УДК 629.735.067:81’243(045)

Ph.D. (Philology), professor, O.M. Akmaldinova,

assistant professor NAU, L.V. Budko,

Ph.D. (Philology), professor NAU, O.O. Pysmenna,

National aviation university, Ukraine

LINGUISTIC FACTORS OF MISUNDERSTANDING IN RADIO EXCHANGE

(AS PART OF HUMAN FACTOR ANALYSIS)

The article describes linguistic aspects of incorrect perception of radio exchange phraseology and analyzes extracts of radio exchange in non-standard situations causing aviation incidents. Among the registered factors are both radio exchange structural features leading to misunderstanding between the communicants and accidental, casual irregularities or unprofessional violations of special language rules.

It is generally acknowledged that weather conditions contribute to air crashes but are rarely the only cause of disasters, they are implicated in about two-thirds of air accidents. Generally, there is a combination of technical, meteorological and human factors [1]. The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) is a general human error framework originally developed and tested within the U.S. military as a tool for investigating and analyzing the human causes of aviation accidents. HFACS addresses human error at all levels of the system, including the condition of aircrew and organizational factors [2].

Special place in the study of human error occupies the analysis of typical errors of pilots participating in radio communication. Radio exchange in civil aviation is a professional communicative co-operation of pilots and surface services, namely the exchange of information messaging and reporting, carried out by means of radio [3].

From the linguistic point of view, the radio exchange is considered as a complex of phonetic, grammatical and lexical units of language used in the speech acts of air communication participants (air traffic controller and pilot) during the flight and presented in dialogues. The discourse of radio exchange repeatedly came into the notice of linguists and was investigated from different points of view, mainly focusing on its comparative, pragmalinguistic and stylistic aspects.

When studying the problems that cause difficulties in transmitting information from the addresser to receiver some authors mention that the barriers are caused by various factors, which can be divided into four main groups: physical (external elements that distort from receiving the message including noise, distance physical discomfort and distraction), physiological (internal elements such as ill health and speech disorders), psychological (any type of mental turbulence that distort from listening like prejudice, anxiety, knowledge, cultural disparities, abstraction, filtration, inattentiveness, etc.), semantic (factors which result in sending incoherent or unambiguous message including the usage of unsuitable words, lack of comprehension and clarity, improper formation of a sentence) [4; 70-74].

These factors analyzed by the author from the point of view of their influence on the quality of translation, can fully be applied to the analysis of the discourse «pilot-controller». The speech of the radio communication participants, for whom English is not their native tongue, is always based on translation techniques. In fact, the radio exchange procedure performed in emergency cases and non-standard situations supposes the existence of serious problems for a pilot and for a controller even when the English language is native for them.

In connection with the seriousness of problems of recognition of authentic information and the prevention of speech errors in air communication, great attention is paid by the authors to the linguistic aspect of misunderstanding or hindered understanding of radio exchange phraseology (e.g., [5;192-195], [6; 119-124], [7] ), as well as to the analysis of extracts of radio exchange in non-standard situations which will contribute to the improvement of quality of training pilots and controllers and to the prevention of the aviation incidents related to wrong understanding by a pilot of the controller’s speech (e.g., [8]).

The following are the most typical errors in the perception by native Russian speakers of radio telephoning communication information in English.

1. The distorted perception of numbers belongs to most serious errors in radio talk resulting in aviation incidents, e.g.: “FLIGHT LEVEL 1520 < flight level 120”; “PASSING 1500 FEET < passing 5000 feet”; “REPORT 15000 FEET < report 5000 feet”. As this error is typically made by pilots and ATC controllers, one of basic recommendations for correct radio exchange is a correct repetition of the heard phrase (readback) by the pilot and its obligatory verification by a controller [5]. The auditory perception by a Russian-speaking pilot of English numbers pronounced at a rapid rate, often appears distorted. It turned out, however, during a carried out experiment, that the same violations in perception of numbers occur in radio talks between English-speaking pilots and ATC controllers.

On the American continent the numbers are pronounced not in accordance with the rules of ICAO, when all numbers are pronounced separately, but by the groups of conventionally pronounced numbers: fifteen forty nine – пятнадцать сорок девять, three thirty seven – три тридцать семь. This is the breach of the Chicago Convention rules and regulations.

In the American variant of phraseology instead of the word "decimal" which is the ICAO standard norm, the word "point" is used, which was borrowed from the military lexicon. Plenty of pilots from many countries of the world, trained in the USA, use then this word in their own countries and in international flights communication. But its use, nevertheless, is not the ICAO norm: “Contact departure one eight point one seven – Pаботайте с Вылетом сто восемнадцать запятая семнадцать” [8].

The pronunciation of frequency in the shortened form conflicts with the ICAO standard and is potentially dangerous, as in certain situations it can be understood as the other group of numbers, for example, the flight number in the American pronunciation: eighteen one seven northwest three thirty seven - Восемнадцать семнадцать, Northwest три тридцать семь.

The numeral “9” can be pronounced with violations of the ICAO requirement to pronounce it as “niner”, which was the result of more than forty-year-old decision to phonetically differentiate “1” from “9” the failure of which once resulted in an aircraft crash [8].

In North America accepted is a verbal marking of runways from 01 to 09 without the pronunciation of «zero», as it is accepted everywhere in all other states of the world and as it is required by the standards of ICAO: “Cactus fifteen forty nine runway four is available if you want to make left traffic for runway four - Кактус пятнадцать сорок девять, есть ВПП ноль четыре, если хотите выполнить левую схему к ВПП ноль четыре” [8].

Every numeral in pronouncing the heading should be pronounced separately (e.g.: “two eight zero” which is the standard both in America and in the ICAO member-states.

2. Grammar mistakes include: misunderstanding of tenses (A 320 STOP ON THE RW < A 320 has stopped on the RW); incorrect use of the negative NOT<no in: No speed restrictions; the incorrect understanding of the plural of noun as its singular form (RESTRICTION < restrictions); no differentiation of a final verb-form and a gerund (REACH < reaching; HEAD < heading; CLIMBING < climb); misunderstanding of the difference between the parts of speech (although this does not corrupt the general meaning of an utterance, it may testify to the bad knowledge of grammar rules of words combining into groups and sentences: TCAS DESCENT GBL < TCAS descend GBL; READY FOR IMMEDIATELY DEPARTURE < Ready for immediate departure) [5].

Omissions of meaningful elements of a phrase can change the meaning of an utterance, as the omission of prepositions ( e.g.: CLEAR TRAFFIC < clear of traffic; WAIT LANDING A 320, VACATE RW 24 < Wait for landing A 320 to vacate RW 24) and the omission of auxiliary verbs in general questions ( YOU WANT TO FILE A REPORT? < D’you want to file a report?; CONFIRM CLIMB BACK 120? < Can you confirm climb back 120?) [5].

3. Mispronouncing words. Distortion of words or word-combinations and their replacement by similarly pronounced words or word-combinations, as a rule, are related to language incompetence: THEN < when in the sentence Report when you are past 5000 feet; COME BACK < Climb back in Can you confirm climb back 120?; NOT SPEAK RESTRICTIONS < No speed restrictions; SINCE < seems in There seems to be a problem; I CAME SINCE PROBLEM < There seems to be a problem; HOW POSITION < Hold position, etc. [5].

The use of the preposition "to" before numerals without a word-delimiter is potentially dangerous, as this preposition in some situations can be taken for a figure "2" (two): “new york jetlink twenty seven sixty is five thousand turning right to one five zero” is New York, Jetlink twenty seven sixty, on five thousands, in a right turn on one hundred fifty. Usually, before the numerical expression of the heading, the word-delimiter "heading" is used (heading one five zero). But here the use of the preposition "to" is inappropriate. The phrase should have had the view: "Turning right heading one five zero".

The distortion of the meaning up to the opposite is illustrated also by the following examples: CONFLICT AT LEVEL 5000 < Clear of conflict, level at 5000; CONFLICT TRAFFIC AT 5000 FEET < Clear of conflict, level at 5000; WE HAVE CONFLICT < Clear of conflict; WE HAVE CONFLICT LEFT < Clear of conflict, level at 5000; HOW POSITION < Hold position; ACCOMPLISH THE CHECK < I can’t issue take-off clearance; ACCOMPLISH TAKE-OFF < I can’t issue take-off clearance; HOLD DEPARTURE < Line up and hold, prepare for departure; READY FOR IMMEDIATE DEPARTURE < Ready 5 minute departure [5]. It is unnecessary to say that such kind of misunderstanding causes very serious and often irreversible aftereffects.

Studying such samples of air communication some authors (e.g., [5]) come to the conclusion that the communicants, especially in extreme situations, orientate themselves towards understanding the meaning of words, the purport and the information content of the message. They do not consider and finally miss the sounding of the phrase and fail to grasp the main idea of what was said misinterpreting the received message transforming it into a similarly sounding utterance: CROSSING 5000 FEET < passing 5000 feet; SPEEDBIRD 937 WE HAVE PUSH BACK < Speedbird 937 is pushing back; CLEARED TO PUSH BACK < push back approved; TAXI TO HOLDING POINT FOR RW (Runway) 24 < taxi to holding point L3. It is stated that such misinterpretation may be explained by the specific feature of auditory perception characterized according to the following principles: 1) down-top perception (from sound to meaning) and 2) top-down perception (from meaning to sound). In case of “pilot-controller” radio communication, the latter type usually prevails, that is why the lexical changes pilots make often contain words or word combinations whose phonetic form has nothing in common with the original forms, as in: REPORT REACHING < call on reaching. Grammar characteristics of utterances are paid no or little attention to, as the pilots try to understand the lexical meaning first, and this fact is implied by the very essence and regulations of the radio telephoning procedure.

4. Inadequate speaking rate and response rate. The level of understanding of information even in situations, when the communicants are native speakers, has a certain threshold (about 275 words per minute), but the recommendation it is necessary to follow is 100 words per minute. Extremely high intensity of flights in some regions and zones does not allow to adhere to this recommended rate of speech that can cause misunderstandings. Sometimes, when a communicant cannot fully understand or make up his mind and find the words for response, he fills a pause using sounds expressing uncertainty (ah, okey, yea, uh) or gives a false information by mistake. These also contribute to inadequate results.

The study of typical mistakes in the speech of radio exchange communicants and the works devoted to their consideration can lead to some conclusions. In a short form, they contain the following.

Introducing the requirements to language proficiency ICAO specified the necessity of the use of standard phraseology adopted by this organization for all situations for which it is intended. However, this requirement continues to be not complied with. Moreover, even the high level of the English language proficiency not always guarantees the adequate understanding of radio communication reports. In a non-standard situation, when the commands of ATC controller go beyond the usual limited set of commands of civil aviation radio exchange, there can be misunderstanding and incorrect perception of messages, resulting in catastrophic consequences.

Dialogic speech is a basic form of realization of the radio exchange sublanguage. Ineffective communication can be caused both by radio exchange structural features (including elliptical grammar structures, syntactic compressions, shortenings, abridged structures, special lexical and semantic forms) and by accidental, casual irregularities or unprofessional violations of special language rules (including irregular omissions, incorrect abbreviations, misunderstanding of lexical and morphological forms, numerals in particular, nonstandard pronunciation, speech disorders and the like). The training of pilots in radio exchange appears ineffective without good basic knowledge of English and a high level of personal discipline.

References

1. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j-pmue WDmZe8rJMQ8 Ca9 ERTuE-KQ

2. http://www.deepsloweasy.com/HFE%20resources/FAA%20DOT%20HFE%20Accident%20Investigations.pdf

3. Акимова О.В. Термин как единица терминологического поля и профессионального дискурса в разноструктурных языках (На материале терминологии макрополя "Радиообмен гражданской авиации" в русском и английском языках): Дис. ... канд. филол. наук: Казань: Казанский гос. пед. ун-т, 2004. – 254 с.

4. Wiech Thomasz. The significance of interpreter’s physical condition in the process of rendering// General and specialist translation/interpretation: theory, methods, practice. 5^th International Conference Proceedings. April 6-7, 2012. – Kyiv: AgrarMediaGroup, 2012.- p.70-74.

5. Щетинина Н.А. Типичные ошибки пилотов при восприятии сообщений радиообмена гражданской авиации/ Н. А. Щетинина // Молодой ученый. — 2012. — №2. — С. 192-195.

6. Щетинина Н.А. Радиообмен гражданской авиации как профессиональный язык: векторы исследования // Иностранные языки: лингвистические и методические аспекты: Межвузовский сборник научных трудов. Выпуск 12. – Тверь: Тверск. гос. ун-т, 2011. – С. 119–124.

7. Ellis S., Gerighty T. English for Aviation for Pilots and Air Traffic Controllers. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. – 96 p.

8. www.aviasafety.ru/aviaenglish/articles/hudson2