Confusing Comm?

[Steve Davies]

Gentlemen (and Ladies)

I am about to select a subject for my dissertation for my English Language and Linguistics degree, and am considering a linguistic analysis of spoken discourse in Aviation English (i.e. the words and phrases that are used everyday on the radios).

At the moment, I am trying to establish whether or not there are areas that I could look more closely at with a view to researching them in detail. If I get lots of shoulder shrugs to these ideas, I'll have to start again!

I wondered if anyone had any observations they could share about problems, issues or general observations related to following:

The choice of words used to communicate certain meanings - it could be that one word is always difficult to hear over the radio, is too similar to another word which has different meaning, or just seems like an odd choiceThe way in which you are expected to construct transmissions using a certain word order (e.g. receiver call sign, sender call sign, message) - are any of these word orders counterintuitive or consistently confusing?Differences between standard comm in the US and standard comm in other countries you have flown in - have you ever been issued an instruction by ATC, but not known exactly what they are asking because they have used what you consider to be non-standard terminology?Problems with understanding foreign controllers because of their accents - are there words or phrases that are consistently difficult to understand?Are there any phases in your mission where the comm becomes something that you need to spend more time thinking about (thus draining SA)? Can you say why?As UPT, UNT, or RTU students, were there particular areas of comm that you found difficult to get to grips with, and if so, why?

I appreciate that everyone here is busy, but your input here could really help me.

Thanks in advance.

Steve

Edited May 13, 2010 by Steve Davies

[contraildash]

I fly in Europe....where do I start???

PM me

[Steve Davies]

I fly in Europe....where do I start???

PM me

Wilco. Thanks.

[TreeA10]

Flying into South America, it is not uncommon to get a call from ATC and the usual reaction is the Captain and the FO looking at each other and saying "Did you get any of that?" If the controller speaks heavily accented English at the same candence he speaks Spanish, I usually miss a lot unless I already have a good idea of what the controller is going to say.

[sky_king]

I know that every student I fly with has no idea what the definitions of "Roger", "Affirmative" and "Wilco" are... or that they are even different.

Some people come up with interesting words. I've been trying to get one stud to stop requesting "ascents" and switch to "climbs" because ascent and descent sound so similar on the radio. Also, ascent sounds retarded.

There are a million other UPT specific things I could come up with.

[spudsmac]

I know I only have GA experience, but approach clearances. When a controller rattles off a long clearance and tacks other instruction on there like circling and missed instructions, it can be confusing especially when it's something other than expected.

[Guest Crew Report]

I fly in Europe....where do I start???

PM me

Try flying in Kyrgyzstan and see their standard of phraseology is.

[Magellan]

The choice of words used to communicate certain meanings - it could be that one word is always difficult to hear over the radio, is too similar to another word which has different meaning, or just seems like an odd choice

I think examples of this you could focus on within the military side of flying is brevity terms. I.E. words like tally, contact, splash, etc. and what purposes they serve.

The way in which you are expected to construct transmissions using a certain word order (e.g. receiver call sign, sender call sign, message) - are any of these word orders counterintuitive or consistently confusing?

These structures I think are what make rapid comms possible such as getting instrument clearances, missed approach instructions, etc.

Problems with understanding foreign controllers because of their accents - are there words or phrases that are consistently difficult to understand?

International controllers may be bad, but I think international pilots are just as big a threat as well. For example this video is a perfect example. This is a great funny example of communication issues.

That said I think you might have a hard time finding a focused scope given the wide range of points you put forward, and I would think mixing the radio communications syntax with accents/language barriers is a bad idea. This is because you are trying to do a scientific examination so having more than one variable at play makes it hard to form a cohesive argument. So I would focus on either the syntax OR the language barrier, but avoid the combination of the two. This is just my opinion, but I think it will make it easier to build a solid argument.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Magellan

[SurelySerious]

I think examples of this you could focus on within the military side of flying is brevity terms. I.E. words like tally, contact, splash, handshake, hollow, etc. and what purposes they serve.

Not sure what the situation is, but this is probably not the best if the paper is not in a military environment since the MTTP on that is a controlled access document.

[amishflyer01d]

The choice of words used to communicate certain meanings - it could be that one word is always difficult to hear over the radio, is too similar to another word which has different meaning, or just seems like an odd choice

I think examples of this you could focus on within the military side of flying is brevity terms. I.E. words like tally, contact, splash, handshake, hollow, etc. and what purposes they serve.

Brevity terms are not difficult to hear, not similar to words with different meanings, and they make sense to what they are referring to.

I would stick to language differences in the aviation community.

Edited May 14, 2010 by amishflyer01d

[Guest Okawner]

• The choice of words used to communicate certain meanings - it could be that one word is always difficult to hear over the radio, is too similar to another word which has different meaning, or just seems like an odd choice

None I can think of.

• The way in which you are expected to construct transmissions using a certain word order (e.g. receiver call sign, sender call sign, message) - are any of these word orders counterintuitive or consistently confusing?

Not too different from learning the syntax of a foreign language (e.g. putting the subject before the adjective). Becomes second nature after a while.

Differences between standard comm in the US and standard comm in other countries you have flown in - have you ever been issued an instruction by ATC, but not known exactly what they are asking because they have used what you consider to be non-standard terminology?

The only one that comes to mind is the first time I heard "line up and wait" vs. "position and hold".

• Problems with understanding foreign controllers because of their accents - are there words or phrases that are consistently difficult to understand?

Yes - all of them. I have a really hard time with accents. The key for me is to become familiar with as many navaids/waypoint names in the area I'm flying in. Nothing worse than getting cleared to a waypoint that is not in the flight plan and having no freaking clue what the controller is saying. Phoenetic alphabet is a necessity in some instances.

[*]Are there any phases in your mission where the comm becomes something that you need to spend more time thinking about (thus draining SA)? Can you say why?

No.

[*]As UPT, UNT, or RTU students, were there particular areas of comm that you found difficult to get to grips with, and if so, why?

Not really.

It may also be helpful to you to get the perspective (if you haven't already done so) of the non-native English speaking ATC community, although the barriers are probably similar.

[busdriver]

If anything the "standard" military "lingo" makes communicating with other nations possible. I flew with British Apaches for a month with no problems, only to have one of their pilots joke over the radio about a bbq we were hosting that night and I couldn't understand a word she said. Mind you I had flown in formation with this same pilot multiple times, but when she tried to use "conversational" English I was lost.

[gmwalk]

I think examples of this you could focus on within the military side of flying is brevity terms. I.E. words like tally, contact, splash, handshake, hollow, etc. and what purposes they serve.

These structures I think are what make rapid comms possible such as getting instrument clearances, missed approach instructions, etc.

International controllers may be bad, but I think international pilots are just as big a threat as well. For example this video is a perfect example. This is a great funny example of communication issues.

That said I think you might have a hard time finding a focused scope given the wide range of points you put forward, and I would think mixing the radio communications syntax with accents/language barriers is a bad idea. This is because you are trying to do a scientific examination so having more than one variable at play makes it hard to form a cohesive argument. So I would focus on either the syntax OR the language barrier, but avoid the combination of the two. This is just my opinion, but I think it will make it easier to build a solid argument.

Here's a good one from JFK. The ground controller is trying to give taxi instructions to an Air China flight.

[JarheadBoom]

• The choice of words used to communicate certain meanings - it could be that one word is always difficult to hear over the radio, is too similar to another word which has different meaning, or just seems like an odd choice

I don't know if any other communities or crew positions practice this, but we are trained to use "back" rather than "aft" when giving verbal corrections to a receiver aircraft; i.e. "Forward limit, back five".

"Aft" can can be confused with "left" over the radio/interphone, depending on the speaker's accent.

This is also taught to Marine Corps enlisted aircrew as well, for the same reason (as of late 2003, anyway).

[Magellan]

Not sure what the situation is, but this is probably not the best if the paper is not in a military environment since the MTTP on that is a controlled access document.

I am talking brevity terms not code words...so you are saying this publicly available info here is a controlled document?

[SurelySerious]

I am talking brevity terms not code words...so you are saying this publicly available info here is a controlled document?

I know what you're talking about. And yes, just because it is out there in one form or another doesn't mean that it isn't a controlled document.

[Magellan]

I know what you're talking about. And yes, just because it is out there in one form or another doesn't mean that it isn't a controlled document.

Copy. Thanks for the skulls up.

[BQZip01]

If you want to throw an additional monkey wrench into the whole fiasco, you could also work into it:

1. The differences between "Mike" and "Five"; I've heard them get confused

2. The level of strictness when it comes to messages over HF (try listening to 11175 for about an hour and you'll hear streams of nothing more than gibberish letters)

[PirateAF]

I've always thought that certain words should only be verbalized by the controller first, and then acknowledged by the pilot second.

For example, when we're holding short, it's "Reach ###, ready for departure"...or just "Reach ###, ready". I hear a lot of pilots say "ready for take-off" and I think that "take-off" and "landing" should be always be verbalized by the controller first, in order to avoid miscommunciation.

Same thing for check in with departure, it's "Reach ###, 2100 climbing 3000", not "2100 for 3000" as that can easily be misconstrued. Same for descent...just some random thoughts on Comm...