As this is what I work with, I decided to give
you a small glimpse into the world of English communication in Civil
Aviation.
English is the official language of
international aviation communication. In 2004, in response to a series of
incidents and accidents in which miscommunication had been a contributing
factor, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) established a set
of stricter language proficiency requirements for pilots and air traffic
controllers, including a rating scale and guidelines for a language proficiency
exam to attest the level of English of these professionals. By 2008, the exam
became an official requirement and pilots and air traffic controllers operating
international routes had to obtain a certificate to attest their proficiency in
Aviation English. ICAO doesn’t provide a standard exam; instead, every
country’s civil aviation authority is responsible for attesting the language
proficiency of their pilots and air traffic controllers, either by creating
their own exam, as it has been done in Brazil, or by accrediting an exam from a
language institute or authority.
In addition to establishing language proficiency
requirements, ICAO also determined that phraseology, a set of guidelines
containing a restricted vocabulary for routine instruction and request
exchanges between pilots and controllers, should always be used; the exception
being the use of “plain English” for abnormal or emergency situations. (For
more information, see ICAO Doc 9835)
Despite all these requirements and guidelines,
miscommunication still happens, many times leading to incidents or accidents. Among
the reasons for that are: the misuse of phraseology during routine communication;
a preference for using plain English during routine communication; and the lack
of English language proficiency. There are many examples of instances,
incidents and accidents where language played a major role, including the
world’s worst civil aviation disaster: the crash of two Boeing 747 in Tenerife
resulting in the death of 583 people after miscommunications between controller
and pilots. Now, let’s take a look at some more recent examples of that.
The following is a communication between a
Chinese pilot (Air China flight 981) and an air traffic controller at JFK
airport in New York. The flight had landed and was receiving instructions to
taxi. This happened in 2006.
The first indication that the pilot doesn’t
understand a lot of English is when he mistakes “Mike Alpha” for “November” in
the exchange:
ATCO: “Air China 981, make the right turn here
at Juliette, join Alpha, hold short of Mike Alpha.”
Pilot: “Right on Juliette, hold sh… taxi Alpha
hold November, now can we…ahh… can we taxi now?”
The controller repeats the instructions and
once again the pilot doesn’t understand it. After that, the controller asks,
“Air China 981, have they cleared you into the ramp?” The pilot misunderstands
and assumes they have authorization to enter the ramp area. This is clear when
he answers, “Roger, ramp to the… ramp, Air China 981.” What follows is an
exchange full of misunderstandings. Most people would put the blame for the
miscommunication solely on the pilot. However, both pilot and controller are to
blame in this case. On one hand, there is the lack of English knowledge by the
pilot. He does not understand that the controller is asking him whether he
received authorization to enter the ramp, a designated area where aircraft can
park, refuel, and load/unload passengers, and taxi to the gate (at JFK, one
tower is responsible for giving taxiing instructions and another is in charge
of authorizing entrance to the ramp and assigning gates). On the other hand,
there is lack of awareness and understanding of the pilot’s limitations by the
air traffic controller. Aware of the pilot’s limited English knowledge, he
could have simplified his speech to make it easier for the pilot to understand,
as ICAO recommends the use of simple structures (See ICAO Doc 9835).
A recent incident showcased the level of English
of Brazilian pilots. A TAM flight had a gear malfunction while landing at JFK
airport in New York in September, 2012. The pilots twice aborted the landing,
finally landing safely on the third try.
This communication shows two different aspects
of Aviation English: (1) standard phraseology used for navigational
instructions and (2) plain English used to explain a malfunction. This is an
example of when standard phraseology is not enough and the pilots have to rely
on their knowledge of plain English and Aviation vocabulary to explain what
their problem is to the controller. During the exchanges where standard
phraseology was used, as in heading and landing instructions, the pilots didn’t
have problems communicating with the controller. However, when talking about
the problem with the aircraft, the controller had a hard time understanding
what the pilot was saying, several times asking her to repeat the information
and repeating information when realizing the pilots hadn’t understood the
message. In the beginning of the communication the pilot declares an emergency
(PAN PAN PAN) and says they have a malfunction. There are a number of
procedures to follow when a pilot declares an emergency. In this case, the
controller didn’t realize the pilot officially declared an emergency because of
her pronunciation. Later on, another controller verifies if they are declaring
an emergency and the pilot then states “negative emergency”. As you can see,
the pilots hesitate a lot and have a hard time explaining what is happening to
the controller. The pilot confuses the words “nose gear” and “landing gear” and
doesn’t immediately understand the controller is saying the nose gear is in the
wrong position. In this case, differentiating nose and landing gear is
important because nose gear is the “front wheel” of the aircraft and landing
gear can be interpreted as the “back wheels” of the aircraft. Furthermore, after
going around, both pilots struggle to explain to the controller what was
happening and what procedures needed to be performed. The controller is aware
of their limitations and helps them. After doing the procedures to check and
correct the malfunction, the pilots were finally able to land safely on runway
31L.
I hope this has given you a better
understanding of international aviation communication.
To know what a day at JFK sounds like, watch: JFK
ATC Bad Day at the Office (the first plane is TAM 8081) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyO-bWGxWBU.
Carol Zuppardo
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário