Just a question, do you think we need a radiotelephony exam which is completely seperate to the GMDSS technical course.
When I completed my private pilots license I was required to take an RT exam, both a written which included a lot of the technical kind of questions that you'd expect on a GMDSS exam, but also a practical exam. The exam is also testing your level of English, to ensure you meet a minimum required standard.
To the layman, when you listen to aircraft communications it can sound fast, complex and difficult. In fact, the situation with aircraft communication is that they use standard phraseology, so that whenever you here a call, you are expecting it to occur in a particular pattern with the information you require in the order that you require it. Regardless of how good your spoken English is, if you can understand all of the aviation terms and phraseology, you can effectively interact with Air Traffic Control without fear of misunderstanding. It's not completely foolproof, but it goes a long way to resolving communication issues. So often on the radio I hear situations which are clearly occuring because of a misunderstanding, whether its a pilot advising a ship where to meet him, or a ship going to anchor.
Take for instance this recording of the m.v. Estonia which sank; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlK_FFW8OeE ; the mayday has been incorrectly made, and delays the process of organising a rescue. In the aviation industry, when a situation occurs, you are encouraged to call mayday first, and then cancel the mayday or downgrade it when you have recovered the situation. It was apparent in the Costa Concordia accident that the mayday decision was delayed for too long, now much of that was down to other failures in command decision, but I also feel that if their was a practiced and examined procedure for reporting an emergency over VHF then in some circumstances the response time would be reduced.
I would love to see a situation where standard phrasology (not terminology, we already have so many books about that) is examined practically, in a simulator for instance. The next step would be the examination of emergency response in accordance with company specific procedures.
Just some food for thought, would love to see what people think.
When I completed my private pilots license I was required to take an RT exam, both a written which included a lot of the technical kind of questions that you'd expect on a GMDSS exam, but also a practical exam. The exam is also testing your level of English, to ensure you meet a minimum required standard.
To the layman, when you listen to aircraft communications it can sound fast, complex and difficult. In fact, the situation with aircraft communication is that they use standard phraseology, so that whenever you here a call, you are expecting it to occur in a particular pattern with the information you require in the order that you require it. Regardless of how good your spoken English is, if you can understand all of the aviation terms and phraseology, you can effectively interact with Air Traffic Control without fear of misunderstanding. It's not completely foolproof, but it goes a long way to resolving communication issues. So often on the radio I hear situations which are clearly occuring because of a misunderstanding, whether its a pilot advising a ship where to meet him, or a ship going to anchor.
Take for instance this recording of the m.v. Estonia which sank; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlK_FFW8OeE ; the mayday has been incorrectly made, and delays the process of organising a rescue. In the aviation industry, when a situation occurs, you are encouraged to call mayday first, and then cancel the mayday or downgrade it when you have recovered the situation. It was apparent in the Costa Concordia accident that the mayday decision was delayed for too long, now much of that was down to other failures in command decision, but I also feel that if their was a practiced and examined procedure for reporting an emergency over VHF then in some circumstances the response time would be reduced.
I would love to see a situation where standard phrasology (not terminology, we already have so many books about that) is examined practically, in a simulator for instance. The next step would be the examination of emergency response in accordance with company specific procedures.
Just some food for thought, would love to see what people think.
Comment