Local language proficiency requirements

[Andreas Fuchs]

Omar, have you read the last 10+ posts on this thread? We were saying this, more or less.

[1341101]

1 hour ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

Omar, have you read the last 10+ posts on this thread? We were saying this, more or less.

Extra input never hurts 🙂

[Oussama Gallardo]

Esteemed mates;

Will the opinion of the ICAO language-speaking divisions and their members be taken as an incentive to reconsider this?

[Pavel Sergienko]

In this case VATSIM won't be "As real as gets" and there will be restrictions for the pilots, I'll try to explain why it so: 

1. Some countries (in real world) use local language and English to provide ATS. And also it works for VATSIM but there are also some exceptions where you don't need knowledge of any languages except English (obviously it's mandatory for VATSIM).
2. If there will be not ATS on local language, it can be confusing for pilots who is not so long in VATSIM and they are starting with local language phraseology or at least ask for help or ask question to online controller. 
3. I think there are not so much fun by being restricted when guest-controller doesn't provide service for the rest part of traffic which are controlled by one more controller on local language (I think we are doing in VATSIM for fun). 

Generally this idea isn't so bad but it would be very useful to stay with local policy for guests of each vACC/divisons which designed to restrict controllers who don't know local language.

[Alberto Medina]

Hello everyone, I´m Alberto, a Spanish member.

 

All I can see is VATSIM is taking away the "as real as it gets" just to give more freedom to the controllers who wish to "visit" other divisions. So only the controller point of view is taken into account. What about the noob pilots that are starting their career in VATSIM? 
 

The non-English native speakers are using their local language while starting their VATSIM career just to make things easier for them. Also, some veteran members don´t speak English regularly and they only fly national flights to avoid the use of English, as you can do IRL. In Spain English is not mandatory for VFR flights inside Spanish territory. The majority of Spanish airline pilots use Spanish on the radio while inside the Spanish territory, and this is thanks to Spanish is an official ICAO language. 

 

So basically what VATSIM is trying to do with this kind of rule is to not promote the noobs to start using VATSIM (they will fly offline or in other networks), not promoting all kinds of pilots (we have some "old" users and they don´t speak English properly), forgetting about following ICAO rules and obviously "as real as it gets" slogan, and only focusing in the ATC side so they can do ATC service wherever they want without learning the basic phraseology.

 

There was a time when VATSIM was known for its professionalism and the realism they provide on each connection. It seems now that this is passed, and the future is getting away from professionalism, realism, and the "as real as it gets" slogan.

 

This rule is totally against the local regulations of the countries where their local language is an ICAO official.

This rule is avoiding new users to join VATSIM as they may find a controller in Spain who doesn´t know basic Spanish phraseology.
This rule is avoiding existing users to fly national flights because they don´t know English.

This rule is only focusing on the ATC experience, not on the pilot experience.

 

Why go against ICAO rules? What will be next, allow VFR in Class A airspace because "everyone got the right to fly to X destination".

If someone is really interested in learning the local regulations, SOPs, procedures, etc from a country he may spend some hours studying basic phraseology, so he can get the "visiting".

[William Teale]

1 hour ago, Alberto Medina said:

This rule is totally against the local regulations of the countries where their local language is an ICAO official.

Well, to be fair, so is flying without a pilot licence - and yet I do not see calls for VATSIM to block people from flying until they upload a copy of their pilot licence. This argument is frankly irrelevant.

[Alberto Medina]

8 minutes ago, William Teale said:

Well, to be fair, so is flying without a pilot licence - and yet I do not see calls for VATSIM to block people from flying until they upload a copy of their pilot licence. This argument is frankly irrelevant.

Ok, let’s allow VFR in Class A airspace. To be fair no pilot license is needed to join vatsim, so who need to follow the rules about airspaces?

 

Was this a “simulation red”??

[Matthew Bartels]

First. “As Real as It Gets” is NOT VATSIM’s motto.  If that were truly the case, we wouldn’t have VATSIMisms. That argument really is moot and has no bearing on the discussion.

That being said, we are having discussions in the review committee about how to best address this issue head on. 

[Lars Bergmann]

Just because I have seen many people talk about this like it's a visitors only problem: We need this solved for non-visiting controllers also. People who don't speak Russian might want to do their ATC training in Russia and not just visit there.

My take from the discussion thus far is, that a good solution could look something like this:

• Training, SOPs and Briefings have to be made available in English. They can also be available in a local language, but English always has to be an option.
• Visiting as well as non-visiting controllers have to learn the local phraseology, but do not have to have any specific language competencies in the local language beyond that

 

Edited August 13, 2021 at 06:54 AM by Lars Bergmann

[Andreas Fuchs]

For starters, you can run training documents and procedures through Google Translator, it should get the message through.  I recognize that not all vACCs have the manpower, nor the language knowledge to manually translate/produce those manuals in English.

[Andreas Fuchs]

6 hours ago, Alberto Medina said:

Ok, let’s allow VFR in Class A airspace.

As ATCO you can allow VFR traffic in Class A airspace. It's your airspace.

[William Teale]

7 hours ago, Alberto Medina said:

Ok, let’s allow VFR in Class A airspace. To be fair no pilot license is needed to join vatsim, so who need to follow the rules about airspaces?

 

Was this a “simulation red”??

VFR is already allowed in class A airspace (with approval), so I dont see what your concern is here.

[Nicolas Ammann]

So in your eyes, a Swiss Radar controller (covering the whole sector top down) would need to be able to provide service in four languages (English, French, German and Italian) in order to provide realistic service? 

From my experience, the vast majority of pilots change to standard English, if you tell them, that you don't speak the language. In my 12 years as active controller, I don't remember a single time that a pilot logged off or turned back outside my airspace because I was unable to provide service in the language they made the initial call in. 

[Lars Bergmann]

11 minutes ago, Nicolas Ammann said:

So in your eyes, a Swiss Radar controller (covering the whole sector top down) would need to be able to provide service in four languages (English, French, German and Italian) in order to provide realistic service? 

From my experience, the vast majority of pilots change to standard English, if you tell them, that you don't speak the language. In my 12 years as active controller, I don't remember a single time that a pilot logged off or turned back outside my airspace because I was unable to provide service in the language they made the initial call in. 

Valid. How about

• Training, SOPs and Briefings have to be made available in English. They can also be available in a local language, but English always has to be an option.
• Division/Sub-Division policies can demand that a controller learn the local phraseology but they cannot have language competency requirements beyond that

Edited August 13, 2021 at 08:31 AM by Lars Bergmann

[August Walentin]

I mean, I can agree but sometimes the local language is good to know especially when handling something like VFR because the phraseology is usually in the local language. I have heard sometimes that VFR planes have to move to english instead of the local language because the controller doesn't know the local language. 

Some of the documentation in my country is written in local language. As long as the controller can speak english, there is ideally no problems! 

It feels like I can't really have so bit of a say of this nor that I am correct because I've not been here long enough!

[Liesel Downes]

Requiring documents to be in English is a good idea as long as there is support given from native English speakers to do that. This touches on a point I made earlier about profiency in professional English.

[Torben Andersen]

49 minutes ago, Nicolas Ammann said:

So in your eyes, a Swiss Radar controller (covering the whole sector top down) would need to be able to provide service in four languages (English, French, German and Italian) in order to provide realistic service? 

From my experience, the vast majority of pilots change to standard English, if you tell them, that you don't speak the language. In my 12 years as active controller, I don't remember a single time that a pilot logged off or turned back outside my airspace because I was unable to provide service in the language they made the initial call in. 

Switzerland poses as special "problem" as it has 4 official languages: German, French, Itallian and Romansh. According to Swiss rules (link: here) English is authorized at all Swiss Aerodromes.

Many more multi-languges countries exists - in Canada we have French and English. But as all Canadians are required to learn English and French (AFAIK), it poses no problem. In Switzerland not everybody (but most) speak English, but are learning at least the 3 major languages to some extent, so a requirement of either one of these should suffice.

But I think this is for Vatsim Switzerland to decide

Edited August 13, 2021 at 09:10 AM by Torben Andersen
spelling

[Andreas Fuchs]

45 minutes ago, Nicolas Ammann said:

So in your eyes, a Swiss Radar controller (covering the whole sector top down) would need to be able to provide service in four languages (English, French, German and Italian) in order to provide realistic service? 

From my experience, the vast majority of pilots change to standard English, if you tell them, that you don't speak the language. In my 12 years as active controller, I don't remember a single time that a pilot logged off or turned back outside my airspace because I was unable to provide service in the language they made the initial call in. 

But you have to agree that controllers and pilots from Romandy and Ticino are not frequent users or members of VACC Switzerland. They prefer IVAO, because there seems to be a stronger Romand/Italian community and use of that language on frequency. Or has it changed? This is the status that I remember from a few years ago.

On top of it, Switzerland is a very special case, because due to the fact that there four official languages, it makes a lot of sense to use English or only or at least primarily. In France, Spain etc. it is a completely different thing, as you know.

[Alberto Medina]

8 hours ago, Matthew Bartels said:

First. “As Real as It Gets” is NOT VATSIM’s motto.  If that were truly the case, we wouldn’t have VATSIMisms. That argument really is moot and has no bearing on the discussion.

That being said, we are having discussions in the review committee about how to best address this issue head on. 

Ok, so what about this rule is going against the local regulations? In Spain IRL the ATC must speak Spanish to be able to provide service. The Spanish Law regarding SERA.14015 and the Spanish Royal Decree 1180/2018 states that the ATS must be done in Spanish and English, not only English. So Vatsim no longer want to simulate the reality, lets forget about ICAO procedures and countries regulations, lets use Yards for the Altitudes, and Meters per Second for the Speed. Who cares about simulating?

4 hours ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

As ATCO you can allow VFR traffic in Class A airspace. It's your airspace.

 

3 hours ago, William Teale said:

VFR is already allowed in class A airspace (with approval), so I dont see what your concern is here.

Not in Spain, for example LEMD and LEBL don´t allow VFR traffic. That´s what I mean. If the ATC feel themshelves "restricted" because they can´t connect in Spain without a very basic Spanish Level, then I as pilot may say I feel "restricted" because I can´t fly VFR to LEMD or MACH3 at 1000ft...

Aviation Laws must be follow to ensure simulation is done, and Radiotelephony is part of this regulations.

 

Imagine a 50 years old Spanish user who is starting with VATSIM and Simulated Aviation... Tell him that the ATC he may find while the first connections may not speak Spanish. What will he do? Do it offline or do it in IVAO, where this regulations about languages are followed.

 

I use everyday the Spanish while flying IRL in Spain, everybody does because the regulations allow us to do it. Why to remove it in a "simulating red"??

 

Of course all the division documents must be done in both Spanish and English, like IRL. If you want to control in Spain spend 5 hours more learning very basic stuff for phraseo aswell you´ll be studing local procedures.

Edited August 13, 2021 at 11:53 AM by Alberto Medina

[Andreas Fuchs]

4 minutes ago, Alberto Medina said:

Not in Spain, for example LEMD and LEBL don´t allow VFR traffic.

So you think that VATSIM controllers in Madrid and Barcelona have the right to deny VFR flights in and out of these aerodromes?

5 minutes ago, Alberto Medina said:

Of course all the division documents must be done in both Spanish and English, like IRL. If you want to control in Spain spend 5 hours more learning very basic stuff for phraseo aswell you´ll be studing local procedures.

Yes, that's what we have been saying for the last few days, Matt and the BOG members have acknowledged our doubts and are thinking about a modification of the "rule to be".

[Alberto Medina]

14 minutes ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

So you think that VATSIM controllers in Madrid and Barcelona have the right to deny VFR flights in and out of these aerodromes?

Yes, VFR is not allowed in LEMD and LEBL in VATSIM. Already asked last night to VATSPA staff.

 

Is VFR allowed at EGLL,LFPG,LIRF??

 

In VATSPA there is a document with the basic Spanish phraseo to help the visitors. This should be a standard for all the Divisions with local lenguaje requirement. If you request something you have to give tools to achieve the learning level expected and required.

[Oussama Gallardo]

Andreas, in Spain, in LEMD and LEBL airports VFR traffics does not exist at all. According to Spanish AIP for LEMD: 

"Aerodromes control towers located within the CTR may authorise local, test or training flights with the VFR flight plan, following previous authorisationr from the aerodrome authority."

The ATCO by itself may not authorise a casual VFR overflying or even to land without higher-authority clearance, so it does not depend on ATCO's hands if we follow reality. 

in the United States or other country It may sound natural that a C172 tries to join Class A, but in Spain It is quite rare, very rare. 

The bureaucratic politics required is so overwhelming that it makes a VFR wanting to enter alpha-class airspace absurd. Even more, when the vicinity is full of incoming traffic.

(EDIT NOTE: LEBL is class D but restricts VFR on purpose)

.

 

Edited August 13, 2021 at 12:32 PM by Oussama Gallardo

[Juan Amado]

12 hours ago, Matthew Bartels said:

First. “As Real as It Gets” is NOT VATSIM’s motto.

Hello Matthew,

I got time to search on the website what is VATSIM and what are the mission, values and vision. I finally found out not much. Something in the "about VATSIM" page, and in the homepage. I'm not sure whether that heredown is outdated or not. I'm staff from VATSPA and I'm not sure if we are following the objectives which VATSIM follows (and all the BOG).

If it is the case that is outdated, I'd suggest to remove it or change it please from there.

 

PD: I'll write another post about it which will be more convienient and not here. I'll post the link to there.

Juan Amado

Edit: Link for the post --> Path for VATSIM - General Discussion - VATSIM Community

Edited August 13, 2021 at 04:09 PM by Juan Amado

[Henry Huaman]

52 minutes ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

So you think that VATSIM controllers in Madrid and Barcelona have the right to deny VFR flights in and out of these aerodromes?

Yes, because Madrid (LEMD) and Barcelona (LEBL) have that restriction in their local regulation. Why do you think we can't deny VFR flights?

[Matthew Bartels]

2 minutes ago, Henry Huaman said:

1 hour ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

 

Yes, because Madrid (LEMD) and Barcelona (LEBL) have that restriction in their local regulation. Why do you think we can't deny VFR flights?

Because it is absolutely not necessary given normal VATSIM traffic levels. Such places have those restrictions IRL because the airports are so busy they literally can not accommodate.

Outside of a handful of Major events no airport on VATSIM is so busy to the point that they need to be denying VFR traffic.