Masaryk University

Faculty of Arts

Department of English
and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Kateřina Krejčíková

Miscommunication Between Non-native

Speakers in ATC Communication
Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: doc. Mgr., Jan Chovanec, Ph. D.

2019
 I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently,
using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

……………………………………………..
Author’s signature
I would like to thank my supervisor, doc. Mgr. Jan Chovanec, Phd. for his guidance and
helpfulness.
I would also like to thank my colleagues at APP Praha for their kind support and help.
Table of Contents
List of abbreviations
Introduction......................................................................................................................................................... 1
1. The role of Air Traffic Control .............................................................................................................. 4
2. English as a language of aviation .......................................................................................................... 7
2.1. The role of language in ATC communication ..................................................................................... 7
2.2. ICAO Standard phraseology ............................................................................................................... 9
2.2.1. Spelling alphabet ....................................................................................................................... 11
2.2.2. Transmission of numbers ........................................................................................................... 12
2.3. Plain language ................................................................................................................................... 13
3. Types of miscommunication ................................................................................................................ 17
3.1. Accent ............................................................................................................................................... 17
3.2. Ambiguity ......................................................................................................................................... 18
3.3. Code-switching and multilingualism ................................................................................................ 19
3.4. Homophony ....................................................................................................................................... 24
3.5. Pronunciation .................................................................................................................................... 27
3.6. Expectancy ........................................................................................................................................ 27
4. The most common errors in miscommunication between non-native speakers ................................... 30
5. The most common errors in miscommunication between native speakers .......................................... 32
6. Language proficiency .......................................................................................................................... 36
6.1. ICAO Language Proficiency Requirements ...................................................................................... 36
6.2. English language testing of non-native speakers............................................................................... 37
6.3. Language testing of native speakers .................................................................................................. 39
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................ 41
Appendices ....................................................................................................................................................... 44
Appendix A: A transcript of the Tenerife collision ...................................................................................... 44
Appendix B: ICAO Spelling alphabet .......................................................................................................... 45
Appendix C: ICAO Numbers chart .............................................................................................................. 46
Appendix D: ICAO Language proficiency scale .......................................................................................... 47
Appendix E: Transcript of Avianca Flight 052, January 25, 1990. .............................................................. 48
Works cited ....................................................................................................................................................... 49
Résumé ............................................................................................................................................................. 53
Resumé ............................................................................................................................................................. 54
List of abbreviations

AIP - Aeronautical Information Publication

ANS - Air Navigation Services

APP - Approach Control Station/Approach Control Service

ATC - Air Traffic Control

ATCO - Air Traffic Controller

ATS - Air Traffic Services

CTR - Control Zone

FIR - Flight Information Region

IATA - International Air Transport Association

LPRs - Language Proficiency Requirements

PANS - Procedures for Air Navigation Services

SARPs - Standard and Recommended Practices

TMA - Terminal Area Control

 Conversation of two controllers in APP Praha:

ATCO 1: “Pavel, they should retest your English, nobody understands you.”

ATCO 2: “I gave them clear instructions.”

ATCO 1: “But you have to say them in English.”

Introduction
About 100.000 flights is operated every day worldwide (“About ICAO”). That

means the same amount of interactions takes place between pilots and Air Traffic Control

(ATC). For the sake of safety, effective communication between pilots and controllers is

vital. In order to be highly effective, the air-ground communications must be unambiguous

and as concise as possible. For that reason, standard phraseology as a specific aviation code

has been introduced to ensure the effectiveness of ATC communication. The language of

ATC communication is English which has been established as an aviation language.

Nevertheless, since aviation is international by nature, many of these pilot - controller

interactions are conveyed by non-native English speakers as well as native speakers of

many varieties of English. When standard phraseology does not suffice, plain language is to

be used instead. To ensure that non-native speakers are able to use the plain English

appropriately and to fulfill high standards of ATC communication, a proper language

proficiency is imperative. Therefore, English language proficiency is essential for an exact

and correct ATC communication in order to support and ensure aviation safety.

Language failure has played a big role as a contributory factor in many aviation

incidents and accidents1. As will be shown further, beside technical issues, language related

1
An accident is defined as an occurrence in which a person is fatally or seriously injured. An incident is
defined as an occurrence that can affect the safety of aircraft operation (Annex 13 ch. 1).

1
incidents are still among the main factors of incidents in aviation. Based on accident

investigations, ICAO recognizes three main language factors contributing to aviation

accidents: “an incorrect use of standardized phraseologies, lack of plain language

proficiency and the use of more than one language in the same airspace” (Doc 9835

Manual of ICAO Language Proficiency Requirements 1-1, sec. 1.2.2).

Despite a continual improvement in the language testing and development of

aviation phraseology and terminology2, miscommunication between pilots and controllers

is still a continuous contributing factor to numerous aviation accidents and incidents.

Miscommunication in ATC can be either result of human factors or linguistic factors such

as homophony or accent, or other language-related errors. To avoid possible

miscommunication, these factors must be recognized as a possible threat to aviation safety

and treated adequately.

This thesis deals specifically with language-related communication issues and the

linguistic categories represented here create the conceptual framework of this work. The

main scope of this thesis are language difficulties among non-native speakers. However,

communication errors of native speakers are analyzed as well, since miscommunication

usually results from communication errors made by both groups.

In this thesis, a partly ethnographic method including observations and informal

data collection have been used. As an employee of the Air Navigation Services of the

Czech Republic, I have had the opportunity to gain some insight into the job of a controller

as well as to gather some of their experience with language related problems that I have

also used in this work. The first two chapters provide information about the aims and

2
Terminology in a sense of a set of specifically defined words for use in aviation. Phraseology is
meant in a sense of standard phrases.

2
responsibility of air navigation services and the role of English as a language of aviation.

The third chapter analyzes the most common types of communication faults in

radiotelephony using examples of aviation incidents and accidents. The fourth and fifth

chapter summarizes the main communication errors among native and non-native speakers

of English. The last chapter mentions the language proficiency requirements for controllers

as well as the language tests and training. However, I have decided to mention only courses

and tests aimed at controllers’ language proficiency, its assessment, and language training.

3
1. The role of Air Traffic Control
According to ICAO Annex 11 Air Traffic Services, air traffic services are supposed

to:

a. prevent collisions between aircraft;

b. prevent collisions between aircraft on the manoeuvring area and obstructions

on that area;

c. expedite and maintain an orderly flow of air traffic;

d. provide advice and information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of

flights;

e. notify appropriate organizations regarding aircraft in need of search and

rescue aid, and assist such organizations as required. (2-1, sec. 2.2)

ATS are provided by respective air traffic control units and each of these ATC units has its

responsibility for the control of all aircraft within its respective airspace. By maintaining a

safe distance between aircraft, navigating, providing information service and transferring

aircraft to other control units, the work of ATC is crucial in ensuring a safe flight

performance.

The Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP)3 of the Czech Republic states the

authority responsible for providing ATS in FIR Praha (except military airspace and

aerodromes and VFR aerodromes) which is Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic.

ANS is therefore the main provider of air traffic services (at the aerodromes of Praha, Brno,

3
Every country issues its own set of rules that are based on ICAO annexes and recommendations but are also
adjusted for the requirements of each country.

4
Karlovy Vary and Ostrava (all Czech international civil aerodromes), their respective

TMAs4 and en-route airspace (GEN 3.3-1).

While ATC is responsible for a safe vectoring5 of aircraft from an apron stand to a

runway and then final destination, according to the definition of pilot’s duties in Annex 11,

a pilot-in-command is responsible for safe conduct of a flight (1-5, ch. 1). Under the terms

of the Czech regulations, namely document Předpis L2, states that the aircraft must

“comply with published procedures and ATC instructions” (3-4, sec. 3.2.5c). The pilot is

therefore responsible for safe aircraft operation, providing information to ATC and

compliance with ATC instructions. For instance, the pilot´s understanding of the

controller´s instruction is demonstrated by a so-called ´read-back´. Read-back means that

the flight crew “shall read back in a manner to clearly indicate that they have been

understood and will be complied with” (Annex 11 3-4, sec. 3.7.3.1.1). The read-back serves

for ensuring that the pilot has understood the instructions of ATC. In an air-ground

interaction, the role of pilot is obviously not merely recipient. The information that pilots

transmit must be precise and exact, especially in emergency situations or on congested

frequencies.

Both pilots and controllers commonly work under great pressure. However,

controller must deal with many aircraft at the same time, so the exchange of information

between pilot and controller must be brief. As was mentioned above, to save the controllers

of excessive time on frequencies and relieve them, as well as pilots, of extra workload,

ICAO standard phraseology is used. It provides its users a quick and effective way of

communicating with prescribed words and phrases in order to ensure effective

4
A designated part of airspace surrounding an airport and its vicinity.
5
Vectoring means a navigational guidance to aircraft based on the use of radar

5
communications and reduce misunderstandings. Sentences in phraseology are in prescribed

sequence and usually short and in “imperative or passive” (Doc 9835 3-4, sec. 3.3.10) form.

Controllers must also coordinate with other controllers in adjacent sectors, domestic

or foreign. They also must comply with the economical factor; a so-called flow

management. Other factors that controller has to take into account when vectoring aircraft

are weather conditions, airspace warnings or restricted airspace, or the (non)availability of

radio navigation aids. All of these factors are important in their decision making process.

They are required to abide by the procedures as well as they need to show a flexibility

when responding to unexpected situations to which they need to find a solution. Frequently,

usually under a time pressure, controllers need to reach a workable, although often not the

most perfect decision. In such circumstances together with dense traffic, there is a limited

time to register or correct errors. As was mentioned earlier, the pilot-controller interaction

is a command oriented communication, so a big burden lies on controllers since he or she

issues instructions which the pilot acknowledges. Beside that, McMillan claims that the

instructions issued by controllers “are not to be merely understood,” (22) but also meant “as

a means of achieving a certain mode of behaviour from the pilot” (22). Since it is the

controllers who have a full picture of the air traffic situation, pilots completely rely on them

and therefore must also act upon their instructions. According to Wilson, researchers

evaluated 28,000 incident reports submitted by pilots and air traffic controllers to the U.S.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Aviation Safety Reporting System

(ASRS). They found that more than 70 percent of the reported problems were linguistically

related. “Among linguistic problems were ambiguous phraseology, misperceived messages

caused by phonetic similarities or garbled phraseology” (Wilson). Correct communication

and accuracy of comprehension is therefore vital.

6
2. English as a language of aviation

2.1 The role of language in ATC communication

In pilot-controller communications, language functions as a fundamental means of

successful communication. Moreover, what McMillan says “The system’s safety is reliant

upon verbal communication” (22). Although English language has been used as an aviation

language since 1951, it is not mandatory. Even though ICAO sets up rules for air-ground

communication6 as well as for language to be used in radiotelephony communication, the

participants of the radiotelephony communications can choose a language in which they

want to speak. Annex 10 - Aeronautical Communications, chapter 5 states that “the air-

ground radiotelephony communications shall be conducted in the language normally used

by the station on the ground or in the English language.” (5-3, sec. 5.2.1.2.1). It furthermore

notes that “English language shall be available, on request from any aircraft station, at all

stations on the ground [...] (5-3, sec. 5.2.1.2.2). So, even though English must be provided,

the actual language being used can be any that is agreed upon by ATC and an aircraft. This

option is unfortunately being taken advantage of as some countries tend to use their native

language too often. It is quite common to hear other languages on frequencies beside the

English language. Depending on the country, it is possible to hear French, Mandarin or

Spanish. For instance, French pilots and controllers tend to speak to each other in French

although there are non-French speaking crews on the same frequencies7. Such multilingual

communications complicate the pilot’s situational awareness, potentially giving rise to

miscommunication and may then affect a safe execution of flight.

6
Air-ground communication in a sense of a two-way communication between an aircraft and stations on the
ground
7
Personal communication

7
 Bieswanger recognizes standardised phraseology and plain aviation English as two

aviation variations of a specialized register. In his paper, Bieswanger declares that these

two variations of aviation English are ”distinct specialised” (67). Crystal calls aviation

phraseology an “airspeak” (109). According to Alderson, aviation English is a very

restrictive, context dependent code language that can be seen as “a highly restricted register

associated with distinctive probabilities of discourse functions and choice of lexis and

grammar” (169). Such context-dependent register makes sense only to those who are

familiar with the context. Beside written communication, used in maintenance documents

or manuals, in a so-called “simplified English” (Shawcross qtd. in Alderson 169),

radiotelephony communication that takes place between pilots and air traffic controllers is

very domain specific as it requires brief and clear information so the communication

between pilot and controller is precise and unambiguous. For that purpose, ICAO has

implemented standard phraseology contained in Annex 10, vol. II and Document 9432 -

Manual of Radiotelephony in compliance with ICAO Standards and Recommended

Practices (SARPs) and Procedures for Air Navigation Services (PANS) in order to “further

improve aviation successful safety performance while maintaining a high level of capacity

and efficiency” (“ICAO”). Standard phrases are usually very short and come in a prescribed

order so that they are not time-consuming but at the same time effectual in order to reduce

ambiguities and therefore a possibility for misunderstandings. Wyss-Bühlmann calls

standard phraseology a “concise linguistic system for radiotelephony” (51) that is widely

known as “airspeak” (51). Beside standard phraseology that has been developed for most of

the air-ground radiotelephony communications, the use of plain English is also allowed. In

order to ensure an efficient pilot - ATC communication between non-native speakers of

English pilots and controllers, ICAO member states also contract to comply with

8
requirements for English language proficiency for pilots and traffic controllers. Barbiery

gives an example of inappropriate use of colloquial English and almost a lack of language

proficiency on a Polish LOT flight during its approach to Heathrow airport (619). The

flight crew lost their flight information in their computer and needed vectoring from ATC,

but was unable to respond to simple instructions. Due to time pressure and an excessive

workload during the final approach, they even confused left and right (619). The crew

failed to use standard phraseology as well as adequate common language due to their poor

language proficiency. Consequently, the changes in radiotelephony communication were

implemented as well as an increased emphasis was placed on using standardized ATC

phraseology by both pilots and controllers (“Aviation Knowledge”).

2.2. ICAO Standard phraseology

The specific requirements for radiotelephony communication used by pilots and

ATC for “ensuring uniformity” (Doc 9432 Manual of Radiotelephony 3-1, sec. 3.1.1) have

been developed by ICAO into Standard Phraseology and are laid down in Document 9432

Manual of Radiotelephony. The purpose was to “provide efficient, clear, concise, and

unambiguous communications” (Manual of Radiotelephony iii) that are focused on and

developed solely for communication needs in aviation. Due to standard phraseology that

covers most of the routine pilot-controller communications (and situations), these air-

ground communications can be brief and unambiguous. To avoid the ambiguity, it is very

limited in vocabulary, and all terms, except a few, have their own specific meaning. This

limitation, “along with the standardized format and syntax of ATC language, is designed

for both brevity and clarity” (McMillan 27). This may sound as quite a contradiction, but to

9
those who are familiar with the context and rules for using this “formalized code”

(Document 9835 3-4), it makes sense.

The Czech regulations state that standard aviation phraseology and terminology

must be abided by all aviation personnel communicating over radiotelephony (Předpis L i).

Nevertheless, this is not always the case in radio communication. A study by IATA found

that the use of non-standard or ambiguous phraseology by ATC was the biggest

communication issue for 2,070 airline pilots surveyed (Said 59). To conform to the rules of

standard phraseology is vital, as it serves to reduce miscommunication while ensuring

effectiveness in communications. Naturally, minor communication errors do happen,

however, they are also detected and immediately corrected. For instance, pilots sometimes

read back an incorrect flight level or mispronounce a name of a waypoint as he or she is not

familiar with the Czech airspace. There is also a golden rule of aviation: if you are not sure,

verify. Confirmation is significant in aviation since can detect possible errors. McMillan

also suggests that more enquiries from controllers as well as pilots mean less uncertainties

and errors (22). Indeed, due to time pressure and especially on congested frequencies, more

inquiries are time consuming, however, they can also prevent a miscommunication that

could lead to conflicting situation.

Beside effectiveness, another reason why the aviation phraseology is standardized is

to ensure a comprehensible language for all users of airspace as many of them speak

different languages and one means of communication is crucial. The guidelines for

transmitting techniques state, for instance, that there should be no voice intonation

(Document 9432 Manual on Radiotelephony 2-1) or, as was mentioned above, question

sentence structure. To imply a question, the word ‘confirm’ is used. For the sake of brevity,

even “the use of courtesies should be avoided” (Doc 9432 3-1, sec. 3.1.4), however,

10
greetings can be heard on frequencies when the time allows. In the following table, some of

the standard words and phrases from the Doc 9432 are presented that “shall be used in

radiotelephony communications as appropriate and shall have the meaning ascribed

hereunder”:

Acknowledge ‘Let me know that you have received and acknowledged this message.’

Affirm ‘Yes.’

Cleared ‘Authorised to proceed under the conditions specified.’

Disregard ‘Ignore.’

Negative ‘No’ or ‘Permission not granted’ or ‘That is not correct’ or ‘Not capable.’

Request ‘I should like to know’ or ‘I wish to obtain.’

Stand by ‘Wait and I will call you.’

Table 1 (Manual on Radiotelephony 2-6, sec. 2.6).

For the purpose of safety, the formation of this specific set of terms is that a particular

meaning is assigned to a single and intelligible word. Otherwise, some words could be

easily confused with other words with different, or even complete opposite meaning. For

instance, a word ‘no’ could be confused with ‘go’. Also, with the predefined meaning for

each word, each message (instruction, request or confirmation) can remain in indicative or

imperative structure. The standard terms are quite short or not excessively long, which

saves time on frequency, but at the same time remain effective.

2.2.1. Spelling alphabet

Word spelling has its own specific set of rules as well. ICAO Annex 10 sets out the

rules for word spelling over radiotelephony, “when proper names, service abbreviations and

words of which the spelling is doubtful are spelled out in radiotelephony the alphabet [...]

shall be used“ (5-3, sec. 5.2.1.3). With regards to pronunciation it also notes that “in order

11
to eliminate wide variations in pronunciation, posters illustrating the desired pronunciation

are available from ICAO” (5-3, sec. 5.2.1.3). Today’s version of international aviation

alphabet is adopted from NATO phonetic alphabet with modifications made by IATA8. The

alphabet has been modified throughout the years so it is comprehensible internationally and

was made effective in 1951 (“THE NATO”)9.

2.2.2. Transmission of numbers

When transmitted over the radio, numbers can also be mispronounced, misheard or

misinterpreted, so to avoid confusion with each other, they also have their own specific

pronunciation. Annex 10, vol. II sets out common rules for their pronunciation and manner

in which they must be transmitted. For instance, in order to avoid ambiguity or homophony,

each digit must be pronounced separately as, for example, in the instruction ‘climb to one

two hundred feet’ or ‘climb to flight level two two zero’. Numbers 5 and 9, for instance, are

given a different pronunciation as they are easy to be mixed in radio communications. The

number 5 is to be pronounced as “fife” and number 9 as “niner”. Number 3 is to be

pronounced as “tree” (Annex 10 Aeronautical Communications 5-3, sec. 5.2.1.4.1)10. The

reason for this specific pronunciation is simply clarity and to avoid misunderstanding.

It has been suggested by researchers that the possibility of confusion of numbers is

augmented when too many numbers are given in a single transmission (Cushing, Fatal 53).

The same observation has been made by the controllers in APP Praha. According to their

experience, numbers, that get mixed the most, are those including heading, flight level or

8
IATA - International Air Transport Association
9
See the ICAO phonetic alphabet in Appendix B.
10
See the ICAO chart of phonetic pronunciation of numbers in Appendix D.

12
speed information which are frequently transmitted together in one transmission11. To bring

more clarity and intelligibility to transmitted messages, instructions should not be too

‘crammed’ with too much information.

2.3. Plain language

Standardized phraseology has been designed for most of the routine radio

communications and few emergency phrases do exist for some non-routine or emergency

situations as well, however, many situations are unpredictable, and standard phraseology is

then insufficient to cover all of the possible scenarios. In such cases, especially in

emergency situations, plain language is likely to be used by pilots or controllers12. Annex

10 states that “when standardized phraseology cannot serve an intended transmission, a

plain language shall be used” (5-1, vol. II, sec. 5.1.1.1) to prevent possible

miscommunication and in a manner that all expressions are “clear and brief” (Předpis L i).

Document 9835 defines plain language as “the spontaneous, creative and non-coded use of

a given natural language” (x). However, it should also be used relevant and as brief and

concise as possible while in order to “obtain and provide information, resolve

misunderstandings and ensure the pilot’s confidence in the service provided” (3-6, sec.

3.3.20). Uplinger argues that a good knowledge of phraseology or specialized terminology

cannot prevent radiotelephony miscommunication. Even though much of the

communication regards only numbers, letters or one-word commands, mere command of

phraseology and terminology is insufficient. A number of aviation accidents were cases of

improper use of phraseology as well as insufficient language proficiency, because when

11
Personal communication
12
Personal communication

13
under severe stress, both pilots and controllers failed to use phraseology and ‘slipped’ into

plain English. In such cases standard phraseology is insufficient and the language

proficiency proves to be vital in radio communications. McMillan gives an example of the

crash of American Airlines flight 965 in Columbia. Due to failure of some navigation

systems, the pilots were working under great pressure as they were about to start a descent

to Cali. This critical phase of flight demands a great concentration. However, the crew got

distracted with the navigation systems and got under a severe stress. With the excessive

workload, the pilot of American Airlines failed to use standard phraseology and instead

used plain and too colloquial English. The Columbian controller later complained that he

did not have adequate English skills to resolve the situation of the crew which led to the

fatal accident that killed all 160 people onboard (McMillan 29). Also, other communication

problems regarding the controller’s wrong confirmation later led to misinterpretation of

both the controller and the cockpit crew. For instance, in the controller´s clearance to fly

over a waypoint called Tulua, a word ‘via’ was omitted (Simon 7) which led to ambiguity

whether the crew should have overflown the waypoint or just to fly by it13. The follow up

investigation report recommended to “develop [...] a program to enhance controllers’

fluency in common English-language phrases and interaction skills sufficient to assist pilots

in obtaining situational awareness about critical features of the airspace [...]” (“Aviation

Safety”). Another report concluded that “insufficient language ability played a role in the

crew’s and controller’s understanding” (Simon 26), and that the controller’s inability to

communicate that some of the crew’s requests and confirmation were not correct (26). The

miscommunications between the pilot and controller were a result of using non-standard,

13
That is, to fly near, but not over the waypoint

14
ambiguous phraseology and insufficient common language. The plain language used by

both of them was not clear and unambiguous which led to a series of misunderstandings

between them.

When using plain English, sentences should be, at least, “syntactically simple”

(Wyss-Bühlmann 64) as they should not occupy too much time on a frequency. The

structure of sentences should not lead to a lack of clarity. Yet, the compliance of the plain

language with brevity should be preserved. From the experience of an APP controller, the

use of plain English or non-standard phrases is more common at airports, in TMAs, or

when flying en-route.14. In the movement area15 of an airport, there is a bigger possibility of

unanticipated conversations between pilots and ATC and also usually more time to ‘spend’

on frequencies. The controller positions that are exposed to unexpected conversations the

most are the positions of ground controller and clearance delivery dispatcher16. The

position of clearance delivery gives initial clearance to a departing aircraft together with

other post departure procedures such as initial heading and altitude. Often, other

information beside the standard procedures must be communicated such as a need for

medical assistance or the necessity to talk to the crew´s airline operations centre17. The

position of ground controller who is responsible for aircraft on the movement area of an

airport, from push back to the runway holding point, must also often use plain English to

deal with pilots’ demands18.

14
Personal communication
15
Movement area is a part of an aerodrome to be used for the take-off, landing and taxiing of aircraft (Annex
2 Rules of the Air 1-5, ch. 1).
16
Personal communication
17
Personal communication
18
Often, the controller must advise the pilot of obstacles on runways or taxiways. Similarly, pilots specify
technical problems to which the controller must adequately answer.

15
 If the use of plain language is officially allowed and even recommended under

certain circumstances, the importance of enhancing language proficiency of pilots and

controllers is therefore crucial. “Plain language can be thought of as non phraseology

language used when standard phraseology is not appropriate. Teaching and testing

standardized phraseology is “an operational issue, not a language proficiency issue.” (Doc

9835 6-6, 6.2.8.6). Good language proficiency allows the participants of the

communication to clearly and precisely express themselves which is vital for efficient ATC

communications.

There are also cases, as Hamzah and Fei point out, that the plain English is often

used even when there is no necessity to do so (211). Federal Aviation Administration’s19

document regarding the phraseology used by flight service personnel notes that a message

first communicated by phraseology can be rephrased to ensure it is understood. “Good

judgment shall be exercised when using non-standard phraseology” (1-2-3, sec. 1.2.5 g).

While using the ‘good judgment’ can be tricky for native speakers, it is even more difficult

for the non-native speakers of English. The language proficiency of non-native speakers is

therefore crucial.

19
FAA is an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation

16
 A tower controller informing a pilot about his slot time 20: “Sir, I have good news, your slut has been

cancelled!”

After few “ehms” and “oohs” the pilot replies: “Very well, good to know and thanks for the

information!”

- Praha Ruzyně control tower to a British Airlines´ pilot

3. Types of miscommunication

3.1. Accent

Nearly all the information that are exchanged between pilots and controllers are

verbal. Since the aviation industry is global, ATC communication is de facto multicultural

and multilingual experience where various Englishes can be heard every day. What can

then cause or contribute to miscommunication problems are many regional dialects,

English varieties or, as Suarez calls it, a “foreign accent” (15). This kind of accent

originates “from the difference in pronunciation of a language by native and non-native

speakers” (16) and when communicated through radio, it can distort even standard words or

phrases. Pilots or controllers then have difficulties with understanding each other which can

lead to misunderstandings. Corrections of these errors are also time consuming which

consequently leads to stress and possible loss of concentration (Clark 45).

Based on the IATA research project, Clark gives results from the project survey

involving pilot having difficulties with controllers’ accents that occurred in Bangkok, Paris,

Toulouse, Delhi, Cairo, and Barcelona. The data show that the accent affected

communication during all phases of flight and also contributed to readback and hearback

errors. Also pilots’ accents were analyzed and it has been concluded that

20
An allocated time interval in which an aircraft can depart

17
miscommunication due to accent caused a loss of separation21 in Compton or a conflicting

pushback clearance in Glasgow or even airspace infringement. Clark concludes that accent

is evidently a contributing factor in miscommunication which can threaten safety (44).

Borowska suggests that teaching pilots and controllers to be aware of intonation or

pronunciation in a foreign language could ‘decipher’ a distorted transmissions caused by

accent (Borowska 15). Language courses and trainings should encompass this linguistic

factor and both native and non-native speakers should be, then, trained and prepared to

many varieties of English they could, and most probably will, encounter in their jobs.

3.2. Ambiguity

An ambiguity in ATC communication occurs when “information transmitted by

radio communication can be understood in a different way to that intended” (Job qtd. in

McMillan 4). Ambiguous terminology can result in serious accidents such as the Air Inter

Flight 148 that crashed in France during winter in 1992 and killed 87 people. The follow-up

investigation concluded that “less-than-optimum” (McMillan 41) phraseology was used22,

both by the crew and the controller that led to ambiguity and subsequently to

miscommunication which was one of the causal factors (41). So far the worst rated aviation

accident is the aircraft collision at Tenerife airport in which 583 people died. Due to

sequence of events, landing American Pan Am collided with the departing Dutch KLM

right on the runway during a thick fog. The KLM captain, unaware of the landing Pan Am,

misinterpreted the controller’s instructions about procedures after take-off with actual

21
A designated minimal vertical and horizontal distance between aircraft
22
The captain´s answer (instead of a standard readback) to the controller´s instruction to fly over a wayspoint
ANDLO was: “ANDLO, now they are starting to mess me about” meaning that he did not intend to fly over
that waypoint which he had later actually missed. The aircraft not fixating to this waypoint actually triggered
a set of other procedure errors that led to a collision with a mouintan.

18
clearance for take-off. Multiple factors contributed to the collision, however, a key

contributing factor was the miscommunication between the Spanish-speaking controller

and the Dutch-speaking captain whose utterance of a non-standard phrase ‘at take-off’ was

misunderstood by the controller. White the KLM captain meant that he was about to take

off, the controller understood it as the aircraft was only waiting at take-off position23.

According to Tajima, the key communication problem was caused by code-mixing when

the Dutch captain switched into his native language grammar while keeping the English

words, which created a completely different meaning (460). Cushing rates it among

accidents caused by ambiguity due to non-standard phrases (Fatal 10). Therefore, the

adherence to standard phraseology should be followed and enforced. It can be argued that

expectancy was a contributing factor as well. The take-off clearance had not been issued,

however, when the controller had advised him of the procedures after the take-off, the pilot

of KLM expected that they were actually cleared for take-off.

3.3. Code-switching and multilingualism

Due to the large amount of flights that are being operated internationally, non-

English speaking flight crews as well as controllers comprise a big part of the

communications exchanged on frequencies. Such multilingual environment creates a

chance for communicating in the speaker’s mother tongue. Such switching between

languages or codes, is called ‘code-switching´ (Crystal). Code-switching is quite common

and can be often heard in countries where English is not a first language. Borowska talks

about “multilingual aviation communication” (11) or even “multilingual chatter” (15) over

23
See the full transcript of the communication in Appendix A

19
the radio, since the multilingualism on frequencies (or inside cockpits) is quite common.

While in many other work fields speaking more languages is highly valued as a desired

skill, such rule does not apply to aviation where prescribed terminology and standard

phraseology are supposed to create a unified and universal aviation language for efficient

communication. Single language is highly significant for controllers as well as for pilots

who can then monitor the traffic around them and increase their situational awareness.

Situational awareness means creating a mental picture of the current traffic situation.

According to McMillan, it is also referred to as “having” or possibly “losing the picture”

(12). A pilot´s situational awareness can be increased by listening the other pilots on the

same frequency. In a study conducted by Eurocontrol, this ´listening watch´ is

recommended:

With radiotelephony, each control centre is assigned a different radio frequency. This

creates a communicative network called ´party-line´, where all aircraft can listen to

all verbal exchanges with the control centre while only one pilot can speak with the

controller at any given moment. This allows the pilots to monitor all the messages

exchanged and so to collect more information about the traffic situation and to update

their mental representation. (“Task” 3)

According to Cummins, multilinguals are able to manage more “cognitively

demanding tasks such as abstract thinking and problem solving” (qtd. in Lazar). However,

in the aviation environment which places a great demand on multitasking abilities, constant

switching between languages or codes can shift the focus away on other, less important

things (McMillan 27) Also, the speaker’s brain ‘deactivates’ the language that is not being

used in that moment. When ‘switching-off’ the other language, executive control functions

such as working memory which causes a better concentration and multitasking abilities

20
(Cummins qtd. in Lazar). This statement suggests that, while doing more tasks at the same

time, a brain focuses better when using a single language. Estival gives an example of

switching between codes while performing a military flight. A military air traffic controller

was working on a joint exercise with New Zealand and French forces. The French liaison

used a direct translation of ´6 heures´, when he asked if the controller would allow a

helicopter to fly over 6 hours. What the French liaison meant was to fly over your 6 o´clock

(19).

A simulation study of bilingual ATC communication (in English and French) was

conducted by Communications Simulation Studies which revealed more frequent errors in

communications when speaking bilingually (McMillan 31). Also the pilots’ listening watch

was observed. Out of 97 errors, 32 were “detected by pilots listening on the frequency”

(31). This result implies that a bigger possibility of catching an error exists when all pilots

on the same frequency use the same language/overhear other pilots. ATC procedures were

then recommended for modifications in which a single language was recommended.

Cummings has the same observation, saying that bilinguals have “a reduced memory

capacity” (23) in their second language. Generally, switching back and forth between

languages or codes is in direct contradiction with aviation communication rules where

language uniformity is the main requirement.

Ironically, ICAO Document 9835 comments on its own Annex 10 which defines the

language to be used in radiotelephony communications that:

In addition to code-switching phenomena, compliance with Annex 10, Volume II,

5.2.1.2.1, leads, in many parts of the world, to the creation of a bilingual environment

in which controllers alternate between their local (usually native) language and the

English language, while pilots may choose which of the available languages to use.

21
 In these environments, pilots who are proficient only in the English language may be

unable to take into account exchanges taking place in the local language with other

aircraft in the same airspace. (3.3.22)

The pilot’s option to choose a language can therefore paradoxically put native English

speakers or non-native speakers with high proficiency level at a disadvantage since the

ATC communications can take place in other languages than English. Consequently, code-

switching has even officially been recognized by ICAO as a “risky communicative

behavior” (Borowska 13). Unfortunately, according to Borowska, multilingualism in the

aviation context has not been treated properly and it needs more research (12).

It could be argued that multilingual speakers have wider vocabulary and therefore

could be more flexible in communications. However, the adequate knowledge of English

language is imperative. Cushing provides an example of how switching between languages

can be hazardous on the crash of Avianca flight in 1990 in New York (Fatal 44). The

conversation obtained from the cockpit recorder showed that the pilots were talking to each

other only in Spanish. The first officer who was on the tower frequency was talking to the

controller in English. Although the captain told the first officer to declare an emergency to

the controller, the first officer never did that. He only informed the controller they were

running out of fuel24. First, the crew failed to declare an emergency. To declare an

emergency is crucial because it alerts controllers that they need to initiate emergency

procedures, such as giving priority to the aircraft in distress. Second, the first officer´s

constant switching between Spanish and English resulted in informing the controller they

were running out of fuel instead of declaring an emergency (Borowska 14). Cushing also

24
See the full scenario in Appendix E.

22
comments on this case that “the proper degree of urgency was not conveyed to the

controller” (Fatal 44). Speaking in mother tongue is certainly more convenient, however,

switching back and forth between languages leads to vagueness and can lead to hazardous

situations.

Also, since all ICAO member states must comply with ICAO language

requirements and English must be provided at all ground stations, pilots’ or controllers’

poor English proficiency should not be tolerated. There are even locations, such as China or

Japan, where foreign speaking pilots learn basic local words and phrases to understand so

that they can be sure in their communications with controllers (Borowska 15). While this

might be an advantage for the sake of safety, English proficiency training for both ATC and

pilots must be provided and properly assessed by every civil authority of each ICAO

contracting state. The possible positive effect of multilingualism could, at the most, serve

“efficiently only to multilingual native English speakers who would get a ‘broader, more

global perspective’” (Roitman qtd. in Borowska 18).

In aviation, code switching can also take place even when speakers talk the same

language (McMillan 42). This happens when switching between phraseology and plain

English occurs. But in ATC communications, there should be no overlap of these ‘codes’.

Such code-switching occurred in the accident California in 1981. Air California Flight 336

was cleared to land while another aircraft, Air California Flight 931, was cleared to taxi

into position for take-off. The controller told the Flight 336 captain to go-around to gain

more time between the landing of the first aircraft and the departure of the latter. But, the

pilot of the Flight 336 wanted to continue landing, so he used a standard term ‘hold’ to

express the continuation. However, the controller, unaware of the pilot´s switching from

aviation English to plain English, let him continue the flight believing that the pilot would

23
comply with his instruction to go around25 (Cushing, Fatal 11). This mistake was

fortunately recognized and promptly resolved and the possible collision was avoided. The

problem with switching between the plain language and phraseology in this case is that

´hold´ in general English means ´keep what you are doing´, while in phraseology it means

´stop what you are doing´. This case ‘only’ led to 34 injuries and a destroyed aircraft

(Cushing “Pilot” 3). This inadequate use of ordinary English caused a complete opposite of

the request and could have possibly led to a collision of the two aircraft. The similar call-

signs also contributed to the confusion (Cushing “Pilot” 3).

3.4. Homophony

Since the communication between pilot and controller is mainly voice based, the

verbal communication does not depend only on the vocabulary, but also on pronunciation.

Homophones are words that are pronounced the same but with different meaning and

spelling (Crystal). In aviation, homophones can be very tricky and quite dangerous. Ripley

argues that “things such as homophony, punctuation, and intonation can greatly impact

communications” (qtd. in Lesniczek 188). English language, as any other language, has its

irregularities that contribute to its complexity.

Estival and Molesworth demonstrate a homophony confusion in a real pilot - ATC

radiotelephony transmission transcript from Sydney airport that, in this time, caused only a

humorous confusion:

JNB: Bankstown Tower. Juliet November Bravo, 2RN inbound with alpha.

25
´Hold´ in aviation English means to stay in the air, on a so-called holding pattern.

24
 Tower: Juliet November Bravo. Bankstown Tower. Follow a Cherokee26

turning downwind.

JNB: Looking for traffic. Juliet November Bravo. Unable to locate the

turkey.

Tower: (silence)

Juliet November Bravo. Preceding traffic is in your 2 o’clock and it is

a white and blue CHE-RO-KEE. Report sighted.

JNB: Traffic sighted. Sighted Cherokee. (356)

While this confusion caused no dangerous incident, other phonetic confusions might be less

humorous and with more serious consequences. In another example of a homophony, pilot

heard his instructor say ‘Last of the power’ meaning to reduce power, while the instructor

actually said ‘Blast of the power’ meaning to increase the power. Not only was the meaning

different, it was a complete opposite which could have resulted in crash.

Phonetic confusions between a number ‘two’ and a preposition ‘to’ or ‘four’ and

‘for' are also common and has already caused a fatal accident. Such was a case of

Malaysian flight in 1989 on final approach to Subang Airport. The flight crew

misinterpreted controller’s instruction to descend ‘two four zero zero’ (meaning 2,400 feet)

for 400 feet and consequently crashed into a hillside (Cushing, Fatal 14). Confusing of

these two homophones had occurred in many miscommunications over radio, and phrases

regarding an assignment of altitude or flight level have been altered and entered in ICAO

annexes as well as in a Czech annex regarding phraseology27. When giving instructions

clearance for descent or climb, the phrase ‘flight level’ is always mentioned and inserted

26
Piper Cherokee - a type of light aircraft
27
In an annex Předpis L Frazeologie

25
between the preposition and the actual number. Therefore, the full phrase shall be ‘descend

to flight level two four zero zero’ which reduces the possible confusion.

The following table (see table 2) shows common homophones (and homographs) in

aviation terminology:

Table 2

Homophones Homographs

Brake / Break Content (accept) / Content (things inside)

One / Won Refuse (disagree) / Refuse (rubbish)

Two / To Close (shut) / Close (near)

Missed / Mist Right (direction) / Right (correct)

Right / Write

Hear / Here

Plane/Plain

Source: “Communication: Linguistic Factors (OGHFA BN)”. Skybrary, 2 May, 2016.

www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Communication:_Linguistic_Factors_(OGHFA_BN)

Cushing (Fatal 20) mentions another homophony mistake due to phonetic

similarity. A clearance for ‘a Maspeth climb’ which is a navigational fix in New York

airspace was misheard by pilot as a ‘massive climb’. The pilot did not know the local

airspace and the similar pronunciation caused misinterpretation.

26
3.5. Pronunciation

Homophony closely relates to pronunciation. Poor pronunciation can affect the

meaning of intended transmission and lead to miscommunication. To overcome the

tendency to use the pronuncation features on one’s native language seems to be a trouble

for some non-native speakers of English. Suarez claims that “native language causes

'interference' in the person's efforts to pick up the new language” (14). Some non-native

speakers are so influenced by their native language, they forget to use English spelling at

all. For instance, Spanish speakers tend to use Spanish pronunciation with the English one.

The word ‘roger’28, phonetically pronounced as [‘rɒdʒə], came from one of the crew as

[‘royer]29. Fortunately, the popularity of this word together with the context suggested the

actual meaning.

Pronunciation might be a problem when plain English is used. The following

example shows a misunderstanding between two controllers discussing a clearance for an

aircraft. The first ATCO uttered ‘I’ll let you know’, which the second ATCO understood as

‘let him go’ (Estival 357). While the first controller did not issue any clearance, the other

controller understood it that way. The subtle nuances in pronunciation can be interpreted

oppositely.

3.6. Expectancy

Since most of the communication between pilot and controller is given by

prescribed phraseology, both the pilot and the controller expect much of the

communication. Expectancy may reduce the mental workload of a controller or pilot

28
Confirmation meaning “I have received all of your last transmission.” (Annex 10, vol. II).
29
Personal communication

27
(McMillan 21), but at the same time such expectations together with high traffic, frequency

noise or distraction can create a chance for miscommunication. Estival found out that the

unexpected information was a mutual cause of misunderstanding for both pilots and

controllers (365).

High workload, or information overload together with noise can cause expectation

errors. Such was the case of a Lufthansa aircraft at Heathrow. The pilot was waiting for the

take-off clearance, and it was second ‘in line’ right after a preceding aircraft. That day, a

specific instruction (regarding an amended SID30) was passed to all aircraft before take-off

clearance; the same instruction was given to the first aircraft which was then issued a

clearance to take-off. After the amended SID and the instruction to line-up had been issued,

the Lufthansa aircraft took off. After the take-off, however, the crew noticed another

aircraft crossing the runway which the pilot commented to ATC that letting an aircraft to

cross the runway while giving them take-off clearance was not a good idea. The controller

advised them that no take-off clearance had been issued. The crew of the Lufthansa aircraft

just expected the take-off clearance after they were issued the amended SID as the aircraft

before them (McMillan 21).

Expectancy errors may be very dangerous, particularly in non-standard situations.

When the communication is poor, the expectancy arises (McMillan 21). Consequently,

when pilots or controllers hear what they expect to hear instead of what is said, and that can

be dangerous even when using prescribed phraseology. What McMillan suggests is that

even proper phraseology cannot prevent expectation errors if controllers neglect to ensure

the pilot’s compliance with their instructions (21). Yet controller’s responsibility extends

30
SID - Standard Instrument Departure - a predefined departure route after an aircraft’s take-off

28
only to listening pilot’s readback. According to APP controllers, it is not a controller’s

responsibility to check if the pilots do what they are told to do31.

31
Personal communication

29
4. The most common errors in miscommunication between non-native speakers

More accents create more English variations and therefore a potential risk for

communication misunderstanding as well (“Air Traffic” 13-1-2). In a noisy and stressful

environment, non-native English speaking pilots can have a language disadvantage despite

the prescribed terminology and standard phraseology or skilled language proficiency

(Estival and Molesworth 373). Simultaneously, due to many accents of the speakers,

controllers may have difficulties recognizing pilots’ readbacks or requests as well as pilots

can misheard controller’s instructions. While a standard phraseology and terminology can

be acquired by anyone, good command of English is obviously a disadvantage for non-

native speakers. That again confirms that mere command of proper phraseology without

language proficiency is insufficient and it should be insisted upon the language proficiency

in all circumstances.

One of the worst mid-air collisions happened in India in 1996 in which poor English

skills were ascribed as one of the causes of the collision. The Russian-speaking crew of the

Kazakh Ilyushin did not follow the instructions given by Indian controller who advised him

of an opposite traffic. The investigation report confirmed lack of communication skills

which resulted in the collision with Saudi Arabian Airlines and killed all 349 people

onboard (Tajima 455, McMillan 28). This case shows that even though limited English

does not have to be the main factor, it considerably contributes to the threat of aviation

safety.

Despite the interconnectedness of aviation and English language, fundamental flaws

in English proficiency can still be present. Another example shows a complete absence of

basic vocabulary and that even a basic phrasal verb can be strange for some non-native

30
English speakers. A pilot of a commercial aircraft at a Chinese airport in 1993 had lost

altitude during the phase of final approach. The altitude was too low to reach the runway. A

warning sign saying ‘pull up’ illuminated which was supposed to alert the pilot that the

aircraft had not had enough altitude and that he should take action. Unfortunately, the

Chinese crew did not understand the phrase and the aircraft crashed right before the

landing, killing 12 people. The cockpit recorder revealed the pilot’s last words when he

asked: “What does ‘pull up, pull up’ mean?” (Tajima 456). The pilot had only a few

seconds to avoid the collision. As it may sound unbelievable, the pilot’s lack of English

vocabulary prevented him from taking appropriate action which could have saved lives.

A study led by Estival that investigated radio communication difficulties for non-

native speakers of English revealed that besides noise in the cockpit (a so-called ‘white

noise’), the non-native speakers struggled with native speakers’ intonations (363). Their

study also revealed that what caused the miscomprehension on the part of the non-native

speakers (in this case pilots) was mostly lack of adherence to phraseology by native English

speaking controllers and their fast-paced instructions. The comprehension difficulties for

native speakers (both controllers and pilots), on the other hand, caused by non-native

speakers were attributed to accent and pronunciation (Estival and Molesworth 363). It

could be concluded then, that having appropriate language proficiency could prevent non-

native speakers from misunderstandings caused by inappropriate use of plain English or

improper use of standard phraseology.

With regards to homonyms, an analysis commissioned by the Civil Aviation

Authority of UK concluded that numbers that would not sound similar to native speakers,

would sound to non-native accented English speakers as homophones (Clark 68).

31
5. The most common errors in miscommunication between native speakers

It would be wrong to assume that the communication errors are made only by non-

native speakers of English. Among the most frequent mistakes committed by native

speakers are the use of plain English instead of standard phraseology or speaking

excessively fast.

Although native English-speaking aviation professionals are automatically awarded

level 6 ICAO status, they may also be sub-standard communicators in Aviation

English, prone to the use of non-standard terms, demonstrating impatience with non-

native speakers, and speaking excessively, and too quickly. Such native speaker

failings tend to worsen in emergency situations. (Clark 30)

Based on analysis of cockpit conversations, Alderson concludes that “native speakers of

English are not necessarily immune from poor communication, even in routine

communication” (170). He also states that native English speakers should not be

automatically assigned ICAO level 6 and instead should be tested under the same

conditions as non-native speakers (181). Estival arrives at a similar conclusion saying that

both native and non-native speakers are accountable for communication problems,

therefore all participants of ATC communications should undergo aviation tests (363).

Among the most frequent errors in communication among native speakers is

deviating from standard phraseology. According to a study conducted by IATA (among

pilots as well as controllers), the North American region was the one where non-standard

phraseology was used the most (Said 17). Similarly, McMillan arrives at the same

statement, claiming that the biggest offender of aviation rules are the USA, the world’s

largest aviation country. It is mainly due to the use of non-metric unit system, such as

32
degrees Fahrenheit, miles as well as non-adherence to standard phraseology that complicate

international communication (5). A possible explanation for this ‘habit’ could be that a

native English speaker does not have to think about proper grammar or correct

pronunciation of words when using plain English. On the other hand, while they do not

have to be partly occupied with grammar, they tend to omit standard phraseology and ‘slip’

into too colloquial English instead, especially when in distress. This was a case with the

crash of Eastern Airlines Lockheed Tristar near Miami in 1972 which killed 103 people. An

inadequate guidance from ATC controller which was caused by his improper use of

phraseology was marked as one of the active errors committed. Both the pilot and

controller were native speakers of English (“Aviation Knowledge”). Another native English

speaking pilot from Britain completely failed to use standard phraseology when declaring

an emergency because of fuel shortage. A French speaking trainee controller, however,

could not completely understand the pilot who was transmitting: “I've got an emergency.

Short on fuel - and I’m steering to the beacon on 112.3, and I’ve been told to tune on to the

IFR to get me into an airfield. I have less than 15 minutes fuel supply sir” (Estival and

Molesworth 362). The problem of this transmission does not lie only in the use of non-

standard phraseology. First, even though the pilot had declared an emergency, he used too

colloquial language. Moreover, the sequence of information was chaotic and the controller

had no time or chance to confirm the pilot’s requests. While the use of plain language is

allowed and taken into consideration, it is critical to use it appropriately and concisely.

Even though the British pilot was a native speaker, the language he used was too informal

and spontaneous with non-standard terms and phrases, and so the message was hard to

understand by a non-native speaker; in this case a trainee unaccustomed to the aviation

language and procedures.

33
 Another prevailing language factor that is attributed mainly to native speakers is

speech rate. Estival and Molesworth confirm earlier studies about the problems associated

with the rapid rate of speech of native speakers and the amount of information in one

transmission from ATC. On the basis of their analysis of survey from pilots and controllers

(both groups were either native or non-native English speakers), they point out the danger

of fast speaking and lengthy transmissions. First, it lowers the opportunity for read back

acknowledgements while at the same time it creates a possibility for pilots to miss the

instructions intended for them (Estival and Molesworth 371).

A study conducted by IATA gathered pilots’ observations about controllers often

speaking very fast due to congested traffic, together with strong accents, pilots are “afraid

of the consequences of an initial misunderstanding” (Said 31). Confusion caused by a quick

speech, often distorted with an accent, can lead to stress and excessive time spent on the

frequency to verify the instructions.

Cushing (Fatal 46) mentions another linguistic phenomenon of native speakers.

Speech intonation and the placement of pauses can also be potentially dangerous, as they

can alter original meanings. Just before landing, a flight instructor gave to a pilot an

instruction saying: ´Back (pause) on the power´. The pilot, however, heard the instructor

say ‘Back on (pause) the power’ (46) which led to an opposite action. Depending on the

position of the pause and the stress of ‘on’, the first utterance means to reduce speed

whereas what the pilot understood was to increase speed.

As has been shown, native English speakers can also fail in radio communication,

by which they are considerably contributing to miscommunications on frequencies as well.

It has also been pointed out that native speakers should not be omitted from language

testing but instead instructed how to speak slowly with better articulation. The avoidance of

34
colloquial English when not necessary and the adherence to standard phraseology and

terminology are imperative and should be insisted upon at all times.

35
6. Language proficiency

6.1. ICAO Language Proficiency Requirements

In awareness of the importance of proper knowledge of the English language used

in radiotelephony, ICAO has developed a set of requirements for general English language

proficiency of pilots and controllers. ICAO language proficiency requirements are

obligatory for all member states and are in effect since 2011. The language proficiency

requirements work on a basis of ICAO language proficiency scale which measures the

holder’s proficiency in six areas of language use in aviation context: pronunciation,

structure, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension and interactions. The scale comprises of 6

levels in which level 4 - Operational, is the minimum operational level required for

obtaining the language certificate. ICAO has also set out reassessment requirements where

level 4 is reassessed every three years, level 5 every six years and there is no further

assessment for the Expert level 6. According to Mathews, the language proficiency scale is

applicable to both native and non-native speakers, putting both groups into one category of

‘English users’ (qtd. in Mitsutomi 16).

ICAO does not directly administer the language proficiency tests, but lays out the

criteria and principles of testing in ICAO Document 9835 - Manual on the Implementation

of ICAO Language Proficiency Requirements. So far, a variety of tests have been

developed by either civil aviation authorities or aviation organizations. But, according to

Alderson, the guidelines for the implementation are quite open to interpretation and

therefore the reliability and validity (i.e. if the language tests really evaluate what they

should evaluate) of these tests are questionable (177). Even though the tests should meet

the rules and standards for language requirements established by ICAO, they do not need to

36
be constructed to be efficient. Therefore, it would be reasonable to consider consistency in

language tests or to implement unified tests. As what McMillan infers from his research, it

has still not been proved a validity or reliability of all existing tests of language proficiency

(177). Similarly, Clark concludes in her paper that a lack of research exists on aviation

language and language proficiency lessons, courses, and exams (52). So far, only the

Aviation English Language Test Service (AELTS), established by ICAO, recognizes the

language tests by evaluating the quality of the tests and the compliance with ICAO LPRs

and SARPs (“ICAO”).

Generally, the purpose of these requirements is “to ensure, as far as possible, that all

speakers have sufficient proficiency in the language used to negotiate for meaning”

(Document 9835 5-6, sec. 5.3.5). It is reasonable to assume that a complete elimination of

communication errors is not achievable. However, the compliance with standard

phraseology as well as the language requirements that should guarantee an appropriate use

of plain English, allows its users (both native and non-native speakers) to confidently

communicate with each other and be able to face possible communication errors. Also,

common requirements for the language proficiency of every ICAO member state surely

does contribute to a higher level of safety standards.

6.2. English language testing of non-native speakers

The civil aviation authorities in each country are responsible for ensuring that pilots

and controllers are, beside phraseology, properly trained in aviation English. They are also

responsible for compliance with the language proficiency requirements. The responsible

37
authority in the Czech Republic is the Civil Aviation Authority of the Czech Republic32

(Předpis L1, 1-10, sec. 1.2.9.8).

The language proficiency of air traffic controllers of the ANS of the Czech Republic

is assessed by English Language Proficiency for Aeronautical Communication (ELPAC)

for ATC which is developed in accordance with ICAO language proficiency requirements,

provided by Eurocontrol33. ELPAC testing is also recognized by ICAO SARPs. The

ELPAC ATC tests controllers’ English language proficiency at ICAO level 4 - Operational

and level 5 - Extended. The ELPAC test is aimed at the ability to switch between plain

English and phraseology. The test is structured into two parts that test listening and

speaking abilities. The first part consists of listening comprehension, the second part is

focused on oral interaction. Recurrent ELPAC testing takes place according to the language

proficiency requirements contained in the Document 9835. The evaluation is administered

by accredited persons (who may be controllers) who must pass and regularly attend an

evaluation course. In addition to ELPAC testing, Czech controllers are regularly sent to

English speaking countries (Great Britain or USA) for a month-long language course to be

sufficiently confident to use the language competently and effortlessly.

Unfortunately, as for the other language proficiency tests currently used for pilot

and controllers worldwide, the inconsistency of these tests must not exactly contribute to

the highest standards for language for aviation purposes. According to Alderson´s findings

mentioned above, the results of the quality of the tests are quite poor and “little or no

confidence can be held in the meaningfulness, reliability and validity of several of the

aviation language tests currently available” (177).

32
Ústav civilního letectví
33
EUROCONTROL, The European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation

38
 The teaching of non-native speakers and their consequential training is a constant

and strenuous attempt, therefore a proper language training and regular testing should be

actively promoted together with a constant development of language tests. As McMillan

suggests, the acquisition and use of language is a complex process that “involves learning

grammar, pronunciation, intonation and usage” (29).

6.3. Language testing of native speakers

Native speakers are excluded from language testing and automatically granted level

6 (“Task”). Nevertheless, as was mentioned above, errors in communication and improper

use of phraseology among native speakers were common cause of accidents as well.

Common problems of native speakers are that they tend to use more non-standard,

colloquial English more than non-native speakers. Therefore, language testing of English

native speakers should not be underestimated. ICAO Document 9835 states that while the

language proficiency requirements apply to both non-native and native speakers “the

burden for improved communications should not be seen as falling solely on non-native

speakers“ (5-4, sec. 5.3.1.1). Estival and Molesworth points out that a native speaker who

would score high on ELP test would not have to automatically succeed in an ‘error free’

communication (362). The same point gives the ICAO Document 9835 Manual on the

Implementation of ICAO language proficiency requirements which says that native

speakers do not necessarily need to fulfill the requirements for Expert level 6 (4-8).

However, there is no existing testing to prove that inability. Estival and Molesworth quotes

Drury and Ma who concluded that “native English speakers should be taught how to

communicate simply, slowly and precisely with their non-native English speaking

39
colleagues” (362). An optimal amount of information together with clear enunciation

should be accentuated in the possible language training as well.

To secure an adequate assessment of the language proficiency of the test takers,

either non-native or native speakers, the highest language proficiency of the examiners

should be guaranteed as well. ICAO Document 9835, however, only recommends that “the

assessment at Level 6 should be carried out by a trained and qualified rater, but not

necessarily by a language testing specialist” (6-7, sec. 6.2.8.10). The ICAO 39th assembly

that took place in 2016, highlights the necessity of “native speakers also being formally

evaluated on their abilities to use the language effectively and to manage communication

successfully” (“The Need” 1). Therefore, the same testing conditions that are constructed

for non-native speakers should be taken into consideration for native speakers as well.

Accordingly, due to unceasing linguistic communication issues, the best recommendations

and practices for reducing miscommunication between all the participants of the

radiotelephony communications, should be employed and constantly promoted.

40
Conclusion
Aviation is inextricably connected with the work of pilots and air traffic controllers

and their communications is absolutely vital. Their mutual goal and highest priority is to

achieve safety. To accomplish this fundamental requirement of aviation, pilots and

controllers must communicate efficiently.

With the continual growth of international air traffic, the problem of

miscommunication in the ATC communication is a permanent problem. With possible

collateral increase of non-native speakers among pilots and controllers in the future,

requirements for English proficiency should be always accentuated. What has been pointed

out in this thesis is that proper language proficiency is essential for clear and efficient

communication which ensures aviation safety. To keep or possibly raise the standards of

flight safety, the problems with miscommunication between pilots and controllers must be

reduced to a minimum. Yet, it must also be done in a manner that does not impact the

safety.

Some important implications have been concluded throughout this thesis. In an

attempt to try to eliminate communication errors, the aviation language must be

standardized. It has been shown that adherence to standard phraseology is fundamental as

this specific aviation communication ‘manual’ ensures an effective communications

between pilots and controllers. The use of non-standard phraseology leads to unclear and

ambiguous communications that jeopardizes safety. A development of more detailed

phraseology for some emergency or non-standard situations (such as laser attacks) could be

also considered. Depending on the country, phraseologies can slightly differ. However,

with pilots flying internationally on a daily basis, even the smallest distinctions can cause

41
confusion. In order to be robust to miscommunication, a fully standardized and harmonized

phraseology should be considered for all ICAO contracting states.

Only when standard phraseology is insufficient to communicate intended

information, plain language shall be used. It has been shown that plain language is often

improperly used when people are under a great stress or high workload. Usually, there is a

very limited time in which pilot or controller must take action. In non-standard or

emergency situations, the plain language tends to be too colloquial and informal which can

lead to ambiguous messages and even threaten safety. The importance of language

proficiency and phraseology must be always emphasized as both pilots and controllers must

be confident enough to fluently communicate in both 'languages’ in standard and non-

standard situations.

In order to overcome language difficulties resulting from different language

speakers, ICAO introduced language proficiency requirements which the pilots and

controllers must meet. Nevertheless, the so far available tests of language proficiency

should reach the same reliability and it must be considered that the consistency and validity

of testing is still in a process of development.

Another potentially dangerous language-related factor in ATC communication is

multilingualism. Multilingual communication used in radiotelephony communications has

been proved a contributing factor in many aviation accidents. The negative impact of

multilingualism and code-switching on frequencies have been shown in this work. As

Barbiary says, a common language in ATC communication is a “prima facia requirement

for a safe air transportation system” (619). Considering English as the only language in

aviation, without the option to choose, should be considered.

42
 Linguistic errors should get more attention in linguistic and aviation research as

miscommunication has been a contributing factor in many aviation incidents and accidents.

It has also been shown that native speakers are not excluded from making mistakes in

communication and should be also considered for testing.

Last but not least, more linguistic research should be plain ursued as linguistic

factors are not always treated as contributory factors in aviation incidents. Also, it must be

taken into account that the language factor is not always recognized as a contributory

factor.

The issue of language-related problems in ATC communications should not be

overlooked. Learning and knowledge of English is essential in the context of flight safety.

The adequate language proficiency of pilots and controllers as well as better English

communication skills must be pursued. The attempt to achieve errorles communications

can seem as an impossible goal. Nevertheless, striving toward this goal should be ceaseless,

so the air transportation can still remain a safe way of travel.

43
Appendices

Appendix A: A transcript of the Tenerife collision

(1) 17:05:44 KLM 4805 Captain: “The KLM four eight zero five is now ready for takeoff,

and we are waiting for our ATC clearance.”

(2) 17:05:53 Controller (Tower): “KLM four eight zero five, you are cleared to the Papa

Beacon, climb to maintain flight level niner zero, right turn after takeoff, proceed

with heading four zero until intercepting the three two five radial from Las Palmas

VOR.”

Note: These were instructions for what to do after the take-off. No take-off

clearance was issued at this point.

(3) 17:06:09 KLM 4805 Captain: “Ah, roger sir, we are cleared to Papa Beacon, flight level

(a read back of the controller’s instructions). We are now at takeoff.”

(4) 17:06:18 Controller: “OK. Stand by for takeoff. I will call you.”

Note: The preposition ‘for' was interrupted by another radio transmission. (Tajima 460)

44
 Appendix B: ICAO Spelling alphabet

Annex 10 Aeronautical Communication. 6th ed., International Civil Aviation Organization, vol. II, Oct. 2001.

45
Appendix C: ICAO Numbers chart

(Annex 10 - Aeronautical Communications 5-3, sec. 5.2.4.1)

46
 Appendix D: ICAO Language proficiency scale

Doc 9835 Manual on the Implementation of ICAO Language Proficiency Requirements. 2nd ed., International Civil

Aviation Organization, 2010.

47
 Appendix E: Transcript of Avianca Flight 052, January 25, 1990.
Pilot to copilot (in Spanish): Tell them we are in an emergency.

Copilot to controller (in English): We’re running out of fuel.

Pilot to copilot: Digale que estamos en emergencia.

Copilot to pilot: Si, señor, ya le dije.

Copilot to controller (in English): We’ll try once again. We’re running out of fuel.

Pilot to copilot (in Spanish): I don’t know what happened with the runway. I didn’t see it.

Copilot to pilot (in Spanish): I didn’t see it.

Pilot to copilot (in Spanish): [Advise the controller that] we don’t have fuel.

Copilot to controller (in English): Climb and maintain 3,000 and, ah, we’re running out of

fuel, sir.

Controller to copilot (in English): Is that fine with you and your fuel?

Copilot to controller (in English): I guess so. Thank you very much.

Borowska, Anna P. “A Multilingual Speaker in Global Aviation Communication.” Applied Linguistics Papers, vol.

25, no. 2, 2018, pp. 11-19.

48
Works cited
Aeronautical Information Publication. Řízení letového provozu ČR. 2019.

“Air Traffic Management Procedures.” management procedures CHG-12 NOVEMBER 30, 2018

PUBLISHED BY CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION AIR FORCE

COMMAND HEADQUARTERS

Alderson, J. Charles. “AIR SAFETY, LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT, AND POLICY

IMPLEMENTATION: THE CASE OF AVIATION ENGLISH.” Annual Review of

Applied Linguistics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29, 2009. Doi:

10.1017/S0267190509090138.

Annex 2 Rules of the Air. 10th ed., International Civil Aviation Organization, July 2005.

Annex 10 Aeronautical Communication. 6th ed., International Civil Aviation Organization, vol.

II, Oct. 2001.

Annex 11 Air Traffic Services. 13th ed., International Civil Aviation Organization, July 2001.

Aviation Knowledge. Aviation Knowledge. aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/

Aviation Safety Network. Flight Safety Foundation. 25 Nov. 2019.

aviationsafety.net/database/record.php?id=19890219-0

Barbiery, Brian. “AVIATION ENGLISH: HISTORY AND PEDAGOGY.” The Journal of

Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, vol. 2, no. 4, 2014, pp. 615-623.

Bieswanger, Markus. “Aviation English: Two distinct specialized registers?” Variational Text

Linguistics: Revisiting Registers in English. Edited by Christoph Schubert and Christina

Sanchez-Stockhammer, De Gruyter, 2016, pp. 67-86.

Borowska, Anna P. “A Multilingual Speaker in Global Aviation Communication.” Applied

Linguistics Papers, vol. 25, no. 2, 2018, pp. 11-19.

49
Clark, Barbara. “Aviation English Research Project: Data analysis findings and best practice

recommendations.” Civil Aviation Authority, 2017.

“Communication: Linguistic Factors (OGHFA BN)”. Skybrary, 2 May, 2016.

www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Communication:_Linguistic_Factors_(OGHFA_BN)

Cummings, Shannon Marie. “Comparison of Voice and Text ATC Communications in the

Cockpit for ESL Pilots.” Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Phd dissertation. 2013.

Cushing, Steven. Fatal words: communication clashes and aircraft crashes. Chicago, The

University of Chicago Press, 1997.

Cushing, Steven. “Pilot-Air Traffic Control Communications: It’s not (Only) What You Say, It’s

How You Say It.” Flight Safety Digest, vol. 14, no. 7, July 1995.

Crystal, David. A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Blackwell, London: Andres Deutsch,

2002.

Doc 9432 Manual of Radiotelephony. 4th ed., International Civil Aviation Organization, 2007.

Doc 9835 Manual on the Implementation of ICAO Language Proficiency Requirements. 2nd ed.,

International Civil Aviation Organization, 2010.

Estival, Dominique, et al. Aviation English: A lingua franca for pilots and air traffic controllers.

New York, Routledge, 2016.

Estival, Dominique. Molesworth, Brett. “Radio Miscommunication. EL2 Pilots in the Australian

General Aviation Environment.” Linguistics and the Human Sciences. Feb 2012.

“Task Load Caused by Frequent Sector Changes for Aircrews and Controllers State-of-the-Art.”

Europian Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation. No. 07/08, Sept. 2008.

Hamzah, Haryani. Fei, Wong. “Miscommunication in Pilot-controller Interaction”. The

Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies. Vol. 24, 2018. pp. 199-213.

10.17576/3L-2018-2404-15.

50
Lesniczek, Agata. “AVIATION ENGLISH PATTERNS OF SPEECH. A BRIEF

DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF THE AVIATION PHRASEOLOGY USED IN

ROUTINE AIR-GROUND COMMUNICATION.” Prace Naukowe Akademii im. Jana

Dlugosza w Czestochowie - Studia Neofilologiczne, 2011.

McMillan, David. “´…Say again…?´”: Miscommunications in Air Traffic Control.” Queensland

University of Technology, Oct. 1998.

Mitsutomi, Marjo. “The Critical Components of Aviation English.” University of Redlands.

“ICAO Announces Revamped Aviation Language Test Service Site.” International Civil

Aviation Organization, International Civil Aviation Organization, 4 July 2013.

www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/ICAO-announces-revamped-aviation-english-language-

test-service-site.aspx

“THE NATO PHONETIC ALPHABET - ALFA, BRAVO, CHARLIE… .´” North Atlantic

Treaty Organization. 20 Oct. 2016. www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_136216.htm

Předpis L1 Letecký předpis o způsobilosti leteckého personálu civilního letectví [Aviation Annex

regarding qualification of civil aviation personnel]. Úřad pro civilní letectví, 2006.

Předpis L2 Letecký předpis: Pravidla létání [The Rules of Flying]. Úřad pro civilní letectví,

2014.

Předpis L Frazeologie [Phraseology]. Úřad pro civilní letectví, 2006.

Said, Hanada. “Pilots and Air Traffic Controllers Phraseology Study.” International Air

Transport Association. 2011. www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety/runway-

safety/Documents/Phraseology-Report-ed-1-2011.pdf

Simon, David A. “Boeing 757 CFIT Accident at Cali, Colombia, Becomes Focus of Lessons

Learned.” Flight Safety Digest, vol. 17, no. 5/6, May-June 1998.

51
Suarez, Rosabelle. The Effects of Foreign Accent and Language on Reaction Time and Accuracy

in an Air Traffic Control Task. Embry - Riddle Aeronautical University Scholarly

Commons, Dissertation2007.

Tajima, Atsushi. “Fatal miscommunication: English in aviation safety.” World Englishes, vol.

23, no. 3, 2004, pp. 451-470.

“THE NEED FOR REVISION OF ANNEX 1 LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY SARPS FOR

PILOTS AND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS.” International Civil Aviation

Organization, International Civil Aviation Organization, Aug. 2016.

www.icao.int/Meetings/a39/Documents/WP/wp_249_en.pdf

Wilson, Dale. “Failure to Communicate.” Flight Safety. Flight Safety Foundation, 20 Oct. 2016.

flightsafety.org/asw-article/failure-to-communicate/

Wyss-Bühlmann, Eveline. Variation and Co-operative Communication Strategies in Air Traffic

Control English. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang AG, 2004.

52
Résumé
The aim of this thesis is to point out prevailing communication problems in ATC

communication and to demonstrate which language factors contributed to aviation

accidents and incidents. The scope of this work includes language communication errors of

non-native speakers of English. However, communication errors in the speech of native

speakers of English are also included.

In the first two chapters, it is briefly described the role of the air traffic services in

aviation as well as role of English language which is a base for aviation language called

phraseology. Due to limited vocabulary as well as simple grammatical structure, this

specific language code achieves effective communication between pilots and controllers.

The third chapter analyzes the specific types of communication errors that have been

contributing factors in aviation incidents or accidents. The errors in communication are

demonstrated on real aviation incidents.

The fourth and fifth chapter summarizes the main common mistakes in

communication of both native and non-native speakers of English.

Since the English language is the language of aviation, language proficiency

requirements and current language testing are mentioned in the last chapter, as they

measure the proficiency level of candidates that aspire for the position of pilots or

controllers.

53
Resumé
Cílem této bakalářské práce je na příkladech leteckých nehod a incidentů

identifikovat, jaké jazykové faktory přispěly k těmto incidentům, a zdůraznit tak závažnost

nedostatečné nebo chybné komunikace mezi piloty a řídícími letového provozu. Práce se

zaměřuje na jazykové nedostatky v komunikaci nerodilých mluvčích anglického jazyka,

nicméně zahrnuje i časté chyby rodilých mluvčích.

V práci je nejdříve stručně popsána úloha řízení letového provozu v letectví a také

úloha anglického jazyka, který tvoří základ leteckého jazyka, tzv. letecké frazeologie.

Tento specifický jazykový kód je pomocí omezené slovní zásoby a krátkých a gramaticky

jednoduchý vět schopný zajistit efektivní komunikaci mezi piloty a řídícími.

Třetí kapitola demonstruje jazykové faktory a chyby v komunikaci, které přispěly k

leteckým nehodám nebo leteckým incidentům. Příkladem těchto chyb jsou ukázky

skutečných leteckých incidentů.

Čtvrtá a pátá kapitola shrnuje nejčastější chyby v komunikaci jak u nerodilých, tak

rodilých mluvčích anglického jazyka.

Jelikož je anglický jazyk jazykem letectví, práce v poslední kapitole zmiňuje také

jazykové požadavky, které jsou kladeny na uchazeče, kteří se ucházejí o pozice pilotů nebo

řídících letového provozu.

54