What is the best

rate of speeCh foR

safe, efficient R/t
communication?
RATE OF SPEECH

aUgUst 2023
contents
purpose / background 03

methodology 04

considerations 05

respondents (first language) 06

respondents (professions) 07

results (overall) 08

results (ns vs nns) 09

results (professions) 10 Interpretation / findings 15

for discussion / further research 16

16
comments - ‘100 wpm’ 11

comments - ‘it depends’ 12 limitations of this study 17

comments - ‘not the only factor’ 13 further information 18

comments - ‘ideas’ 14 appendix a (questionnaire) 19

Purpose
‘What Rate of speech do you Recommend foR global safe, efficient Radiotelephony?’

icao curreNTly recommeNDS ThaT We SPeak aT 100 words Per miNuTe (aND more SloWly if We kNoW ThaT The

oTher PerSoN iS WriTiNg DoWN The iNformaTioN).thiS reSearch aimS To DeTermiNe if The aviaTioN commuNiTy

believeS ThiS iS The oPTimal raTe of SPeech.

Background
aN icao revieW of 28,000 iNciDeNT / acciDeNT rePorTS fouND ThaT commuNicaTioN WaS a facTor iN over 70% of
aviaTioN iNciDeNTS aND acciDeNTS.

the SPeeD aT Which We SPeak iS a key comPoNeNT of Safe, efficieNT R/t commuNicaTioN:

if We SPeak Too quickly TheN The PoTeNTial for miSuNDerSTaNDiNg iNcreaSeS.

if We SPeak Too SloWly TheN We riSk Traffic coNgeSTioN aND DelayS.

methodology
piloTS, coNTrollerS aND oTher aviaTioN PerSoNNel Were iNviTeD To comPleTe
aN oNliNe queSTioNNaire. a full coPy of The queSTioNNaire iS coNTaiNeD iN
appendix a aT The eND of ThiS rePorT.

the queSTioNNaire WaS oNly ProviDeD iN The eNgliSh laNguage aND WaS
oPeN To rePlieS from 23 July - 17 auguST 2023.

iNviTaTioNS Were SeNT by email aS Well aS DiSTribuTeD by Social meDia.

ReSPoNDeNTS Were eNcourageD To Share The queSTioNNaire WiTh Their frieNDS,
colleagueS aND ProfeSSioNal NeTWorkS. no reWarDS or iNceNTiveS Were offereD for
comPleTiNg The queSTioNNaire.

aS Well aS mulTiPle choice queSTioNS, reSPoNDeNTS Were alSo able To leave commeNTS.

all queSTioNS Were maNDaTory WiTh The

excePTioN of Name / email aDDreSS Which Were
oPTioNal.

the queSTioNNaire iNcluDeD a viDeo (here) of The

Same TraNSmiSSioN beiNg DelivereD aT 100, 150,
200 aND 250 WorDS Per miNuTe
considerations
before makiNg Their choice abouT The beST raTe of SPeech, reSPoNDeNTS
Were aSkeD To coNSiDer The folloWiNg PoiNTS:

1. We WaNT To avoiD 'say again' aS much aS PoSSible aND Try To geT iT

righT The firST Time.
2. We are NoT aSkiNg WhaT iS The beST raTe of SPeech for you PerSoNally.
the queSTioN iS WhaT iS The beST raTe of SPeech for The global aviation
community.
3. for The PurPoSeS of ThiS exerciSe, leT uS aSSume ThaT We coNTiNue WiTh The
curreNT icao guiDaNce of a single recommended rate of speech (for everyoNe,
everyWhere, iN every SiTuaTioN).
4. Remember ThaT globally, arouND 75% of pilots / controllers do not have english as
their first language. 'oPeraTioNal level 4’ iS The curreNT requireD miNimum level of
laNguage ProficieNcy.
5. commuNicaTioN iS TyPically over the radio, WiTh No viSual clueS aND SomeTimeS WiTh
backgrouND NoiSe aND DiSTorTioN.
6. Cognitive load: PiloTS aND coNTrollerS are TyPically DoiNg oTher ThiNgS aT The Same Time aS They
are commuNicaTiNg over The raDio.
7. oNe of The reaSoNS eNgliSh iS uSeD aS The commoN laNguage of iNTerNaTioNal aviaTioN iS So
ThaT everyoNe (oN The Same raDio frequeNcy) caN uNDerSTaND WhaT iS goiNg oN (To SuPPorT
situational awareness).
respondents

numBer of resPondents: 785

52 different first 92 countries

languages
respondents Primary Profession
in aviation (n=785)

21%
controllers

8%
other

64%
7%
Pilots
language
specialists
results (n=785)

‘‘What Rate of speech do you Recommend foR global safe, efficient Radiotelephony?’
hoW reSPoNDeNTS voTeD overall:

Less than 100 words per minute 1.0 % of respondents

100 wpm 25.6 %

150wpm 60.4%

200 wpm 10.4 %

250 wpm 0.3 %

other 2.3 %
results comPare The reSulTS of native english speaking reSPoNDeNTS
WiTh ThoSe of non-native english speaking reSPoNDeNTS:

‘What Rate of speech do you Recommend foR global safe, efficient Radiotelephony?’

70%

60%

50%
NATIVE ENGLISH
SPEAKERS (n=65)
40%

NON-NATIVE ENGLISH
30% SPEAKERS (n=720)

20%

10%

0%
<100 wpm 100 wpm 150 wpm 200 wpm 250 wpm other
results comPare The reSulTS by The profession of The reSPoNDeNTS:

‘What Rate of speech do you Recommend foR global safe, efficient Radiotelephony?’

70%

60%

50%

40%
CONTROLLERS
PILOTS
LANGUAGE SPECIALISTS
30%
OTHERS

20%

10%

0%
<100 WPM 100 WPM 150 WPM 200 WPM 250 WPM other
 comments: 100 wpm - the current Standard
i think 100 is just too slow. it SoundS
laboured and Simply occupieS exceSSiVe airtime,
particularly when operating at or cloSe to capacity.
i perSonally think
that eVen 100
wpm it'S Slow, it'S
the best option.
in-
re q u ireS a m iS
aS icao el 4, 150 wpm id
leV Vo
imum S t S p e ed to a
we
the Slo
rS t a n d ing be-
miSund
e
o rd s could b
00 w ctu-
should be better cauSe 1 a n d could a
ow
too sl o miSunder-
lower than 100 dt ,
ally lea i n a d ynamic
wpm g
Standin cy Situation
en
emerg
i know that recommenda-
tion is 100 wpm, but if we i think 100 words is suffi-
speak at that rate, some cient for all considerations,
aircraft will be in from the pilot who may
holding, waiting for their have to write down a new
turn to have opportunity to authorization, to the ter-
speak with atc.
minal controller who has to
manage many arrivals even
if the weather is bad.
More than 100 WPM has more risk
than benefit, especially in air
spaces where English is not native
The 100 words per minute as
recommended by ICAO does have
its drawbacks and can create
doubt in the mind of the listener.
Hesitancy and a distorted flow
In many busy airports in seems to at times create doubt
us, taxi instructions are
and confusion in the listeners
complicated and radio fre-
e quency is congested due mind.
traffic. therefore it is not
feasible or desirable to
have slow rate of speech .
100 wpm or less is the best
rate for understanding radio
communications. Communica-
as level 4 is the tions have to be more simple
minimum recom- for everyone so flying in other
mended, i think that countries will be not a problem
100 wpm is
enough
100 wpm: non-native speakers
need more time to decipher the
speech flow they hear in case of
distortions or other problems
 150 wpm would be sufficient in
comments: it dependS on the Situation commercial flights with a larger
communication system. considering
smaller and lower altitude aircrafts,
100 wpm is best due to noise control

150 at normal situation,

any abnormality or
If you were und
er bad weather, emergency 200
have turbulence you
, and your dest
airport is closed ination
, many aircraft
ing and you are is hold- 150 for standard
close to getting
min. fuel requir y our situations and 100 for
ed to proceed to Maybe 10% less than
alternate airpo your non standard
rt,that is a lot co
load on the pilo g n itive 100 words per minute
ts and controlle
in those situati rs, and in emergency
ons, everyone
pressure, every is under situations
one is getting e
and is so easy xciting
to change from
words to 250 w 100
ords per minute
more. The ind or
ustry should wo
prove human n rk to im-
on-technical sk whIle I am comfortable wIth the 150 wpm will be good if
ills
150 wpm, In an emergency crItIcal radio connection is
InformatIon needs to be crystal poor, 200 wpm with
clear to the receIver, so I would 5by5 radio quality
recommend 100 wpm
if two talkers are
native speakers, it
will be faster. if two
talkers are from
different countries
The rate of speaking is function of:
with strong
accent,one of 1) msg is only within two subjects and not of interest for
speakers needs to others ... if they are mother tongue you can speed up.
take notes or it's on a 2) msg is of importance also for other station in order to
complex situation , it achieve situational awareness.....150/min should be a good rate
will be slower.
 what makeS moSt
comments: rate of Speech iS not the only factor probably the uSe of
“Say again” iS the in-
correct uSe of the lan-
guage forgetting the
power of the Standard
breaking down long communic- phraSeology.
the girl Speaking had perfect ationS into manageable chunkS
pronunciation and there waS little (no) iS alSo required
background noiSe / diStortion. alSo i
r-
waS ready for the tranSmiSSion – theSe p o te n ti a l miSunde
a
ctor iS a
kindS of tranSmiSSionS (unuSual / emer- Standing fa hraSeology
french and spaniSh conVerSationS tp
gency etc.) do come without warning – different r rtain
between pilotS and controllerS are often e uk on ce
hence my Vote of 100. uSed in th
done in their mother languageS. what ScenarioS,
operating po-
eVer our effortS are in Slowing or increaS- ld lead to a
which cou g
ing rate of wording… Situation awareneSS a l m iS u n derStandin
tenti
in spain and france will be reduced
being able to make some until they Start uSing engliSh.
short pauses between
critical terms is also a
dominant factor. so it’s
more a matter of rhythm the main problem iS when a natiVe
than speed. engliSh Speaker iS aSSuming that i am Sure that not only Speech
the other Side “knowS” aS much rate, but alSo accent and intona-
engliSh aS the natiVe one and when tion properly deliVered contribute
pauSeS and chunking there iS an abnormal Situation they for a Safe radio communication!
language are the crucial Start to Speak really faSt.
elementS, rather than
Speed per Se.

more StandardiSation with

clear, distinct pronunciation accent neutraliSation will alSo Phrasal verbs and
is more important factor “to slang expressions
get it right at the first time”
go a long way to improVe
communicationS should be avoided
than the speed of speaking
 today, thanks to digitalisation,
comments: ideaS to improVe the current Situation atcs could easily know whom
they're talking to and so could
adapt their rate of speech to
the receiver.

ple
a r e to o many peo
if there io, atc co
n-
th e r a d at current traffic growth levels, the icao
talking in t in crease the the main problem
u ld n o recommended rate of speech is no longer
troller sho h in order to give is to understand
eec realistic as it leads to slow clearance de-
rate of sp v e r y body but that the radio is
s to e livery and frequency congestion.
clearance p e n a differ
ent to listen and not
o u ld o to speak
they sh w ith another
t io n
radio sta c y in order not
to
u e n
radio freq what people constantly forget - or choose to
owded.
be overcr ignore - is that situational awareness is
threatened, if other pilots don't understand what verBal
what's happening around them! a specific communication
sample of a pilot/atc exchange may seem too
will there Be for
"slow" to some, but other non-native speakers on
frequency might struggle if the rate per minute a.i. flight deck
her
there must be some ot was increased, just to suit one specific crew. management in
ion
means of communicat future? new
available e.g. texting technologies and
automation of
Passing and
sadly hard exchanging
ly any aVia
l authority h tion
in a rea , it's aS deVelop information
on effectiVe c ed
situati ommunic should Be
lt to channels ation
difficu a fixed where aVia develoPed
mainta
in can Send c torS
despite the icao recom- i'd say omplaintS
rate, so hould SuggeStio ,
mendation, it is very common es nS or ideaS
the rat rval of improVe a to
to find native english speak- te Viation Safe
be an in and efficie
ncy.
ty
ing atcs speaking very fast 180-220
interPretation / findings

1) <1% of respondents recommended a rate slower than 100 wPm

2) 86% recommended a rate of 100 wPm or 150 wPm
3) <0.5% recommended a rate aBove 200 wpm
4) fewer non-native english speakers recommended 200 wPm than native english
speakers (9% VS 22%)
5) more non-native english speakers recommended 150 wPm than native english
speakers (61% VS 48%)
6) there are other factors which influence safe, efficient communications (e.g.
short messages, pausing, pronunciation, not switching between different
languages, etc.)
7) there is little difference in the views of controllers, pilots and language
specialists about the optimal speed
8) many respondents commented that the recommended rate should change a)
according to the situation (e.g. routine / non routine), b) whether or not the
message is potentially of interest to others on the frequency, c) who is
involved (e.g. native / non-native english speaker)

15
for discussion / further research

1) communication is a factor in 70% of incidents / accidents. can we not do Better?

2) what evidence / rationale did icao use to recommend a maximum rate of 100 wpm?
3) the current icao recommendation of 100 wpm is significantly slower than the rate
used in practice. why is this? is it problematic?
4) is 100 wpm too slow? is it is potentially dangerous?
5) should icao change the recommended rate?
6) should icao provide different recommendations, depending on the situation?
7) are there circumstances where transmissions between two native english sPeakers
can be faster?
8) should transmissions during emergency situations be slower or faster?
9) how can we train people (especially native english speakers) to slow their rate of
speech and become better communicators?
10) are there currently sufficient channels to allow people to comPlain / make
suggestions about r/t communication?
11) what is the industry’s plan for controller-Pilot data link communication (cpdlc)?
12) are other technologies (including artificial intelligence) being explored /
implemented?
13) is there an industry ‘vision’ for the future of safe, efficient r/t ?

16
limitations of this study

1) the respondents heard the same recording delivered at 4 different speeds

(from 250 wpm to 100 wpm). this means that familiarity / understanding will have
increased, possibly skewing the results (in favour of a higher rate of speech).

2) ideally 4 different recordings (of equal difficulty) would have been used.
however, determining ‘equal difficulty’ was considered problematic.

3) the recordings were long (by ‘real life’ standards) - conveying differences in
rate of speech with much shorter recordings was considered more
challenging.

4) the female speaker of the recordings has very clear pronunciation /

enunciation (perhaps clearer than in many ‘real life’ situations).

5) the respondents were not asked to do other tasks while listening to the
recordings, possibly skewing the results (in favour of a higher rate of speech)

6) only 65 of the respondents (~8%) were native english speakers

17
further
information

Paul stevens

ceo, mayflower college

paul@maycoll.co.uk
www.maycoll.co.uk | www.sayagainengliSh.com

2023 - mayflower college ltd

appendix a - questionnaire

1/4
2/4
3/4
 VIDEO

4/4