Pontificia universidad católica de chile
Download 72.25 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Santiago de Chile
PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE CHILEINSTITUTO DE LETRAS Programa de Post Título AVIATION ENGLISH: Proficiency Measurement & Language Instruction
Santiago de Chilejulio 2002 Introduction Purpose of Project and Organization The idea to treat the issue of Aviation English arose as a way to satisfy the basic purpose of the Applied Psycholinguistics final project: to explore how the principal issues discussed in class (language proficiency and competence, learning, and teaching methods) may be applied in one’s professional practice. The principal activity of my classmates is that of second language instruction in secondary schools; thus their projects explore, for example, the application of measurement devices and instruction techniques in the teaching of English to adolescents. However, my future career plan, to become a commercial airline pilot, is a bit different; thus, after consulting with the professor, I decided to explore in my project the roles of proficiency measurement and language instruction in the field of Aviation English. With this goal in mind, I began the project by reflecting on my current knowledge / experience as a Private Pilot - ASEL1, as well as on possible connections between my chosen theme and the material seen in class. This process led my formulating the following guidelines to be used in the planning of my report , as expressed in the two following text boxes.
While the class text, Teaching Language in Context certainly seems to be a comprehensive source for information on current theories / past investigations in the areas of language proficiency, competency, and L2 teaching methodologies, my relatively limited aviation experience and personal anecdotes do not in themselves constitute an exhaustive source of aeronautical data and investigations. Thus, I spent a few hours with a web search engine, Google, to locate those texts on which this report is in large part based. A list of these texts, along with their corresponding URL’s, can be found in the bibliography. A hardcopy of these source materials will also be included with the project submission so that they might be consulted at the reader’s convenience. Increased Interest in Aviation ESP2 - Description of Problem “[]English has evolved to become the global language for all aviation needs, and a solid command of both general, as well as its special (ESP) varieties, has become an essential prerequisite for safety, efficiency and effective communication.” (Bratanic, 79) In other words, if a flight crew does not speak the language normally spoken by the ground station with which it is communicating, English is used. (Anexo 1, 2) For example, an Iberia (Spain’s flagship airline) crew flying from Madrid to Barcelona or Madrid-Mexico City would use Spanish to communicate with the local Air Traffic Control (ATC) services in each of those cities. However, if the same crew should fly from Madrid to New York or Madrid-Paris, communication within both American and French airspace would be conducted in English. The above may seem quite simple and straightforward. But one must consider that during the course of a normal flight, the flight crew must communicate with ground workers, airline operations personnel, cabin staff, and air traffic controllers (ATCOs), in addition to, of course, flying the aircraft. Add extremely crowded airspace3, poor weather conditions, diversions from planned routes, physical fatigue, and failure of one or more aircraft systems, and clear, concise communication even between two persons sharing the same native language can become difficult. When ATCOs and pilots must rapidly communicate critical bits of information under the above circumstances using a linguistic code in which one or both parties may not be fully proficient, the results can be deadly. On March 27th, 1977 Los Rodeos airport in Tenerife, Canary Islands was shrouded in dense fog to the point that it was impossible to see from one extremity of the runway to the other. At one end of the runway (30, see fig. 3), a KLM 747 waited for a 747 operated by Pan Am to taxi clear. The crews of both aircraft had been flying for quite a long time and were anxious to leave the island.4 After receiving ATC clearance5, the KLM captain decided to takeoff without having received permission. The first officer then informed the tower and the Pan Am plane of his aircraft’s status using the phrase, “We are now at takeoff.” While he had intended to communicate that his aircraft was in the process of taking off, in his code-switching from Dutch to English he directly translated a Dutch idiom (preposition at + infinitive) instead of using the English present continuous tense. Thus, both the control tower and the Pan Am crew understood that the KLM aircraft was holding at the takeoff point. (Bratanic, 82) Thus, no one realized that there was a problem until both planes were about 700 meters apart, or 10 seconds from colliding; thus, there was not sufficient time for evasive maneuvers. All 248 people in the KLM plane were killed, and 335 were killed in the Pan Am aircraft. (See Anexo 10, pp. 1 & 4) 
fig 3 – Los Rodeos, Tenerife Airport Diagram While the previous accident is frequently mentioned in aviation circles and is quite well-known (in terms of lives lost, it is indeed the greatest aviation disaster to date), the truth is that both major and minor complications arising from pilots with a limited ability in the English language occur everyday. While working towards my private pilot’s license in the spring of 1999, I once heard another student pilot whose first language was not English confuse the terms “takeoff” and “landing” in communication with the air traffic control tower. His mistake was immediately corrected by a clear-speaking, patient controller, “That’s TAKEOFF - You are cleared for TAKEOFF.”; however, ideally one should not learn basic aeronautical terms for the first time while in command of an aircraft. Proficiency Measurement in Aviation English That a certain level of language proficiency is necessary for the safe operation of an aircraft is a fact with which nobody disagrees. However, until very recently there were no concrete guidelines by which competence in Aviation English could be measured. According to Marjo Mitsutomi, a linguist currently working with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to establish such guidelines, “There are no standards, and there is no test. I don’t think it is enough for a pilot to simply learn a list of standard words and repeat the jargon during a given flight.” (Anexo 7, 1) Although a relatively standard aeronautical vocabulary has been established in the years since the Tenerife accident, Mitsutomi does not believe that a demonstrated knowledge of this specialized lexicon is by itself a sufficient metric of communicative ability: “The industry has designed standard phrases and standard procedures for standard situations. If everything in a flight remains standard, then it is okay to communicate with a list of standard phrases. But life happens and not every situation is standard.” (Anexo 7, 1)
But before considering specific methods of measurement, it’s worth mentioning that several branches of Aviation English exist, and that certain proficiency measurements and teaching methods have been designed for use with specific sub-varieties. According to Maja Bratanic of the Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, Zagreb: “The term Aviation English itself is not used unanimously and certain distinctions or overlapping have to be noted. Whereas the terms Aviation English, English for Aviation and Aeronautical English cover basically the same range of subjects, English for Pilots is sometimes understood in a somewhat more reduced sense, while English for Air-Traffic Controllers…refers primarily to a “restricted, coded language”, i.e. a highly prescribed strictly followed communication pattern set forth in air navigation. English for Air Transport and Air Travel, on the other hand, partly overlaps with most of the above (excluding the coded language of radiotelephony) but in addition also includes a wide variety of topics and terminology connected with airport ground services, in-flight services, etc.). The general term English for Aviation is, however, often understood as encompassing all of the above ESP varieties. (Bratanic, 80-1)
While the focus of this report is chiefly English for Pilots, and, to a lesser degree, English for Air-Traffic Controllers, it’s worth mentioning that proficiency standards are currently being established for the use of English by flight attendants (or stewards and stewardesses, as they were called several decades ago). Several international aviation organizations have “declared an English language proficiency requirement [for flight attendants] to be essential for aviation safety.” The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) also “suggested that flight attendants be required to communicate in the language of the flight’s origin and destination.” And according to a union of flight attendants, “the ability to understand a language does not assure an accompanying ability to communicate in that language…any rulemaking [should] focus on communication, addressing problems with accents and speech impediments.” (all quotes this paragraph: Anexo 6, 3) f
With respect to English for Air-Traffic Controllers, there have been several recent proficiency measurement initiatives in this area. The Federal Aviation Administration of the United States (FAA) recently carried out a study of 69 international air traffic controllers in Latin America. The controllers were rated on 146 communication performance tasks, each of which had previously been assigned a certain difficulty level on the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) scale using the Defense Language Institute methodology. (see Omaggio, pp.11, 16-18) In addition, linguists from the Defense Language Institute conducted oral interviews with 60 of these controllers. Based on these interviews and analyses of actual conversations with English speaking pilots, the controllers were rated on the ILR scale. According to the FAA report, “The preliminary analyses of the various data sources identified the Overall Proficiency Level (2,1+) as a requirement for performing the ATC language tasks. (Thomas-Mogilka, 262) According to the comparisons made by Omaggio, this corresponds to the Advanced level on the ACTFL scale (the scale most extensively discussed in the Applied Psycholinguistics course). A Speaker rated at this proficiency level “can narrate and describe in major time / aspect frames…their descriptions are sustained in longer discourse segments.” Such speakers can also “talk about a wide range of concrete topics.” Finally, “faced with a [situation] in which a complication has arisen, [an air traffic controller rated at the ILR 2+ or ACTFL Advanced level] can get their message across successfully.” (Omaggio, 17)
As the professionals ultimately responsible for the safe operation of aircraft, it is critical that pilots attain a sufficient level of proficiency in English. But what does “sufficient” mean? How exactly is this minimum level of ability in English defined? Part 129 of the United States Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) requires foreign air carriers operating within U.S. airspace “to certify that their pilot personnel are able to speak and understand the English language to a degree necessary to enable them to communicate properly with air traffic control.” (Anexo 8, 3) While this regulation is indeed well-intentioned, it does not provide any metric to help determine the “degree necessary”, nor does it define what it means to “communicate properly.” Fortunately, the FAA and ICAO have recognized this shortcoming, and are currently trying “to promote more specific standards of English language proficiency in international aviation.” In 1999, the Proficiency Requirements in Common English (PRICE)6 study group was formed to develop “(1) standardized testing to determine if proficiency standards are met, and (2) training required to meet proficiency standards.” (Anexo 8, 4)
Interestingly, many flight schools do require a basic level of English proficiency as a condition for admission; however, this is usually determined using more traditional metrics, such as the TOEFL. For example, the Swissair Aviation School states in their admissions requirements that: “Proof of adequate English language skills must be provided by the candidate. This proof may be provided through a test using any of the [following] systems. “ (Anexo 4) (italics added) fig. 4 – Swissair Aviation School English Proficiency Requirements for Entry However, not all agree with the above approach. In his dissertation entitled Predicting the Language Proficiency of Chinese Student Pilots within American Airspace: Concurrent-Task Performance Versus Traditional Language Assessment, Cliff Noble of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University finds that “TOEFL scores were the weakest predictor of language performance.” (Anexo 5, 2) The purpose of the study was to determine which language testing method would best predict student pilot success on the “test that matters”: a checkride by an FAA flight examiner. While six different proficiency measuring instruments were considered in the study, the Aviation Test of Spoken English (ATSE), was found to be the best predictor. This test is administered “during an oral interview that requires student pilots to repeat information, describe processes, and explain or identify visual-spatial relationships.” (Anexo 5, 1-2) At the Embry-Riddle Language Institute (ERLI), the English proficiency of incoming students is measured with an instrument created by that university, the Speaking Test of English for Pilots (STEP). While this is a commercial product and thus was not possible to obtain, the institute’s web site did contain a copy of the test’s speaking proficiency scale, which can be found below.
fig 5 - Speaking Proficiency Scale – http://www.db.erau.edu/campus/administrative/departments/erli/speaking_proficiency_scale.htm Of the instruments reviewed in the Applied Psycholinguistics course, that which in my opinion most closely resembles Embry-Riddle’s STEP scale is the ACTFL Assessment Criteria – Speaking scale, found in (Omaggio, 14) - Illustration 1.3. After careful consideration of both scales, I summarize their correlation in the table below:
fig 6: STEP – ACTFL correlation (Nickolus Looper) With seven levels, the STEP scale seems to better represent subtle differences in speaking performance than does that of the ACTFL. For example, ACTFL Novice rating seems to encompass the first two-and-a-half levels on the STEP scale (0-25). According to the ACTFL scale, a Novice speaker “may be difficult to understand, even for speakers accustomed to dealing with non-native speakers.” This seems to correspond with description of a Minimally competent speaker: one who “has considerable difficulty conveying information.” However, such a Novice speaker’s ability to “communicate minimally” justifies a partial correlation between this ACTFL proficiency level and the Marginally competent STEP speaker who is “sometimes able to accomplish task[s].” Towards the higher end of both scales, ACTFL Advanced speakers “are understood without difficulty by speakers unaccustomed to dealing with non-native speakers,” (Omaggio 14) “[a]lthough they still make errors in some basic structures…”. (Omaggio 18) These descriptions seem to correspond quite closely with that of a STEP Fully competent speaker, having “speech [] clearly marked as non-native,” but whose “meaning is clear at all times.” Teaching Aviation English At this point it should be quite clear that although Aviation English has much in common with Standard English, it is also quite unique. In the previous sections of this report we have enumerated the special characteristics of Aviation English, and have explored several instruments used in the measurement of this LSP7. Based on the facts that this specialized form of English exists and that many people want / need to learn it, it follows that specialized methods should exist for its instruction. A very lucid review of the issues involved in teaching this variety of English can be found in Maja Bratanic’s Aviation English within an ESP Context, a text on which this section of my report is in large-part based. Bratanic points out that to begin designing a comprehensive Aviation ESP program in the academic setting, “we have to briefly analyze the type of learners; their needs; and finally the syllabus and teaching methodology that would help this syllabus work.” Moreover, she believes in a content-based approach due to the goal-oriented nature of this ESP.8 (80 – quotes in this section from Bratanic unless otherwise specified)
While, as has been shown, there are many disciplines within the field of aviation and therefore many flavors of Aviation English, we have been focusing principally on those employed by civil (non-military) pilots and air traffic controllers. One might at first suggest that it would suffice to teach the vocabulary of R/T Phraseology (the precise, coded language used between pilots and air-traffic controllers) along with basic aeronautical terms. However, Bratanic maintains that the ideal Aviation English curriculum should teach the language and terminology necessary to describe the following:
(82) Bratanic mentions that “apart from the general core curriculum…there is not much to help the teacher of Aviation English to decide about the organization of the syllabus.” (83) Thus, each instructor will ultimately have to choose content in accord with the program goals of his or her institution. Methodology In Omaggio’s review of influential L2 teaching methodologies, she mentions on several occasions the importance of sequencing the order in which new forms are presented (e.g. Omaggio 109, bottom) On the other hand, Bratanic states that “the sequence of the contents…is not fixed.” (83, italics added) However, she maintains that “we should teach techniques meant to encourage effective communications in real situations: improving conversational skills in order to cope with non-routine situations; individual and team exercises designed to encourage interactive participation and the like.” (83) I must say that in the preceding description I find several similarities with the principles expressed by Omaggio in her hypotheses for “Orienting Instruction toward Proficiency.” For example, if we consider the field of aviation, with its highly specific language, to be a type of sub-culture9, Bratanic’s suggestion is in complete agreement with Omaggio’s Hypothesis 1: “Opportunities must be provided for students to practice using language in a range of contexts likely to be encountered in the target culture.” (Omaggio, 90) Considering the very high cost of flight lessons, both instructors and students prefer to utilize these sessions principally to teach and practice flying skills, and this objective is best achieved when students enter the aircraft already having a good knowledge of R/T Phraseology. Thus, during ground school (the classroom portion of flight training), many instructors engage students in mock pilot - air-traffic controller conversations. Such didactic techniques clearly coincide with the fourth corollary of the previously mentioned hypothesis: “Authentic language should be used in instruction wherever possible.” Additionally, in many of these exchanges students are free to invent whichever flight variables they like (altitude, speed, destination, aircraft status, etc.), consistent with Omaggio’s Hypothesis 1, Corollary 3: “Creative language practice…must be encouraged in the proficiency oriented classroom.”10 While such creativity is helpful in the instruction of Aviation English, accuracy and clarity are, for reasons by now obvious to the reader, important in its real-world application, a point of view shared by Bratanic: “grammar practice…cannot be neglected.” She later adds that “Pronunciation practice and polishing is clearly of enormous importance,” and even allows that “Cross cultural sensitivity…should be fostered as an important underpinning of further skill development.” (83) These viewpoints are in clear agreement with Omaggio’s third and fifth hypotheses; the third is shown below:
In her review of various language teaching methodologies, Omaggio does not mention the topic of LSP instruction. However, of all the methods presented, it seems to me that Communicative Language Teaching is that which is most in line with the above goals. Most notable is CLT’s first characteristic: “1. Meaning is of primary importance in CLT[.]” And the previously mentioned fact that students’ needs should determine classroom techniques is represented by CLT characteristic 5. However, it must be pointed out that point 4, “Judicious use of the native language is acceptable where feasible, and translation may be used when students find it beneficial or necessary,” (Omaggio, 117) must be approached with caution by Aviation ESP instructors. In many North American flight schools, a typical classroom may contain students with many different native languages, and thus it would not be possible for the teacher to communicate with each student in his or her first language. While students in a conventional ESL classroom may simply use a bilingual dictionary in such circumstances, the precise, often restricted relationship between words and meaning in Aviation ESP raises the probability of mistranslation, and a resulting incomplete understanding of terms which may be critical to flight safety. Conclusion If the last few decades’ trend of globalization continues its projected growth, a corresponding increase in international air cargo and passenger traffic is simply inevitable. The resulting worldwide increase in demand for pilots and other aviation professionals will only make the issues of Aviation English proficiency measurement and instruction more relevant. At the same time, these topics are becoming increasingly more critical as a greater number of aircraft are being packed into the same finite space, resulting in a much smaller margin for error. In this environment where short phrases regulate the safety of hundreds of people, there is little room to misspeak. And while positive steps have recently been taken in the areas of Aviation English proficiency measurement and instruction techniques, a great deal must still be done if these increasingly more international and every day more crowded skies are to remain safe. Bibliography Omaggio Hadley, Alice. Teaching Language in Context. Boston: Heinle & Heinle, 2001 de Lotbinière, Max. “Standardising Airline English.” One Stop Magazine, ‘The Magazine for English Language Teachers’. 28 June 200211 http://www.onestopenglish.com/News/Magazine/News/news5.htm (Anexo 1)
“Identifying Basic English Language Proficiency for Air Traffic Controllers.” (Abstract) International Aviation Training Symposium. Federal Aviation Administration. 28 June 2002 http://www.iats.jccbi.gov/1999/finalproceedings/session5c4.htm (Anexo 3)
28 June 2002 http://www.swissair-as.ch/PDF_Dokus/SRAS_FactsheetEnglish_E.pdf (Anexo 4)
Embry Riddle Aeronautical University. August 2001 28 June 2002 http://www.embryriddle.edu/research/CliffNoble.html (Anexo 5) “Operator Flight Attendant English Language Program.” Federal Register. May 2, 2002. Federal Aviation Administration 28 June 2002 http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/0502oper.htm (Anexo 6)
28 June 2002 http://www.redlands.edu/news/archive/092701a.htm (Anexo 7)
Before The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. http://www.faa.gov/apa/testimony/2000/411tetm.htm (Anexo 8) Bratanic, Maja. “Aviation English within an ESP Context.” English for Specific Purposes: Contradictions and Balances, pp. 79-84 Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, Zagreb Websiste of: The British Council Croatia
(Anexo 9) “Pan American, Flight 1736 / KLM, Flight 4805” Cockpit Transcript 1 July 2002, http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cvr770327.htm (Anexo 10) 1 Airplane Single Engine Land 2 ESP = English for Special Purposes. I employ this acronym in the in the same sense as [Bratanic, Maja. “Aviation English within an ESP Context.” (Anexo 9)]. 3 In the United States alone there were approximately 31.941 daily departures of scheduled commercial aircraft, or 1.914.633 passengers transported daily, for the year ending December 2000 (U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics http://www.bts.gov/oai/aviation_industry/BlueBook_Dec2000.html). This figure does not include the additional thousands of daily private or non-scheduled commercial flights, which obviously use the same airspace. 4 “At the time of the accident, the Pan Am crew had 11 hours 20 minutes of duty time. The KLM crew had been on duty about 9 hours 20 minutes…Shortly before starting the engines, the Pan Am captain commented that he was ‘ready for the sack’.” (http://www.alpa.org/internet/alp/2000/aug00p18.htm) 5 ATC Clearance: A message transmitted to the flight crew at some point before takeoff. It includes instructions to be followed immediately after takeoff, and its receipt does not in any way constitute takeoff clearance. 6 After an extensive (>1 hour) internet search, efforts to locate the findings of this study group were unsuccessful. 7 LSP = Language for Special Purposes 8 As opposed to a form based approach. For example, the objective of my Chilean Applied Psycholinguistics classmates is primarily to teach certain aspects of form; in our class we discussed interesting ways to use content for this purpose, such as discussing grandparents to teach the past tense. However, in the context of Aviation English, form is viewed as a means to achieve the ultimate goal, content. e.g. a knowledge of the present continuous tense is useless if a pilot is unable to convey the sense of taking off. 9 Merriam-Webster definition of 10 This principle is applied by some flight students outside of the classroom. While working on my pilot’s license, I often practised R/T communication with pilot friends while driving around Daytona Beach, Florida. The “pilot” (driver) called “air-traffic control” (passenger in back seat) for “clearance” (directions) to “filed destination” (e.g. planned trip to bowling alley). Through the “flight” (drive), many indications were given in R/T lingo (e.g. change lanes, right next intersection, etc.). While this may sound silly to some readers, I must say that in my flight lessons I exhibited better than average radio communication skills (according to my instructor); having observed the training flights of others who practiced in this way, I can say that such creative practice was also beneficial for them. 11 The date directly preceding the URL refers to the date the page was first accessed by the author of this report. Download 72.25 Kb. Share with your friends:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
