Safe Radiotelephony Demands Good Discipline From All Pilots And Controllers

Language is an imperfect medium for communication, but with greater awareness of basic linguistic principles, operating personnel can be motivated to adhere more closely to standard phraseology in all air-ground radio exchanges, thus enhancing safety.

After a number of major accident investigations highlighted a lack of English Language proficiency among flight crews and air traffic controllers, ICAO resolved in 1998 to take steps to ensure that personnel involved in operations requiring use of English are proficient in conducting radiotelephony communications in this language.

Language provisions are currently being developed with the assistance of an ICAO study group known as PRICESG - Proficiency Requirements in Common English Study Group. Aviation and linguistic experts from several countries and international participate in this group's work.

Early in its deliberations, PRICE study Group confirmed that statements first incorporated in ICAO Annex 10, Volume 11, 50 years ago are still relevant today. As stated in Annex 10, ''the universal availability of at least one medium of radiotelephone communication is important both for safety and efficiency in international air navigation. "Moreover, Annex 10 indicates that "the lack of a language common to the aircrew and the ground station could lead to an accident."

At the same time, however, the study group saw that it was valid to retain the language normally used by the station on the ground into the foreseeable future.

The study group recommendations and subsequent Secretariat proposals to the ICAO Air Navigation Commission (ANC) would establish a minimum level of language proficiency and testing requirements. They would make aircraft operators and ATS providers responsible for ensuring that their personnel meet the required level of language proficiency. Furthermore, the use of two languages - that of the station on the ground plus English upon request - would be elevated to a standard from a recommended practice.

In developing a standard for language proficiency, the Secretariat has opted for a scale of proficiencies described in terms of language "behaviours". Such a scale can serve the purposes of both testing and education. There are five defined levels ranging from "no proficiency" to "execute proficiency", and the required level of proficiency is described as level 4, or "operational level".

As long as radiotelephony communications may be conducted in the language of the ground facility, a prescribed level of proficiency in the English language alone would fail to improve communication overall. Clearly, regulations must apply for all languages used in radiotelephony. Thus, the proficiency requirement and scale have been developed with native and non-native speakers in mind, and can be applied to any language, not just English.

As States have different circumstances and needs, the ICAO study group preferred that States have the options of using a prepared test or developing their own testing material. To facilitate development of systems for testing language proficiency, guidance material will be developed by ICAO. Other aspects to be covered by future guidance material include the use of the language proficiency rating scale and development of efficient and effective aviation language training programmes. The guidance material also will stress the importance of adherence to ICAO phraseology, disciplined radiotelephony techniques, and basic linguistic principles, including cross-cultural communication requirements.

The efforts of the study group are beginning. The improvement of radiotelephony communications to a higher level of safety is no small matter, and requires widespread cooperation and continuing, concerted effort, particularly from practicing controllers and flight crew. In particular, it is vital that both native and non-native speakers conform more closely to existing provisions, particularly the standard phraseology so carefully and painstakingly developed over the last 50 years. The communication of operational information is critical and requires accuracy of content and exact delivery, hence the careful development of standard phraseology. Language is not, however, ideally suited to transmission of precise information because it is fundamentally symbolic - that is, its words and phrases are representative of the objects and concepts described. This quality becomes more problematic when communication involves non-native speakers. Understanding this principle, and why conformity with standardized phraseology is so important, is essential.

A   semantic   barrier   exists   in   all   language exchanges that can seriously compromise the communication process. Not all listeners take the same meaning from the use of a word, phrase or expression because people filter words through different belief systems, knowledge, cultural acquaintances   and   life   experiences.   Word meanings, therefore, are subjective. It is helpful, in coming to terms with the inexactitude of language, to reflect on the significance of words being no more than representations of the things they describe. Not being the things themselves, they may mean - and frequently do mean - different things to the speaker and the listener.

Communication is most understood to be a means of reference to an unambiguous object, but communication also conveys a strong sense of relationship. Studies have shown communication to be very sensitive to social rank. Communication that is sensitive in this regard facilitates smooth interaction between crews and controllers. Communication that is

not so sensitive may be less effective.

The manner in which the aircraft commander exerts authority on the flight deck will greatly influence the flow and coherency of flight deck communication. If this person is overbearing or dictatorial or, alternatively, allows the command function to be blurred, inferential elements of communication may be inappropriate and overall communication impaired. Care needs to be taken in establishing, then observing, what is known as the "trans-cockpit authority gradient" while ensuring that the operational integrity of cockpit dialogue is in no way compromised. Similarly, air traffic control (ATC) centres have their own staff authority profiles, and communication between controllers within the centres is affected by it. While crews and controllers need to be mindful of the authority within their respective workplaces and the impact they may have on the efficacy of their internal communication, still greater difficulties may arise in radiotelephony conducted between them. This is because the authority gradient between controllers and pilots is neither as clearly defined nor as constant in all situations as within either the cockpit or the control room.

It is well known that teamwork among operational personnel depends on positive relationships. More particularly, building effective terms requires an appreciation of how timing, phrasing, intonation and non-verbal aspects of communication influence group dynamics. It is scarcely surprising that when the job becomes stressful and, say, fatigue intrudes or some concerns arise about unserviceable equipment or the effect of worsening weather, radiotelephony communication may not always reflect intent. When communication is degraded, efficiency declines.

Message content is not the only means of conveying sense in communication. Because language is a semiotic system (i.e. a set of representative symbols) it is able to convey various meaning at different levels or times. Consider, for example, how interpersonal exchanges can be influenced by mood. The speech delivery of an individual riding high on confidence can be smooth and articulate. By way of contrast, strongly negative attitudes and emotions can result in ineffective communication.

Radio message exchange is hampered by being devoid of many communication prompts. In face-to-face communication, body language speaks volumes. According to studies, body language conveys about 55 percent of message significance, words themselves only 7 percent. Tone of voice accounts for the other 38 percent. Radio communication, of course, is devoid of body language and electronically modulated voices rob speech of expression.

Consider how an established context can lend interpretation to messages. Presumably, no pilot would misunderstand a tower directive to "clear the runway". If, however, this transmission were heard by a snow plough operation monitoring the frequency, an altogether different activity to that expected might occur (ICAO standardized phraseology is "vacate the runway").

Predisposition, expectation and anticipation can add to, take away from, and distort the intention of the speaker. Many pilots will have had the conditioning experience of being repeatedly cleared to a certain flight level at a descent point along a certain route, only to 'hear' the anticipated clearance when, in reality, the controller has assigned something different Similarly, many air traffic controllers will have experienced "hearing" the readback of an expected flight level only to realize on tape playback that in fact the pilot read back a different level altogether. Such idiosyncrasies of communication cause daily misunderstandings in casual conversations and business transactions. The results are variously amusing, embarrassing and, sometimes, costly. In the context of aviation radiotelephony, however, they are a threat to safety. In urgent circumstances, or when the communicants are suffering from fatigue or other impairments, the results can be deadly.

There is yet another aspect of linguistic nuances that needs to be understood. This has to do with the difficulty implicit in communication in a non-native language, a phenomenon known as "code switching". This resembles the well-known Freudian slip, an uncontrolled moment of verbal expression never consciously intended. When under stress and communicating in a non-native language, speakers tend to revert to their native language. It takes a high level of proficiency or strong self-discipline to continue speech in a non-native language when under stress, but even then something of a reversion may occur in the grammatical construction. The outcome of code switching, which may be difficult to recognize, can be confusion and contradiction. What's worse, the statement may make perfect sense to the listener but may not reflect the meaning intended.

It is difficult enough for non-native speakers to enunciate English words and put them in proper English grammatical context, even in everyday conversation. It is much more difficult for foreign flight crews to communicate properly when under pressure, especially in an emergency. This difficulty can lead to mis-communication and compromise safety. In cross-cultural communication, even if conducted in a single language, there is a critical need to guard against confusion by being scrupulous in observing standard phraseology and proper radiotelephony techniques.

That said, studies of pilot and controller communications reveal an astonishingly low rate of error. Analysis of voice tapes reveals that less than 1 percent of communications are compromised by inaccuracy. This low error rate is a tribute to today's pilots and controllers, all the more so when congestion on the frequency puts orderly radio management practices under severe pressure. No doubt this remarkable efficiency is attributable to high levels of knowledge, skill and care. Still, the degree of conformity with standard phraseology could stand improvement. Sometimes, especially among local operators, there is a level of familiarity that presumes idiomatic comprehension. While such exchanges heighten camaraderie, non-standardized and careless communication also denigrate situational awareness among other users on the same frequency.

The problem of careless communication can be addressed at little expenses or time. The optimum strategy is not to prescribe regulations or threaten operational personnel with disciplinary action; rather, it is to appeal to the innate responsibility of every controller and pilot. This is probably best done by impressing on all the simple truth that language is an imperfect medium which lends itself to sensible misinterpretation (i.e. the wrong meaning is easily conveyed while the transmission retains perfectly good sense). For this, air-ground communications require the utmost care and discipline.

In communicating this message to both non-native and native English speakers, the cooperation of airlines and State authorities is needed. With an understanding of basic linguistic principles, radiotelephony uses can then be motivated to adhere more closely to standard phraseology and, when this is not possible, to take special care with enunciation, intonation, vocabulary and message content. This strategy will be most effective in curtailing colloquialisms in radiotelephony. There will then be fewer instances of controllers and pilots wondering whether they should transmit "say again" and fewer incidents if they do not.