AirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 46782 times:
Sounds like nothing has change with Air China. When they first started to fly to SFO back in the late 70's, ATC had to give them extra spacing because of this exact problem, I was flying into SFO from ACV on a United Express E-120 in 93? when we had to missed approached due to Air China just stopping on the runway and not turning as requested to the taxi ways.
AirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 46636 times:
[quote=Mustang304,reply=4]China Airlines arrives (also due to language issues).
Just to be fair both China Air and Eva have a number of western pilots in the cockpits whereas Air China doesn't have any. In the patrol we had DWO (driving while Oriental) wonder if FWO is the same?
CRGsFuture From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 536 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 46415 times:
Quoting AirCop: Just to be fair both China Air and Eva have a number of western pilots in the cockpits whereas Air China doesn't have any. In the patrol we had DWO (driving while Oriental) wonder if FWO is the same?
Believe it or not they do; FWO is a term I've used a lot. However EV will never make a westener a Captain. Really they only hire expatriates to baby sit the left seaters; or so I've heard.
Flying you to your destination; your girlfriend to her dreams.
I know the difference. Please don't assume I don't. I was referring to CHINA AIRLINES(CI), based out of Taipei. I worked with both airlines aircraft programs (Air China 777-200 and 747-400, China Airlines 747-400) when I was at Boeing. (As an aside, I also worked on most others 777/747, as I was in certification engineering in payloads). I know the different Chinese (PRC and ROC) airlines.
Currently Air China does not offer service to SEA. China Airlines (CI), does, from Taipei. The tower was referring to the fact that the China Airlines pilots from Taipei have issues with language. They did not mention EVA.
Evan767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2957 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 46226 times:
Quoting UnattendedBag (Reply 12): There was no reason for that post. Several of those carriers don't even fly to the United States.
Woah, this man put together all these pictures and information just for us, and all you can do is say, "You wasted your time, we really don't care."
I for one am very impressed at his research and thank him for his hard work. It was very informative and something that I would like to know. There are a lot of those kind of airlines and it get's confusing to know where every one of them is based. Thanks YLWbased.
The proper term is "on final" not "on finals" bud...
PanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 46163 times:
It isn't just Chinese carriers.
In one instance, an Aerolineas Argentinas 707 was actually on a collision course with the World Trade Center in 1981. The pilot, not understanding his instructions, and in dense clouds, had descended down to a level below minimums for New York City, and was heading directly towards the north tower.
In the case of the Avianca 707 crash in Cove Neck, NY, due to fuel starvation, the pilots knew that they were low on fuel, but were unable to phrase it correctly to JFK control. As a result, instead of prioritizing them, ATC sent them into a go-around loop for which the plane had insufficient fuel, resulting in a crash.
I also remember a news program playing a tape of Seattle ATC where an Aeroflot IL-96 could not make himself understood at all. The plane landed safely, but there was no understanding between the tower and the plane.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
Kevin777 From Denmark, joined Sep 2006, 1173 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 46138 times:
Another funny/worrying one about Air China, heard it from a Sterling pilot a few years ago.
He was on approach to 22L at CPH, just lining up like everyone else waiting to get down at the airport. 22L was used for landings, 22 R for take-offs. 22L intersects with the cross rwy, 12-30.
Suddenly, ATC at CPH told him to abort his landing immediately, and climb. Why? An Air China 747 was trying to land on rwy 12! The plane did not respond to any ATC directions for several minutes, and landed nicely on rwy 12. Don't know the aftermath, but quite a story, still.. Maybe the aftermath was that Air China stopped flying on CPH shortly after..???
"I was waiting for you at DFW, but you must have been in LUV" CPH-HAM-CPH CR9
Cgagn From Canada, joined Sep 2003, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 45816 times:
Just another reason to avoid most of those asian carriers. Isn't it China Airlines (and yes, I know that's a different carrier than Air China!) that have crashed every type they've ever flown? I'll stick with Cathay Pacific if I have to fly an Asian carrier.
Widebodies flown on: A330-300,A340-300,A380-800,747-400,767-200ER,767-300ER,777-200A,777-200ER,777-200LR,777-300ER
LTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13956 posts, RR: 49
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 45753 times:
This is why I think that allowing pilots to speak in their native languages in places, where their native language is spoken, is a security risk. Granted, if you're flying a GA aircraft, that may not be such a concern, but when we're talking about commercial aircraft like a 747 or an A320 for example, and major airports like CDG, ORD and PEK, it is important that they all speak sufficient English and practice it regularly. It's sad that only few countries where English is not the official language, like Switzerland or Germany for example, enforce this rule that ATC communications may only be in English. Just remember the runway incursion incident between this Shorts cargo aircraft and an Air Liberté MD-80 in CDG a few years ago. Had the Shorts pilot understood what ATC was saying to the MD-80 (and communications with the MD-80 was in French), they could have held short and avoid the inevitable disaster, yet France still insists on having ATC communication in both French and English, despite the security problem of ATC being bilingual and the language issues.
Pilots should have a very high proficiency in the English language, same for air traffic controllers (and I'm talking about conversational English, not just an English ATC vocabulary to be used in a country where they don't speak their language). Those who can't speak English or are not willing to properly learn it, should not fly an aircraft or control air traffic. It's that simple. I believe in the same documentary where the CDG runway incursion was shown, it was said that AF made English the only ATC language in which pilots may speak to French ATC controllers, but people protested against this and the plan was dropped.
Bicoastal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 45694 times:
I fly United to, from and in Asia a lot and in the USA. As much as I love Channel 9, it is a real rude awakening to the language problems of pilots around the world, but especially in Asia. In Asia, not only are the pilots difficult to understand, but the ATC employees are just as bad. I cringe when I hear the misunderstandings and many repeats of instructions from ATC to the pilots. Help us all!
Georgebush From New Zealand, joined Jul 2006, 679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 45672 times:
Quoting LTU932 (Reply 21): This is why I think that allowing pilots to speak in their native languages in places, where their native language is spoken, is a security risk.
Not only a security risk, but a flying hazard! I could easily see the headlines already "Plane crash due to language barriers between pilot and ATC" At least have the pilots coming to the United States English certified. Or any country who is concernd about the safety of their passengers.
FlyingHippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 719 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 45628 times:
Quoting Cgagn (Reply 20): Just another reason to avoid most of those asian carriers. Isn't it China Airlines (and yes, I know that's a different carrier than Air China!) that have crashed every type they've ever flown? I'll stick with Cathay Pacific if I have to fly an Asian carrier.
OH definitely.... Avoid SQ, NH, Thai, CI, BR, JL... Just wondering, how many of them have you flown with?
: actually CI never crashed a 727, A320, 734, 738, 741, 747SP. and the caravelle got blown up by a bomb. and their 742F crash was the first of several
: I train in the PHX area and there are tons of asian pilots. You cant understand a word they say. I feel bad for the instructors.
: landing at a US airport = speak ENGLISH PROPERLY! thats dangerous! he had to take his time to guide the aircraft to the gate.
: Not just at US airports, but also at UK airports, German Airports, Swiss airports, etc.
: Just to be fair to what was said on the radio by Kennedy ground. I did not hear one radio call from ground that was standard ICAO apart form hold posi
: Ha! We train Chinese here in San Antonio, and some of them need other students to translate! Personally, I think that the 'joe cool' ATC you speak of
: to be fair, if the native Taiwanese CI pilots can't "speak" English, its because a fair bunch of them probably graduated from UND! Almost 20% of CIs p
: That is just too bad for you then. The consistently best service are all provided mostly by Asian carriers.
: just to be fair to all Asian on this forum. Lots of Asian airlines hv a better safety record compare to north american/european airlines. (e.g. CX, KA
: The problem with that is it proves nothing about how they can fly an airplane in and out of an airport, and worse, it can introduce points of confusi
: For your information, in the USA people do not speak English, it is American English, which is different. What seems like a normal sentence to you, m
: I've never flown any asian carrier. I've never even been to asia, but I would very much like to. I don't think a person has to physically fly an airl
: why a security risk? It can work both ways. US carriers could learn the languages of the places that they go, too. There would definitely be less of
: OK, maybe not security, but definitely a safety risk. I apologise for the bad choice of words.
: at least you can speak english properly! no worries...it could be a security risk though...