http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster
Don't ask me why, but it works.
Norm
[quote user="blue streak 1"]
Norm48327 In aviation, pilots and flight crew must be proficient in the English Language. I can see the need for that in railroad operations. Oh, and if you're not proficient in English you won't get a pilot's certificate.
In aviation, pilots and flight crew must be proficient in the English Language. I can see the need for that in railroad operations.
Oh, and if you're not proficient in English you won't get a pilot's certificate.
[/quote]
Confusion and Cockpit heirarchy
Not the NTSB report but close enough for a railroad forum.
Note- I have tried every trick I know to make the link active!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
blue streak 1 Norm48327 In aviation, pilots and flight crew must be proficient in the English Language. I can see the need for that in railroad operations. Oh, and if you're not proficient in English you won't get a pilot's certificate. The english language in aviation is actually by international treaty. Circa ( ~ ) 1935 it was decided to be english over French. English was considered a much more precise language. Boy did France cry and moan. So pilots, air traffic controlers, etc are required to speak and understand both their local language and English. So you can have 2 different pilot nationalities and a controler all with different native languages speaking English. Confusion ? Yes and one result was 500+ persons killed in the Canary islands. ( Tenneriffe ).
And just because they are "speaking" English doesn't mean it's always understandable. Some foreign pilots barely are, and their comprehension isn't always good.
Thank you carneje1 for the clarification. I see I needed to clarify further what I meant by "spanish" in the article was not non-English speaking folks, but those of spanish background who could speak fluent English. The replies to my post have focused on the obvious need for English fluency in railroad operations, but not of the substance of my point of discrimination on the Denver and Rio Grande. They were likely not unique as a railroad in this regard, but it seemed like a management issue, not an issue with whose who did the actual "grunt work." They did not have such discriminatory qualms against others who could have done the same work (having English proficiency) but by accident of birth could not.
zugmann Norm48327 Oh, and if you're not proficient in English you won't get a pilot's certificate. If you are not proficient in English on the railroad, they let you WRITE the rule book.
Norm48327 Oh, and if you're not proficient in English you won't get a pilot's certificate.
If you are not proficient in English on the railroad, they let you WRITE the rule book.
Writing the rule book and understanding the applications of what you have written are two different things. My first days of employment were spent 'writing the rule book' - I may have written the rules, I had no idea of what they actually meant or how to apply them.
And all this time I thought it was FAA lawyers.
Norm48327Oh, and if you're not proficient in English you won't get a pilot's certificate.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
I'm not trying to justify their hiring practices, but I can see their concern with the number of accidents caused by mis-interpretation of timetable and train-orders by native English speaking crews would be even higher with non-native English speaking crews.
Ironically, in that area, the Spanish-speaking populace was there long before the English-speakers moved in.
Just to clarify: The article you are referring to is about Denver & Rio Grande Western narrow gauge operations in the 1950's and 60's. The Cumbres & Toltec is tourist railroad that came into being after the D&RGW abandoned the narrow gauge, it is not the name the Rio Grande used to identify that part of it's narrow gauge lines and using it the way you did in your post is somewhat confusing.
But to your point I did find that part of the story somewhat surprising; the first sentence about the sublect stated that "Spanish speaking people" (which to me implied non-english speakers) could not get employment as train crew but reading further it was made clear that Mexican American citizens who did speak English as their primary language were only employed in M.O.W positions..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
The May 2015 Trains interviews with former emploves highlighted 2 contrasting realities on the Cumbres and Toltec back then. The fact "spanish" could not work as engineer, fireman, etc. but as track crew, and the fact those who worked as engineer, fireman, etc. did not lord it over the other so in fact the engineer would shovel coal if the need arose; everyone worked together and "there were no smart alecks." It seemed that among the workers, the "reality" of discrimination did not exist, as even one member mentioned his best friend was "spanish." However, in management/ownership, however, it did. My question to the community is this: did this contrasting reality exist in other railroads? Did any "spanish" (or other minority) actually break the discrimination barrier and become engineers, etc? It is a sad coincidence that the disappearance of steam more or less coincided with the end of workforce discrimination. Thank you.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.