Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 4 – uploaded by Dominique Estival

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Source: Mathews (2018), personal communication.

Figure 4 Source: Mathews (2018), personal communication.

Related Figures (25)

The Likert-scale items in Sections II and III of the questionnaire are operational definitions of each of the sub-categories, or constructs, identified in the qualitative phase. Thus, Table 2 was designed to portray the use of integration strategies, in the form of a joint display (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011), by aligning the qualitative sub-categories with the questions in the quantitative instrument.
The Likert-scale items in Sections II and III of the questionnaire are operational definitions of each of the sub-categories, or constructs, identified in the qualitative phase. Thus, Table 2 was designed to portray the use of integration strategies, in the form of a joint display (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011), by aligning the qualitative sub-categories with the questions in the quantitative instrument.
By submitting their online survey responses, participants provided their informed consent. The study was considered minimal risk research and this phase began only after receiving approval able 2. Provisional taxonomy and alignment of sub-categories with online survey questions
By submitting their online survey responses, participants provided their informed consent. The study was considered minimal risk research and this phase began only after receiving approval able 2. Provisional taxonomy and alignment of sub-categories with online survey questions
Table 3. Intercultural factors identified in the speech of pilots and ATCOs in each scenario It is important to mention how the cultural dimension of power distance and inequality may affect the outcome of pilot-ATCO interactions. This may be due to distinct hierarchical posts (e.g., Scenario 3), differences regarding participants’ professions (all Scenarios: pilot vs. ATCO), gender (e.g., Scenario 1), differing levels of language proficiency (e.g., Scenario 5), or to a combination of all these features, creating what Scollon and Scollon (2001) called sources of “power disparities in discourse” (p. 24). In some of the scenarios analyzed, it was
Table 3. Intercultural factors identified in the speech of pilots and ATCOs in each scenario It is important to mention how the cultural dimension of power distance and inequality may affect the outcome of pilot-ATCO interactions. This may be due to distinct hierarchical posts (e.g., Scenario 3), differences regarding participants’ professions (all Scenarios: pilot vs. ATCO), gender (e.g., Scenario 1), differing levels of language proficiency (e.g., Scenario 5), or to a combination of all these features, creating what Scollon and Scollon (2001) called sources of “power disparities in discourse” (p. 24). In some of the scenarios analyzed, it was
Table 4. All respondents’ perceptions per section — Frequency of occurrence It was anticipated that responses from Section II questions (e.g., Q15.1 — compliance with orders/rules, and Q12.1 — be concerned with both parties’ images and group interests), would be rated higher as they presented expected practices in international communications, while Section HI questions (e.g., Q32.1 — be unwilling to help) would probably be rated as less frequent because they included situations that may pose a threat to safety. Concern arises from the fact that Q33.1 (use of non-standard phraseology), was rated as the most frequent from Section 3. This means that many respondents from the analyzed sample are encountering pilots and ATCOs who are not complying with radiotelephony standard expressions, which may be a serious threat to safety, especially due to the increasing number of NNSs of English involved in RT communications around the world.
Table 4. All respondents’ perceptions per section — Frequency of occurrence It was anticipated that responses from Section II questions (e.g., Q15.1 — compliance with orders/rules, and Q12.1 — be concerned with both parties’ images and group interests), would be rated higher as they presented expected practices in international communications, while Section HI questions (e.g., Q32.1 — be unwilling to help) would probably be rated as less frequent because they included situations that may pose a threat to safety. Concern arises from the fact that Q33.1 (use of non-standard phraseology), was rated as the most frequent from Section 3. This means that many respondents from the analyzed sample are encountering pilots and ATCOs who are not complying with radiotelephony standard expressions, which may be a serious threat to safety, especially due to the increasing number of NNSs of English involved in RT communications around the world.
Figure 1. Summary of Magnitude Coding (Contradicts, Neutral, Validates) of survey open-ended responses It was also possible to find evidence from the survey open-ended responses to support the validation of the sub-categories from the provisional taxonomy, and thus to answer the first research question. Figure 1 presents the number of valid comments for each sub-category organized according to the Magnitude Codes attributed, i.e., if the comment contradicted the sub-category, was neutral or validated it.
Figure 1. Summary of Magnitude Coding (Contradicts, Neutral, Validates) of survey open-ended responses It was also possible to find evidence from the survey open-ended responses to support the validation of the sub-categories from the provisional taxonomy, and thus to answer the first research question. Figure 1 presents the number of valid comments for each sub-category organized according to the Magnitude Codes attributed, i.e., if the comment contradicted the sub-category, was neutral or validated it.
Table 5. All respondents’ perceptions per section — Importance to safety The situation that was considered the least important as a potential threat to safety was the one presented in Q20.2 (respond in a deferential/submissive style and use excessive politeness), from Section III. Surprisingly, although politeness per se may not be a risk to safety, its excess might compromise effective communication and, above all, a deferential style coming from issues of power relations, may inhibit a pilot or ATCO to interact assertively. At the other extreme, Q14.2 (be concerned with safety and potential complications), from Section II, was rated as the most critical to safety. No doubt, this should be the driving force of all involved in aeronautical communications and operations: to strive for safety and be aware of and prepared to deal with unexpected situations. Moreover, Q 26.2 (speak in a confusing and unclear way) was considered the most important from Section III. In ordinary conversations this style is not desirable, much less in safety-critical communications as aviation radiotelephony, in which being clear, concise and unambiguous is the norm. However, certain cultures are known to be more direct, objective and right to the point, whereas others not so much. Evidence to answer this question comes mainly from the quantitative phase, but also from participants’ open-ended comments. Responses to the questions ‘How important is this?, in Section II, and “How important were these events as potential threats to safety?’, in Section III, provide the answer to this research question. Descriptive statistics of the survey questions revealed the situations that were considered the most and least important in the participants’ opinion, as shown in Table 5. Nonetheless, a variation of M = 3.45 (Q20.2) to M =5.97 (Q14.2), in a scale from 1 to 6, indicates that all situations were considered important and related to the safety of RT communications, based on the sample analyzed.
Table 5. All respondents’ perceptions per section — Importance to safety The situation that was considered the least important as a potential threat to safety was the one presented in Q20.2 (respond in a deferential/submissive style and use excessive politeness), from Section III. Surprisingly, although politeness per se may not be a risk to safety, its excess might compromise effective communication and, above all, a deferential style coming from issues of power relations, may inhibit a pilot or ATCO to interact assertively. At the other extreme, Q14.2 (be concerned with safety and potential complications), from Section II, was rated as the most critical to safety. No doubt, this should be the driving force of all involved in aeronautical communications and operations: to strive for safety and be aware of and prepared to deal with unexpected situations. Moreover, Q 26.2 (speak in a confusing and unclear way) was considered the most important from Section III. In ordinary conversations this style is not desirable, much less in safety-critical communications as aviation radiotelephony, in which being clear, concise and unambiguous is the norm. However, certain cultures are known to be more direct, objective and right to the point, whereas others not so much. Evidence to answer this question comes mainly from the quantitative phase, but also from participants’ open-ended comments. Responses to the questions ‘How important is this?, in Section II, and “How important were these events as potential threats to safety?’, in Section III, provide the answer to this research question. Descriptive statistics of the survey questions revealed the situations that were considered the most and least important in the participants’ opinion, as shown in Table 5. Nonetheless, a variation of M = 3.45 (Q20.2) to M =5.97 (Q14.2), in a scale from 1 to 6, indicates that all situations were considered important and related to the safety of RT communications, based on the sample analyzed.
A last figure (Fig. 2), comparing the means for frequency and importance per question, discloses the fact that the frequency of occurrence of intercultural factors that can affect pilot- ATCOs communications was generally lower than their perceived importance as a potential threat to safety. However, based on the frequency means it is possible to state that all situations do happen in international RT, from the survey respondents’ perspectives. Figure 2. Comparison of means for frequency and importance per question
A last figure (Fig. 2), comparing the means for frequency and importance per question, discloses the fact that the frequency of occurrence of intercultural factors that can affect pilot- ATCOs communications was generally lower than their perceived importance as a potential threat to safety. However, based on the frequency means it is possible to state that all situations do happen in international RT, from the survey respondents’ perspectives. Figure 2. Comparison of means for frequency and importance per question
For Question 2, which asked for instances of communication between NES and EL2, participants were more interested in giving examples of communication failures than examples of successes, with only 2 example of success: one involving the reverse image of the main causes of failure, 1.e. good use of standard RT, and one showing the creativity of EL2 when their English vocabulary is failing. Table 5. Q1. What do you think are the most important requirements? for NES regarding communication between NES and EL2 in the aviation context? [15/15]
For Question 2, which asked for instances of communication between NES and EL2, participants were more interested in giving examples of communication failures than examples of successes, with only 2 example of success: one involving the reverse image of the main causes of failure, 1.e. good use of standard RT, and one showing the creativity of EL2 when their English vocabulary is failing. Table 5. Q1. What do you think are the most important requirements? for NES regarding communication between NES and EL2 in the aviation context? [15/15]
Table 7. Q3. Teaching those requirements to NES - In your own experience: [10/15] The answers to Question 3, about whether and how NES are taught how to deal with EL2, demonstrate not only the lack of such training, but the perception of the need to provide explicit instruction to NES.
Table 7. Q3. Teaching those requirements to NES - In your own experience: [10/15] The answers to Question 3, about whether and how NES are taught how to deal with EL2, demonstrate not only the lack of such training, but the perception of the need to provide explicit instruction to NES.
In the picture below, we have a depiction of the path the flight ended up taking. >We highly recommend the reader to visit this page https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFdXax7Zh_g and watch the video to have more elements for the analysis
In the picture below, we have a depiction of the path the flight ended up taking. >We highly recommend the reader to visit this page https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFdXax7Zh_g and watch the video to have more elements for the analysis
In general, we could say that the triggers point to failure to communicate both on behalf of the pilots and the controller.
In general, we could say that the triggers point to failure to communicate both on behalf of the pilots and the controller.
Chart 1: Frequency with which pilots and ATCOs perceive each other using plain English instead of standard phraseology. Source: Scholler (2017) In the charts below, we can see the frequency they perceive each other’s use of plain English instead of standard phraseology. According to the respondents, pilots perceive more ATCOs (from Brazil and abroad) making more use of plain English other than standard phraseology than ATCOs perceive pilots - controllers reported hearing less plain English from pilots (35%) than the pilots from controllers (55%). Scholler (2017) says that there are a number of possible reasons for this, but “one candidate explanation is that controllers must more often issue instructions to pilots that require details, complements or repetition of information than pilots have requests with those demands.”
Chart 1: Frequency with which pilots and ATCOs perceive each other using plain English instead of standard phraseology. Source: Scholler (2017) In the charts below, we can see the frequency they perceive each other’s use of plain English instead of standard phraseology. According to the respondents, pilots perceive more ATCOs (from Brazil and abroad) making more use of plain English other than standard phraseology than ATCOs perceive pilots - controllers reported hearing less plain English from pilots (35%) than the pilots from controllers (55%). Scholler (2017) says that there are a number of possible reasons for this, but “one candidate explanation is that controllers must more often issue instructions to pilots that require details, complements or repetition of information than pilots have requests with those demands.”
Chart 2: How much harder pilots and ATCOs consider each other to understand when the other uses plain English — on a scale from 0 to 10. Source: Scholler (2017) In his study, Scholler (2017) concludes that pilots and ATCOs face a considerably high and equal amount of struggle when trying to understand each other in plain English. However, with our case in mind, we dare to say that the difference spotted in his research is actually meaningful due to the fact that, in this case study, the pilot seemed to have a harder time trying to understand the ATCO that the other way round.
Chart 2: How much harder pilots and ATCOs consider each other to understand when the other uses plain English — on a scale from 0 to 10. Source: Scholler (2017) In his study, Scholler (2017) concludes that pilots and ATCOs face a considerably high and equal amount of struggle when trying to understand each other in plain English. However, with our case in mind, we dare to say that the difference spotted in his research is actually meaningful due to the fact that, in this case study, the pilot seemed to have a harder time trying to understand the ATCO that the other way round.
As the author, we understand that pilots and ATCOS do not seem to face significant differences from each other given that the pointed factors are pretty much the same. Yet, regarding the case of EVA 015 and the use of plain English, the chart shows that pilots say they experience more problems with ATCOs use of plain English. In fact, the data is from pilots who fly abroad, who could be said to face the same problems as the Chinese pilot in our Case. Scholler (2017) also brings another remarkably relevant chart illustrating the main causes of miscommunication spotted by Brazilian pilots and ATCOs. Our attention should be drawn to the fact that the results represent information from interactions of these professionals interacting with each other and also with foreign pilots and ATCOs.
As the author, we understand that pilots and ATCOS do not seem to face significant differences from each other given that the pointed factors are pretty much the same. Yet, regarding the case of EVA 015 and the use of plain English, the chart shows that pilots say they experience more problems with ATCOs use of plain English. In fact, the data is from pilots who fly abroad, who could be said to face the same problems as the Chinese pilot in our Case. Scholler (2017) also brings another remarkably relevant chart illustrating the main causes of miscommunication spotted by Brazilian pilots and ATCOs. Our attention should be drawn to the fact that the results represent information from interactions of these professionals interacting with each other and also with foreign pilots and ATCOs.
ATCO Pilot Fig. 1 — manageable and influential contextual factors for pilots and ATCOs in air/ground communication.
ATCO Pilot Fig. 1 — manageable and influential contextual factors for pilots and ATCOs in air/ground communication.
Fig. 2 — Context based continuum for language learning programmes To this end, a simple continuum can be used to develop course programmes, source material and prepare appropriate and authentic communicative tasks in the classroom. As shown in Fig. 2, the a priori consideration must be a given context. Without knowing the context, it is not possible to know the communication taking place, and thus what language use is helping to form this communication. Without knowledge of this language use, learning is arbitrary and out of context and therefore of little use for students in their intended operational situations.
Fig. 2 — Context based continuum for language learning programmes To this end, a simple continuum can be used to develop course programmes, source material and prepare appropriate and authentic communicative tasks in the classroom. As shown in Fig. 2, the a priori consideration must be a given context. Without knowing the context, it is not possible to know the communication taking place, and thus what language use is helping to form this communication. Without knowledge of this language use, learning is arbitrary and out of context and therefore of little use for students in their intended operational situations.
source: https://www.clip.fail/video/MH1551Y4ZAk (accessed - 24th March 2018)
source: https://www.clip.fail/video/MH1551Y4ZAk (accessed - 24th March 2018)
source - https://forums.liveatc.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=14018.0;attach=9487 (accessed 9** November 2017)
source - https://forums.liveatc.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=14018.0;attach=9487 (accessed 9** November 2017)
Related topics:
Political Science
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved