soccr

This story has not one dang thing to do with political correctness -- China Air was not bowing to political correctness in hiring the guy but rather being as lax in this kind of compliance with regulation as they've been in so many other areas.

And if you're implying that it's liberals who are blaming the tower rather than the pilot, that's just nuts. You don't get more "liberal" than me, and I'd like to see the pilot publicly grounded, and the airline fined and censured. At the very least.

The people criticizing the tower are just ignorant of what's involved in aviation -- and I agree that thinking rudeness or lack thereof is the primary problem here is idiotic. You can't worry about hurting a pilot's feelings when you've got 2 747s bearing down on each other. However, there are lots of situations where those who cry "how rude!" aren't worried at all about political correctness but rather style over content -- and can often be conservatives!

And there is, indeed, such a thing as "aviation English" to the extent that non-pilots would have no clue what "proceed to Juliet" would mean outside of a Shakespeare play. But yes, no question about it, pilots are supposed to know more than just that particular jargon.

(sorry rkkwan -- there is disagreement!)

AnthonyGA

The political correctness arises from trying to excuse the pilot's incompetence with baseless and ill-informed arguments about how "aviation English" is somehow magically different from normal English, or how some terrible burden carried by Chinese speakers entitles them to a special dispensation from the requirement to communicate clearly in English to maintain safety.

Pilots who cannot communicate need to be grounded and sent home. The hesitation I detect in doing so is a sure sign of political correctness at work. No one with even a passing acquaintance with aviation who listens to that tape can doubt which party is at fault and how much potential danger that fault represents.

soccr

Anthony, no one here is "excusing" this pilot! No one - at least no one here -- is saying "aviation English" is "magically" different from English. It's a subset of English, which pilots MUST know, but it doesn't substitute for knowing basic English, which pilots flying internationally ALSO MUST know. I don't know who you're fighting with here, and the "political correctness" knee-jerk criticism is bringing in your own issue. If you want "permission" to be politically incorrect, this is absolutely the wrong context to do it in.

There's nothing "politically incorrect" about aviation safety or the flat fact of English requirements for international pilots.

Kiwi_acct

As a pilot (private not commercial) I have heard some strange things while up in the air listening to the radio. People with limited comprehension of English are a concern, as they can misinterpret instructions and as a result errors occur.

I remember once landing at an international airport (which shall remain nameless) and waiting to cross a taxiway. While I was waiting an airliner from a country where English is not the first language was taxiing to its holding point waiting to take off. The Pilot on the radio (don't know if it was the captain or first officer) was being given his clearances for take off, including his heading instructions and runway alignment. To say he was struggling with the instructions is an understatement. He had to read them back at least six times before they got even close to what was required. At one point he read back that he was heading for a runway that was the polar opposite of his cleared one. If he had been heading for the wrong runway, he would have taken off directly into traffic. It was obvious to me and the person sitting with me in our plane that this guy did not have a clue how to speak English. If there had been even the slightest deviation from what he had expected to be said to him he would have struggled even more. It was bad enough just handling the basic, bog standard clearances he was being given.

As a result there is one (well known) airline I will not set foot on. Not worth the risk.

I understand from friends who are commercial pilots that the reverse problem is present in some countries with tower controllers having limited English skills talking to pilots who have to get the tower to read back instructions several times before comprehension is made.

Scary, yes. Unusual, sadly not.

AnthonyGA

Why are you unwilling to name the airline?

AAFrequentFlyer

If I had to guess I believe it's China Air.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy_bl...fchinaairlines

Kiwi_acct

Anthony

I am reluctant to name the airline as I would be besmirching the name of one airline while I believe there are several with the same problem. When asked by individuals for opinions on said airline I tell them what I heard.

I am a little reluctant to publish the name on here though and open a can of worms about one airline which would take attention away from the problem as a whole which is poor language skills across many airlines. Not limited to asian ones either.

In talking to commercial pilots they have said that some pilots from Europe and South America struggle sometimes with English.

AnthonyGA

Okay, then, how about this: Do you know of airlines whose pilots speak excellent English? Those at least would be the ones unlikely to have language-related safety issues.

I should think that British Airways and American Airlines and Qantas would be on the list, but I don't know for sure (do they hire only native English-speaking pilots)? And if United is willing to let passengers listen in on ATC (do they do this pretty consistently), they must speak pretty good English as well.

HKP

FWIW: It's not legally actionable if you tell us which airlines you, personally, prefer to fly and which airlines you, personally, choose not to fly. People do that all the time here.

I prefer not to fly USAir, for reasons that are obvious to most regulars here, and I can say so without fear of being sued for the corporate equivalent of slander UNLESS I also said "because all the pilots are legally blind, the CEO kicks babies down the tarmac, and they've crashed 45 times in the last year."

HKP

... and even then, it's not a huge risk, especially since others would immediately post "you're crazy" answers.

However, your point about taking attention away from the core problem -- dangerous miscommunication -- is a good one.

AAFrequentFlyer

<b>Japan plane on wrong runway, collision averted </b>

<i>The pilot of the ANA Airbus A320, arriving from Matsuyama, in western Japan, misheard the air traffic controller's instructions, and landed on the wrong runway, just as a Japan Airlines Corp (JAL) plane was preparing to enter the same runway to take off, they said.</i>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071006/...gK79cc402fpWIB

ms_go

Slightly off topic, but listening to ATC, in general, can be a little scary at times. I was flying yesterday and listening to Channel 9 (United) for awhile after takeoff and during landing. One controller sounded about 18, and a couple of pilots had to ask him to repeat himself...one asked for a phonetic spelling of what he was trying to say. Then, while on approach at Chicago, the ground controller was issuing a long string of taxi instructions for American XYZ--clearly instructions for a plane on the ground headed from the runway to the terminal. The response: &quot;American XYZ...uhh...we're still in the air, sir.&quot;