I’ve heard the English is the common language of the aviation world. Therefore, to fly a plane, the pilot must talk to the controllers and other pilots in English. However, what do they do in the former Eastern Block nations? In other words, do pilots flying from one Russian city to another speak to the control tower in English ? How about a pilot that flies from Russia to Cuba? Do they speak Russian, Spanish or English? And if they are now required to speak English, what language did they use before the end of the cold war?
Here’s how it’s supposed to work:
If a pilot is flying through Poland and knows Polish, he or she can talk to air traffic control (ATC) Polish. If in Russia, Russian can be spoken.
However, if the pilot in question does not know Russian, or Polish or whatever the native language(s) are, then the pilot uses English, and so does ATC.
I will, however, mention that this is a very stripped down variety of English known as “aviation English”. While you could ask for authorization to land in Moscow and request 2,000 kilos of jet fuel for your 757, you would not be able to order a cheeseburger or a bowl of borscht in “aviation English”. It’s limited to just the terms required for safe flight operation.
This was all determined by treaty very early in the 20th Century, prior to the Cold War. So, during the Cold War, yes, a pilot in the Eastern Block would use English to communicate when he or she did not have a language in common with ATC. Ditto for China.
There are probably a couple countries out there who did not sign onto the treaty, but the vast majority have.
By the way - the second choice for an international aviation language was French. A number of terms still use are derieved from French, like “fuselage”, “empennage”, and “pilotage”. And several abreviations used in aviation weather reports (also standarized internationally) are derieved from French, like “FU” for smoke (from fumar) and “GR” for hail (well, pretty sure for that one).
Also, that phoentic alphabet, the one that goes “Alpha, bravo, charlie…” is stadardized internationally, and is occassionally changed to accomodate the wishes of some member country that thinks the combination of sounds is offensive or confusing. (As an example, supposedly, “niner” is used for 9 because “nine” sounds like the German “nein” and would be confusing to German pilots)
Seeing as, until September 2001, a LOT of foreign pilots got at least part of their training in the US (some smaller countries find it more cost-effective to have their pilots trained in the US entirely than to build a flight-training infrastructure at home) and picked up usable English while here, this system actually works more often than not.
Right on. FU for fumee (smoke- there’s an accent-aigu on the first ‘e’), GR for grele (hail- with an accent-grave on the first ‘e’).
Also, mist (BR) is brume
There may be others that don’t immediately sqring to mind.These are codes used in various weather and other reports issued by countries which follow the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) standards. European countries have used this format for quite a while, Canada switched a few years ago to it. I don’t know what the US does, but I’ve seen a few repeorts in this style form websites of American agencies.
As for language, Brookstick’s got it. In Canada, you speak English on the radio, with some exceptions. There are airports in French-speaking parts of the country where you can get Air Traffic Services in French as well.
Niner is actually because “nine” and “five” can sound similar with a bad connection. This has been discussed here a few times before.
Haj
That’s another good point, too - if you hear recordings of conversations between pilots and ATC, or blackbox recordings, the phrasing may seem odd - that’s because radio transmission can experience problems. There’s a certain consistency and redundancy to reduce the chances of misunderstanding or losing part of a message.
-
probably why some pilots hear on cell phones better than others, they are used to listening past the surrounding noise.
-
a lot of times you do not have to hear the whole thing because you are expecting a certain response. Unfortunately this has killed people too.
   a) you are cleared for takeoff
   b) you are not cleared for takeoff
   c) why repeat backs are so important to be actively listened to and consciously repeated…
       @) a lot of older controllers and pilots will deliberately use non standard phraseology when they know they are going to say something important and not expected in routine communications.
          )( Interesting happening for me…
While passing though Indianapolis Center’s airspace one evening with an unusually high traffic count, the controller was busier than an one armed paper hanger and it was a “Shut up and pay attention.” kind of time.
The controller was ‘chanting’ like in Gregorian Chanting in a church. It was outstanding, completely understandable, fast, fun, attention getting, clear, workable, beautiful, awe inspiring, did I say neat yet? I asked the next sector to contact the Indianapolis Center Supervisor and complement that ATC controller for the best job I have ever heard in all my flying career.
                                  You just had to be there.
Two or three decades ago, there was a big flap in Quebec over language of ATC. It had been English only so you had the idiocy of an ATC and pilot speaking a language that maybe neither of them spoke too well, when they had a langauge in common. So it was changed to allow them to speak French. Some of the Air Canada pilots objected saying that they didn’t feel safe unless they understood all the other communication going on. Fine, said the Air Canada brass, if you don’t feel safe, you won’t be asked to fly into Quebec. Or anywhere in Europe either, BTW. Quick about face. I think flights to Europe were considered a plum.
The flight decks of all commercial aircraft built must be in English only per FAA and CAA standards. And when I worked at the flight training facility for Boeing, English is the only language allowed inside of the training areas. We usually found the pilots from airlines based in third world countries had a better grasp of the English language than those from more developed countries. I would also venture to say there are many small airlines that fly regional routes in various parts of the world and the pilots do not know a word of English.
When Quebec refused to give ATC responses in English, the funniest result of that was that the pilots flying in from Air France couldn’t understand the French on the radio!
It’s not just a matter of different dialects or accents. It’s that if you are used to certain call-and-response phrases, it’s very difficult to switch. Hearing the same words in French can be difficult if you are used to English, even if you speak French fluently.
When I first learned to fly, I wondered how the pilots could possibly understand what they are hearing, because the quality was so bad and the noise level is so high. The trick is not that your hearing improves or you learn to tune out noise, but that you learn to expect certain stock responses from ATC. Knowing what to expect allows your brain to do better pattern matching. That’s why in aviation we spend a fair amount of time working on exact phraseology, and pilots who talk ‘conversationally’ are considered amateurish.
Here’s an example of typical chatter between the aircraft and various control facilities during flight, to show how structured it is:
If I’m on the ground requesting clearance to taxi to the runway, I’ll say something like, “Ground, Grumman Foxtrot Alpha Tango India, at building 22. Request taxi for departure to XXX”.
The tower will respond with something very close to, “Alpha Tango India cleared taxi runway 30. Hold short of taxiway Golf”. Then when I finish the runup, the call will be, “Tower, Grumman Alpha Tango India, request takeoff Runway 30.” The tower will respond with, “Alpha Tango India is cleared for immediate takeoff runway 30.”, “Alpha Tango India hold”, or “Alpha Tango India cleared in sequence” if there’s aircraft ahead of me. There might also be some other restrictions, like no delay, maintain runway heading to xxx ft, etc. But they are all stock phrases, pretty much.
If all goes well, the tower will call me again once I’m above pattern altitude, with “Grumman Foxtrot Alpha Tango India, cleared on route. Contact advisory 125.4. Good day”.
So then I’ll switch to the advisory frequency, and call, “Advisory, Grumman Foxtrot Alpha Tango India, level 4500ft.” Usually, they’ll already know about me, and the response will be, “Alpha Tango India cleared direct to (VFR checkpoint on boundary of controlled airspace).”
The last call I’ll make is to inform advisory when I’m leaving controlled airspace: “Advisory, Grumman Foxtrot Alpha Tango India, over the (insert VFR checkpoint here), level 4500.” Advisory will respond with, “Alpha Tango India is cleared enroute. Good day”.
At that point, I’m out of controlled airspace and have no responsibility to talk to anyone unless I need to, or until I enter controlled airspace or wish to make a PIREP (pilot report).
It sounds perfectly clear and understandable. But if the controller on the ground came back and said, “Okay, you can taxi to the runway, but stop at the golf taxiway”, I’d probably have to ask him to repeat because I’d miss some of it.
Unfortunately Hari, that’s kind of backwards. The truth is that the Quebec ATCs were in violation of the treaty that Canada had signed, and a lot of European and American pilots refused to fly into Quebec airspace. Non-French speaking Canadian pilots had zero problems in Europe, because English is required.
I suspect the story got twisted by the French-language zealots in Quebec who would have preferred that situation.
IIRC this was quoted as a contributory factor in the investigation after two planes collided on the runway at Teneriffe during a period of poor visibility (with horrendous loss of life). It was suggested that ATC had used the words “you are not cleared for takeoff”.
I believe that a pilot said (at the time) the convention was that the word “takeoff” should only be used in case (a), and that in case (b) another form of words was required.
Any commercial pilots out there to give us the SD?
IANACP - but on Tenerife contributory factors included heavy fog and some extremely arrogant, bull-headed captains in a hurry. As usual, not just one but several problems contributing to an accident.
Thinking back on my ATC experiences, it’s true you mostly hear “takeoff” in the phrase “cleared for takeoff”. Otherwise, it’s “taxi to runway XX and hold” or “taxi to position and hold”, the key word in that case being hold.