12
CHAPTER I
Communication in aviation
1.1 Importance of effective communication in the aviation industry
Communication, especially between pilots and air-traffic controllers,
remains definitely crucial. In fact, as modern and as technologically-advanced as
airplanes may be, they always need support from air-traffic controllers (ATCs)
so that safety often depends on an effective exchange of information among them
and pilots. Although today high-tech equipment to manage flight operations
( such as inertia navigation system and global positioning system ) can be
extensively used by operational personnel, the importance of radio-
communication remains indeed considerable, or becomes even more significant.
In addition to this, due to the global development of air traffic, many crews are
nowadays supposed to fly not only domestically, but also internationally, so that
they have to deal with ATC communications in the international aviation
language, English, and do their best to communicate as effectively as possible.
As excessive as it could seem, effective communication is indeed the
essential condition to achieve great performances in team-work and to avoid any
negative effect due to misunderstandings.
In the aviation environment, the concept of an effective communication
reveals all its importance particularly if directly related to the management of
critical situations where the least misunderstanding could lead to disastrous
consequences.
Recent studies have repeatedly reported that miscommunication is the
major contributing factor in aviation accidents: much more frequently than
technical problems that could affect aircraft, words, simple words are the main
13
cause of fatal air disasters. Such a statement cannot but encourage a deep
reflection on the issue.
Information sharing is a critical part of the aviation safety environment.
According to Billings and Reynard , expectations are for example one of the
most common key-factors in messages being misunderstood
3
. Some episodes of
communication in aviation have confirmed such a conclusion. Using the ASRS
4
databases Grayson and Billings found that pilots and controllers often tend to
hear what they expect to hear.
5
This means that the impact of expectations in information transfer may
lead to problems related to aviation safety, as anticipating a message ( hearing
what we expect to hear ), can often create critical situations for pilots and
controllers.
During recent decades, several episodes have shown that even when
aviation personnel think that they are paying attention to what they are being
told, the thinking process can be short-circuited by a preconceived notion, such
as, for example the common case in which a clearance to take off from or to land
in a specific runway is thought to have been already confirmed, while – actually
– it has not been.
With reference to such issues, through his analysis of hear-back problems
reported in ASRS database, Monan remarked that
3
Billings, C.E., and Reynard, W.D, Dimensions of the information transfer problem, NASA
Ames Research Center, Moffet Field, CA, 1981.
4
Abbreviation of Aviation Safety Reporting System. The mentioned database can be directly
consulted in the website: http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/
5
Grayson R.L., and Billings, C.E, “Information transfer between air traffic control and aircraft:
Communication problems in flight operations”, in Information Transfer Problems in the
Aviation System / National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1981.
14
Pilots heard what they expected to hear, heard what they wanted to
hear and frequently did not hear what they did not anticipate
hearing .
6
A concept closely related to that of expectations is then that of making
assumptions, which means to interpret the meaning of the message – or the
situation – by making it to fit our frame of reference, not necessarily what the
sender had intended the message to mean. Of course, making assumptions can
once more lead to misunderstandings, which not infrequently can have a great
impact on safety.
However, as important as the concepts of expectation and making
assumptions are with regard to miscommunication in aviation operations, the key
issues for creating difficulties in information transfer more frequently involve
language, accent, and jargon.
The ASRS database is full of examples of how meaning can be
misinterpreted within the cockpit, between the cockpit and ATC, between the
cockpit and the cabin, and essentially throughout the aviation environment.
As is evident, communication is not like a simple channel through which
the meaning is transferred from person to another, arriving and being interpreted
exactly in the same way that it was sent.
Furthermore, the fact that English is nowadays the international language
of aviation can even heighten the possibility of misunderstandings. In fact, as has
been remarked, it is easy enough even for native speakers of English to
misinterpret non-native peoples’ messages. Besides, putting non-native English
speakers into the mix can compound the problem.
6
Monan, Capt William P., Human factors in Aviation Operations: the hearback problem,
NASA contractor Report No 177938, November 1988, p. 11.
15
As Prinzo, Hendrix and Hendrix
7
highlight, the issues related to English
language proficiency in the aviation safety system need to be addressed more
and more accurately.
Once more, the ASRS database provides a large amount of examples of
the impact and problems associated with English as the language of aviation.
Some questions immediately arise: What kind of communication is then
supposed to exist in aviation domain ? How can effective communication avoid
inconvenient consequences? And how can the aviation industry manage to find
ways of handling all these communication problems to improve, whenever
possible, flight safety ?
1.2 Forms of communication in aviation
Several forms of communication characterise the field of aviation.
First of all, it is possible to make a distinction between a one-way
communication and a two-way communication; the former is for example from
cockpit instruments to the pilot while the latter is also called ‘interpersonal
communication’ and includes communication between individuals on the flight
deck, in the cabin, and anyone involved in the operations, such as management
and regulatory authorities.
8
Because of the extreme sensitivity of information exchange in operational
contexts of aviation domain, the main objective of operational personnel
7
Prinzo ( O.V.) , Hendrix ( A. M. ), Hendrix ( R. ), The Outcome of ATC Message Complexity
on Pilot Readback Performance, November 2006 .
This publication is available in full-text from the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute’s
publications, Federal Aviation Administration.
Website: www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/oamtechreports/index.cfm
8
Spinner, D., Communication Skills, (4th ed.) Auckland: Addison Wesley Longman New
Zealand Limited, 1998.
16
involved in such activities should be that of fine tuning all these forms in order
to transmit messages in the fastest and, above all, in the most effective way. The
more accurately messages are exchanged through complementary forms of
communication, the more likely flight safety will be guaranteed.
1.2.1 Written communication
In business writing, the reader is the equivalent of the “receiver” in the
communication model. The writer is therefore required to make the purpose for
writing clear, by including or explaining all necessary information and by
specifying even the least details useful for a better comprehension.
There are many ways to clarify business written texts. In fact, if it is true
that technical language is often a necessity, it does not mean that it inexorably
has to affect the clarity of writing. Business documentation can indeed be made
slightly clearer by adopting some simple tips such as attention to the explications
of details, the definition of jargon and acronyms when they are introduced, the
highlighting of problematic areas and common mistakes or the providing of some
concrete examples. Finally, one last effort must be made to make written
messages as complete and exhaustive as possible in order to avoid receivers
searching through large quantities of further documentation.
In the aviation industry, a large amount of information is transmitted
through written texts. Particularly in documentation management, written
communication plays an important role, therefore business writings must be
effective and establish a sound communicative relationship with the individual.
In fact, the use of SOPs ( Standard Operational Procedures ) and flight manuals,
flight plans, checklists, operational bulletins and many other documents
significantly influences the management and the operational personnel
performance. The main usefulness of these documents should be to provide
people involved in standard and non-standard processes of communication in
aviation with the most precise, concise and direct information or instructions
17
directly related to the situation encountered. This will as a consequence help
decision makers to face critical situations as best as they can by using a standard
and coded language and by making the best possible decisions from a set of
alternative recommended solutions.
Just to give an example, the so- called Sita Network is a global
telecommunication system used to exchange operative messages among carriers,
handlers and airports through the use of a standard code illustrated in the IATA
(International Air Transport Association) manual of airport and handling.
Nonetheless, particularly in emergency situations, operational personnel
and flight crews do not always adopt “excessive” wording nor pre-coded written
phraseology as expressed in the above-mentioned manuals. As a result,
miscommunication has become one of the most common causes of serious
accidents. Hence the need to encourage in some way the use of recommended
phraseology and procedures to contribute to the minimizing of the existing
communication problems.
1.2.2 Verbal communication
In any case, of all the forms of communication used in aviation, none is
more critical than verbal interaction. In fact, effective speaking and listening are
not always achieved in all kind of interactions. The main reason for this is that
possible communication barriers cannot be entirely avoided because individual,
cultural and interpersonal differences will always remain. Interpersonal skills
such as time and stress management vary greatly from one speaker to another so
that everyone is required to identify his/her own deficiencies in order to avoid
what is important for someone not becoming a serious issue for someone else
9
.
Only practice and training can help to minimise interpersonal differences and
9
Chase, O'Rourke, Smith, Sutton, Timperley & Wallace, Effective Business Communication in
New Zealand, Communication, Auckland/Northland, 2003.
18
allow personnel become really effective speakers. Learning and knowing how to
communicate key-points quickly and professionally is indeed one of the first
steps to be as direct, as assertive and as clear as possible. For this reason, since
the exchange of messages among Air Traffic Controllers, Pilots, operational
personnel and management from different cultures ( and so with different English
accents ) is an unavoidable component of the domain, Aviation industry has
been developing some innovative ways that can be employed in the system to
increase communicative effectiveness.
10
1.2.3 Non-verbal communication
Non-verbal communication is another form of information exchange often
used in flight procedures. Body language is indeed employed in procedures
requiring hand signals from the ground to the cockpit, between crew members
during certain routine operations or even between cabin crew and passengers
during or after an encounter with clear air turbulence.
During taxi operations, not all aircraft are met by ground staff with
headsets. In this case, the signals can/are used when the intercom in unusable.
Because they do not have a language barrier and are clear and concise, the
signals can also eliminate problems due to verbal communication. In fact, not all
staff working around aircraft are supposed to know/talk English, while they are
more likely to understand hand signals. The use of non-verbal communication
between the cockpit and ground crew is indeed a tried and tested method of
communication. Moreover, particularly in case of an emergency, hand signals
cannot be considered any less safe than using headsets, which are not always
100% reliable. Headset procedures assume indeed that both parties understand
10
Cfr. § 2.1 “The importance of a standard code of communication in aviation”; § 2.2 “ICAO
phonetic alphabet”; § 2.3 “International standards and procedures for air navigation language”
and § 3.1 “Categories of messages”.
19
each other. For this reason, if there is ever the slightest doubt, hand-signals are
the safest method.
There is a whole list of standard signals that pilots and ground personnel
use to communicate. As a result, beacause the safety of any flight also depends
on effective development of such standard procedures, it is important to make all
the personnel involved in such operations more and more aware of the fact that
the non-respect of standard signals may create misunderstandings and have
disastrous consequences.
1.2.4 Graphic and inter-computer communication
Apart from traditional forms and systems of communication, each air
carrier also has some complex systems integrating at the same time written and
graphic communication. Flight programmes are exclusively employed within a
company and provide operational personnel with information about flight
operations ( current, future and past ) as well as details about on-time flight
performances, flight schedules, crews, services, maintenance, passengers,
transits, fuel on board, warming, delays, slots and extras.
The last form of communication is then that with and between computers
in airplanes with highly advanced technology
11
. Such a particular form of
communication is generally conceived to allow interaction among technological
systems such as, for example in the setting of “automatic pilot” option.
12
11
Hawkins Frank H. and Orlady Harry W., Human Factors in Flight, Paperback, 1992.
12
Orlady ,H., & Orlady, L., Human Factors in Multi-crew Flight Operations. Published
Aldershot : Ashgate, 1999.
20
1.3 English as standard language of aviation
The first steps in the consolidation of English as official lingua franca in
international communications were taken during the decision-making processes
following the First and particularly the Second World War. The League of
Nations and, later, the United Nations Organisation were the first modern
alliances to promote a special role for English in international proceedings.
Because of the exponential extension of such a membership as that of United
Nations and of international relations in a globalised world, the importance of a
global language became more and more critical in almost all domains of political,
economical, cultural and social life.
Just as in many other fields, the travel industry faced its greatest
development particularly starting from the 1950s and the 1960s onwards. From
increasing international business trips and meetings to package holidays, from
military interventions to religious pilgrimages and sport competitions, linguistic
consequences of each movement immediately appeared evident. Nowadays, the
domain of international transport is indeed dominated by the use of English as an
auxiliary language.
As a result of such an evolution/revolution in the travel world, the
adoption of English as language to be applied to the so-called “Airspeak” in
aviation was a further ‘natural’ and obvious step.
1.3.1 The Chicago Convention and the formation of ICAO
The Chicago Convention took place on the 1
st
November 1944 and was
one of the first international meetings where representatives from different
Countries joined to discuss some of the main issues in aviation. The
implementation of English as standardised language to be used in air-ground and
ground-ground communications was one of the most intensely discussed points.
21
Moreover, since United Nations Organisation was established, in 1945,
the need for an authority able to manage and rule Air Transport has been
immediately evident. Hence the consequent creation of the International Civil
Aviation Organisation ( ICAO ). The main aim of the new-born ICAO was at the
beginning that of setting International standards and procedures in order to make,
first of all, flight operations and interactions between pilots and Air Traffic
Controllers ( ATC ) as safe and as efficient as possible. In this context , the use
of English as common language to be adopted in aviation, particularly between
speakers from different Countries, has proved to be of great value.
Notwithstanding, being the International Civil Aviation Organization only a
branch of the United Nations, it has no regulatory control and is merely an
advisory entity.
13
That is one of the main reasons why J.M. Feldman hardly
criticised the fact that the use of English has not been made mandatory in
aviation communications.
14
According to David Crystal, one of the world’s foremost authorities on the
English language,
the fundamental value of a common language, as an amazing world
resource which presents us with unprecedented possibilities for mutual
understanding, […] enables us to find fresh opportunities for
international cooperation.
15
Nonetheless, the fact that such a simple recommendation was not meant as
a strict rule, linguistic skills and proficiency in English of subjects involved in
international interactions have often suffered from a lot of deficiencies. Which
13
Feldman, JM, Speaking with one voice, Air Transport World, 35(11), p. 42-51, 1998.
14
Ibidem.
15
Cfr. Crystal, David 2003 , Preface to the first Edition, University press, Cambridge, p. XIII,
2003
22
has been over last decades one of the main issues of debate to argue about and
investigate when trying to deal with the role of effective communication in flight
safety. Recently, The International Air Transport Association (IATA) and
International Federation of Airline Pilots Association (IFALPA) have proposed
some initiatives to adopt a stripped down English for aeronautical
communications. On these occasions, language training programs for pilots and
controllers have been promoted. However, beyond all endeavours in this
direction, the international situation still remains quite critical. In fact, even if
English use is mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA) in the
US, where pilots and ATC must be able to read, write, and converse fluently,
elsewhere things are rather different.
IFALPA English is indeed mandated on a country by country basis. Here
follow some examples. If on the one hand China and Germany officially
mandate English-only use , on the other hand Russia does not, so that sometimes
translators are needed in the Russian cockpit in order to communicate in English.
Furthermore, a critical aspect in flight operations that cannot be neglected is
that in some particular countries air traffic controllers and local pilots often use
the local language instead of English to communicate each other. For instance,
this is the case of some nations of the former Soviet Union, where although
controllers speak to foreign pilots in English, they sometimes use Russian in
messages exchanges with local pilots. This means that non-local pilots in the
same airspace and listening to the conversation on the radio cannot understand
the entire situation besides what they are told by the controllers, so that their
comprehension about the airspace is very limited, with potential risks for
common safety. Needless to say, pilots need to know not only what they are
doing, but also to be aware of what is going on in the airspace in which they are
flying. Such a need to understand the whole context is for example particularly
evident when there are many planes waiting to land in the same airspace, so that
the awareness of such situations allows each pilot to organise what he will have
to do later (e.g., to hold around the airport, fuel-management).
23
However, this problem also exists in some other European nations such as
France where French is sometimes used in communication between ATC and
local pilots. Anyway, in France an implementation of an English-only policy has
recently been promoted, but as O'Brien
16
stated, French is generally reverted to
for more informal or conversational interactions amongst flight crew and other
aviation personnel.
As for Canada, specifically Quebec, there is a high demand for bilingual
controllers. Sometimes, many air traffic personnel feel that pilots need to have
access to the French language in an emergency situation. An instance was noted
where a bilingual US controller used French to help a student pilot in distress. As
for Africa, the situation is really sui generis: the Continent is indeed multilingual
and much of the vast area is in uncontrolled airspace, so that pilots are
completely responsible for communicating to each other regarding positions and
intentions in order to avoid mid-air collisions. Pilots in Africa are not mandated
by the same regulation of international aviation authorities. Hard to believe, the
analysis of some flight reports confirms that the ATC’s ‘instruction’ “ do it by
yourself ” is very commonly used. So, it is clear that pilots must rely exclusively
on what they can glean from listening to each other reporting over the radio. The
mid-air collision between a U.S. Air Force C-141 freighter jet and a German Air
Force (Luftwaff) Tu-154 transport jet on 13 September 1997 over the Namibian
coast is an evident proof of the serious problem of this uncontrolled and “do-it-
yourself” ATC in the African sky. Finally, in some other countries where
English-only is mandated, the policy is often not enforced: pilots and controllers
are in fact allowed to interact in another more familiar language. As a
consequence, because of this attitude, other pilots in the airspace are not always
able to listen in and gain situational awareness.
16
Hunter, M. & O'Brien, K., Aviation communications seminar, Seminar conducted at the
Women in Aviation International Conference, Nashville, TN, March 2002.
24
Certainly, the choice of English as standard Language recommended in
International communications in aviation was essentially strategic. The United
States held economic, military, political and cultural power all over the world
and they were large scale producers of aircraft as well. It thus made sense to
recommend English as the standard language that would be used by all the
countries involved in aviation around the globe.
However, even if English has been widespread in international travel for a
long time, such recommendations did not imply any mandatory use by any
global organisation. This meant that it was for a long time just a language by
default, not by official requirement.
17
Besides, it is also undeniable that even Anglophone pilots can themselves
often experience cognitive difficulties with English due to their dialects and to
the homonyms and homophones of English which may easily generate false
concepts in their minds.
Nonetheless, it seems worthy to highlight that in recent decades there have been
considerable attempts to refine English use and to make it as simple and as
pragmatic as possible in order to reduce the possibility of misunderstandings in
sending and receiving messages. Since English has been for so long widespread
all over different countries so that so many accents and terminological and
structural varieties have derived, any kind of potential ambiguity in international
Air Transport Operations must be absolutely avoided. Hence the need to
standardise terminology and phrasing of English by creating the a single and ad
hoc code to be used in aviation, the “ Air Speak”.
18
As David Crystal affirms in his work “ English as a global language”,
The arguments in favour of a single language of air traffic control are
obvious”. It is safer if all pilots understand all conversations. Pilots
17
Cfr. Crystal, David (2003)
18
Typical features and phraseologies of Air Speak will be widely dealt with in Chapter II.
25
who have a two-way radio are required to keep a listening watch at all
times on the appropriate frequency. They listen not only to messages
addressed to themselves, but also to messages being sent to and from
other pilots in their neighbourhood. Furthermore, if they hear an error
in someone else’s conversation, they can draw attention to it. If more
than one language is being used, the risk of breakdown in
communication inevitably increases.
19
Recently, several studies have shown that even if on the one hand it is true
that deficient English in terms of poor pronunciation, fluency and appropriate
terminology could easily affect efficiency of communication, on the other hand,
communication by the use of a standard code and phraseologies may actually
contribute to more effective interactions, particularly in emergency situations .
Since the Chicago Convention over 180 nations have adopted the
recommendation of the ICAO regarding the use of English in aviation in order to
try to overcome communication problems in international flight operations.
Anyway, even if the consequent creation of a standard code such as “Air Speak”
for flight and operative communications was a quite simple step to take, the main
problem has arisen from the evident difficulty in persuading subjects involved in
this kind of operation to comply with it by completely abandoning the use of
common and everyday linguistic practices. Aviation literature
(Varantola, 1989
20
; Nordwall, 1997
21
; Feldman, 1998; Mathews, 2001
22
; and
19
Cfr. Crystal, David (2003), p. 108
20
Varantola, K. , “Natural language vs. purpose-built languages: The human factor”, in
Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 90(2), p.173-183, 1989.
21
Nordwall, BD , “FAA: English ATC standards needed”, in Aviation Week & Space
Technology, 147(13), p. 46-51, September 29, 1997.
22
Mathews, E., “Provisions for proficiency in common aviation language to be strengthened”,
in ICAO Journal, 56(3), 2001, p.24-26,41.
26
Verhaegen, 2001
23
) has indeed repeatedly reported that – particularly in
emergency situations - air traffic communications quite often deviate from
standard phraseology towards a more conversational style.
24
This is, of course, a
slightly more sensitive issue.
For this reason, besides calling for a more strict and exclusive use of
standardised phraseologies, some authorities agree that in case of failure to use
“Air Speak”, an acceptable level of English proficiency must be at least
considered as fundamental.
According to Shannon Uplinger
25
, knowledge of a specialized
terminology such as that of Air Navigation is indeed more easily assimilated
when the other aspects of the language such as the principles at the basis of word
formation and sentence structure have been already acquired. As a consequence,
teaching and testing the knowledge of aviation terminology with the help of lists
of term simply means that the controllers are turned into parrots and they are
more likely to be handicapped when confronted with exceptional or stressful
flight situations, whereas people who are proficient in the English language
would know exactly how to use it effectively in a range of contexts. A
proficiency beyond the basic understanding of English which includes familiarity
of other varieties of English is then proposed.
23
Verhaegen, B., “Safety issues related to language use have come under scrutiny”, in ICAO
Journal, 56(2), p.15-17, 30, 2001.
24
Campbell-Laird, Kitty, “The Aviation English Debate: WE or ESP in the Air?” Abstract
submission for IAWE: 17-20 October, 2002, Purdue University.
25
Shannon Uplinger is president of Uplinger Translation Services, which provides translations,
interpretations and glossary support to aviation. She is a famous American language consultant
and has provided language support to government organizations and companies for over 20
years. She previously served as a training manager for the U.S. Air Force, where she was
responsible for management of language programs.
Ricevi informazioni sui nostri servizi, sulle offerte e non perdere news e consigli su università e lavoro.