (it’s), “just true” that suddenly your opinion becomes factual, (well at least in your mind).

If you do in fact have some sort of data or incidents, (i.e. time, dates & locations) I’d be happy to forward these reports to Transport Canada.

I work within the aviation industry, as a consultant and hear lots of talk of it being a notorious problem. No fact to back it up directly, and I do think I should say that its not something you hear much of nowadays in Canada, but it wasn’t long ago that it was a regular issue. I was aiming the comment MORE at France itself though to be honest (hence talking about CDG), where even the national airline wanted all communications to be in English because it felt it was safer, but the pilots and controllers wouldn’t allow it.

Well that took 5 posts before someone was offended.

France and French speaking Canada. Not racist, just true. CDG is notorious, mainly because much of the level of english is non-existent as ATC talk to French pilots in French, how can you be spatially aware of aircraft around you don’t understand who ATC are talking to.

I’m wondering something here; when was the last time you have been in contact with ATC personnel while flying in or over Quebec? Just wondering where you got your “facts” from. Funny how one can have an opinion on a subject and by using a simple statement such as (it’s), “just true” that suddenly your opinion becomes factual, (well at least in your mind).

If you do in fact have some sort of data or incidents, (i.e. time, dates & locations) I’d be happy to forward these reports to Transport Canada.

I have one place in mind but I would be worried about upsetting too many people if I aired it!

Since the UK is the only country that is represented by more then 1 user on this board, I hazard a guess and say it is Wales? :diablo:

France and French speaking Canada. Not racist, just true. CDG is notorious, mainly because much of the level of english is non-existent as ATC talk to French pilots in French, how can you be spatially aware of aircraft around you don’t understand who ATC are talking to.

I have one place in mind but I would be worried about upsetting too many people if I aired it!

I would respectfully suggest that there’s a lot more to ATC than just clear language and prompt, clear instructions….whether those instuctions, prompt or not, are safe and suitable for the situation, for starters.

Anyway, I’m responsible for some of the worst ATC I know of! 😀