Social, safety and economic impacts of global language testing in aviationPhilip Shawcross, President ICAEA BACKGROUNDLanguage and communication in aviationA Chinese pilot flying from Beijing to Paris may cross ten national boundaries and speak to more than two dozen air traffic controllers, each with a different first-language background, speaking different regional varieties of English at varying levels of proficiency. According to international regulations, while pilots may use the language of the country they are flying over, pilots and controllers must be able to communicate in the common language of aviation: English. Safe flights depend on successful pilot and controller communications. In fact, between 1970 and 1995, accident investigators determined that more than 1,500 passengers and flight crew lost their lives in accidents in which inadequate English language proficiency on the part of controllers and or pilots had been a contributing factor. In 1996, a mid-air collision over India resulted in the loss of 312 lives. In this accident, as in others previously, the investigation showed that inadequate spoken English had been a contributing factor. Most pilot-controller communications employ what is called “standard ICAO phraseology”, i.e. internationally recognized formulaic expressions which are used unfailingly to address routine and foreseeable abnormal situations. Examples of standard phraseology are:
However, in many non-routine, abnormal or emergency operational situations such as system failures, passenger illness, deviated flights, bad weather conditions, obstacles on the runway, threatening passenger behaviour, running short of fuel, delays, bomb scares etc. standard phraseology is not enough for effective and unambiguous communication. Pilots and controllers must then revert to what is called “plain” or “common” language to manage situations. This may include utterances such as:
1.2 Regulating to improve safety in aviationAccident investigations revealed it was the use of non-standard phraseology and inadequate proficiency in plain language which were contributing factors in a significant number of aircraft accidents and incidents. As a result, ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation), the United Nations regulatory aviation agency with 192 member States, based in Montreal, which legislates on every aspect of commercial aviation operations, set in motion a process to study how the level of radio communication could be improved and implement the necessary measures.
The concern which has driven all these measures is to improve safety in what is already a statistically very safe form of transport. ICAO does not possess the internal means or expertise to produce an aviation English test; nor is this part of its mandate. It is however in the process of providing guidelines on the nature of appropriate testing to be published in a circular in 2008. These standards represent the world’s first language testing policy affecting a whole industry, and naturally present a very complex set of consequences and requirements. 1.3 Specific features of the use of language in aviation and the ICAO language requirementsTo better understand the specific nature of aviation English testing, it is probably useful to recall the specific features of the language used by pilots and controllers, and hence the specific nature of testing systems which will be appropriate to asses proficiency in the profession.
These features specific to the use of English in aviation have meant that no single existing general purpose test is entirely fit for purpose to assess a person’s proficiency in accordance with the ICAO Rating Scale and holistic descriptors and that is not possible to establish total equivalence between the levels of any existing scale and those of the ICAO Rating Scale. However, perhaps even more noteworthy than all the points above is the sensitivity and the safety-critical nature of speech acts in operational aviation. “We are at take-off” (KL 4805, Tenerife 1977) “We are running out of fuel.” (Avianca 052, New York 1990) 2. IMPACT ON SAFETYIn aviation operations, where every eventuality is seemingly provided for and yet the unexpected happens, language is in a very real sense the final safety net. Accidents never have a single cause. To apply James Reason’s Swiss cheese model, a whole series of safety barriers has been set up in aviation to prevent an accident occurring and to contain the effects of any failure or human error. Yet every barrier has a chink. It is when the chinks in all the barriers somehow become lined up that the unthinkable happens. Language communication accompanies most of these barriers to make them more effective: pilot to pilot, pilot to controller, pilot to cabin crew. For much of any flight pilots rely almost totally on their ears to acquire what is called “situational awareness”, i.e. knowledge of the environment in which they are flying and into which they will fly: the weather, obstacles and other aircraft. Conversely, air traffic controllers on the ground rely entirely on their ears to know what is happening to and on each flight. Standard ICAO phraseology allows pilots and controllers to manage movements and situations most of the time in the most concise, regulated and unequivocal manner. However, many unexpected, non-routine situations need to be managed using plain language. The importance of effective oral communication is compounded by the growth in the volume of international air travel and the cosmopolitan nature of the staff involved. Emirates Airlines employ some 65 different nationalities in their flight crew. On an international flight, a pilot will be confronted with controllers speaking English with different accents and degrees of proficiency. In a nutshell, to enhance safety is why ICAO, the world’s regulating body for aviation, moved to define standards for the language used by the operational community and enforce the ongoing assessment of language proficiency. To quote from the Holistic descriptors in the appendix to Annex 1 of the ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (See ICAO Doc. 9835 Appendix A2): “Proficient speakers shall:
The obligation for all pilots flying internationally and air traffic controllers handling international traffic to demonstrate through a testing process approved by their national civil aviation authorities that they have attained at least ICAO Operation Level 4 certainly acts as a powerful force driving up standards of spoken English in the aviation community world wide. Indeed, in Europe and elsewhere, as regional legislation is brought into line with ICAO requirements, the trend is to aim at higher levels of proficiency. This will mean that pilots and controllers will be better prepared to deal effectively with the potentially hazardous situations with which they may be confronted and that generally speaking there will be greater awareness in the industry of the essential part played by language in the communication-technical-human factors equation. Had the controller working in dense fog in the Canaries in 1977 had greater linguistic confidence and sensitivity, perhaps he would have challenged the Dutch pilot to clarify his statement “We are at take-off”. He would then have realized that the Dutch plane was not ready for take-off, as he expected and had instructed, but had begun its take-off roll. If the South American pilot in New York in 1990 had been able to make clear by use of paraphrase just how low on fuel they were, and if the American controller had asked for clarification, perhaps history would have been different. This illustrates how aviation English proficiency testing has probably the highest stakes of all language testing in that inadequate or inappropriate testing could result in professionals with poor communicational skills representing a potential hazard for the ever-growing millions of members of the travelling public. 3. PROFESSIONAL IMPACTSSince 5th March 2008, with a conditional 3-year period of extension until March 2011, all pilots and air traffic controllers working in an international environment are required to have their professional licenses endorsed to prove that they have successfully passed an approved test demonstrating that they are at least at ICAO Operational Level 4. Without this endorsement, they are unable to work legally in an international environment. Those test-takers having attained Level 4 or Level 5 are required to re-sit a test periodically; every three years is recommended at Level 4 and every six years at Level 5. Given that much operational communication is fairly routine and largely based on standard phraseology, pilots and controllers may not often be faced with situations which maintain a wider linguistic ability. Therefore, success or failure in a proficiency test can determine whether a person retains his or her job or receives promotion: flying internationally, being promoted to captain, flying on larger aircraft, having greater responsibility as a controller, or not. Equally, at the bottom of the professional ladder, it will mean whether a person is hired or accepted for pilot or controller training. This will have immediate and possibly drastic effects on employees’ incomes and life styles, especially for those already in positions of authority whose initial language training is probably more remote and was maybe less effective. The testing obligations of the current Language Proficiency Requirements have a direct impact on how airlines and air navigation service providers manage the availability and training of their staff. In a profession where levels of remuneration and social prestige are habitually high, where training is a long and costly process, and where there is currently a shortage of qualified staff, the threat of failing a language proficiency test is particularly acute for both the organisation and the individuals concerned. 4. SOCIAL IMPACTSThe social impacts of the presence of a universal requirement to demonstrate proficiency in order to obtain the endorsement of one’s professional licence vary greatly and reflect both varying levels of fluency in the language in different parts of the world and also profound political and cultural differences. In the framework of the present paper, there is only space to refer to a few instances as illustrations of the way in which this unique testing environment affects social behaviour. Airline captains in particular enjoy considerable status both in society in general and more specifically in their professional environment where their authority over the rest of the crew is considerable. In certain Eastern cultures especially, the distance between captain and first officer (co-pilot) can be extreme, with it being difficult for the junior pilot to question his senior at all. Indeed, much effort is currently being deployed in human factors and Crew Resource Management training to make crews more aware of the potentially dangerous consequences of insufficient interaction between the two pilots. Therefore, a testing system which may suddenly upset this balance of authority by threatening the licence of the senior pilot, whose grasp of English may well be less robust than that of the junior first officer, can be very destabilising indeed. Moreover, in certain cultures, failure is not perceived as an option in high-profile professions exposed to the international gaze. Hence the results of certain benchmark tests in one country have been published with a 99.5% pass rate. Similarly, in another country all the questions in the test approved by the Authorities have been posted on the internet for candidates to become familiar with them thus seriously undermining the validity of the results in both cases. It becomes apparent that the testing systems approved by the national Authorities are subjected to intense social and political pressure. The conditions of compliance with ICAO Language Proficiency Requirements stipulate that States are obliged to file a difference with ICAO if they fail to comply and inform all those States to which their aircraft fly or over whose territory their aircraft fly of their failure to reach Level 4 entirely. Furthermore, language proficiency is henceforth one of the items which are addressed by ICAO safety audits when their officials visit different States. These facts all result in the language proficiency issue becoming a particularly public one. When communication broke down between a Far Eastern flight crew and an American controller late in 2007 it made the headlines on CNN and elsewhere. In the resulting investigation, it appeared that the crew members had been attributed Level 4 and yet in the ensuing interviews it was painfully clear that their communicative ability was far below this. Airlines are commonly the flag carriers of their respective States and as such carry considerable prestige. The thought that their reputation could be tarnished by the negative publicity of having some of their staff declared non-compliant with the Language Proficiency Requirements can understandably generate great anxiety and threaten national pride. This in turn may lead to pressure to design or adopt a testing system in which failure is marginalised or results tampered with. Consequently, in a testing process in which the stakes are so high from many points of view rigorous security is a paramount, but not inviolable, issue. In other countries, labour laws or strong trade unions may prevent dismissal or reclassification and characterise as discrimination the testing and sanctioning of professionals hired at a time when language requirements were not in force. This in turn may result in either testing being disregarded or the unrealistic training of more senior staff. Finally, on a more personal level, failure or the fear of failure in a language proficiency test, which determines them practising their profession and maintaining their livelihood, may affect the self-esteem of otherwise highly qualified and respected professionals in their thirties, forties or fifties. This adds to the anxiety experienced in professions already characterized by regular medical check-ups and professional checks. 5. ECONOMIC IMPACTSThe implementation of the ICAO Language Proficiency Requirements comes at a cost to the aviation industry as a whole, both in direct and indirect expenses, which has been roughly estimated to be at least in hundreds of millions of dollars. In addition to the expense of procuring and administering generally sophisticated and secure purpose-built tests for hundreds of thousands of pilots and controllers on a recurrent basis, there is the considerable cost of taking highly-paid professionals working on rosters or shifts off the job in order to sit the test and then possibly follow extensive remedial training if they fail it. Any failure to pass the test will in turn result in the employee being withdrawn from international operations, or being subject to conditional contingency measures until 2011 (e.g. working necessarily with a colleague whose licence has been endorsed), in a work market where there is already a severe shortage of qualified professionals and financial pressures due to rising fuel costs. The Language Proficiency Requirements are definitely not good news for Human Resource departments. At a higher level, in a global economy with an intensely competitive market where travellers select the airline they use on line, any negative publicity about the language proficiency of a given airline’s staff or a country’s controllers has the potential to have a very detrimental effect upon their image in the eyes of the travelling public and hence have a direct impact on ticket sales. A time is dawning when language proficiency is entering people’s awareness as one of the parameters to be taken into account in air travel along with safety records, fares, punctuality, quality of service, ease of connections, leg room, baggage handling and on-board meals. CONCLUSIONSHas ICAO opened Pandora’s box in creating requirements for global testing in aviation? Are its impacts one long tale of woe? Will you take the train the next time you travel? It is time to recall a few facts which may help place things in perspective. Like the railways in the nineteenth century on a national level, aviation has accelerated a standardised awareness of time and space at a planetary level and been one of the main motors of technological and economic change. Whether for better or for worse it is an integral part of our world system. In the process, aviation has generated some far-reaching results:
To conclude by returning to a standpoint of applied linguistics and language testing, the case of global language testing in aviation may have singular significance. Not only may it suggest a model for the way in which our society feels it needs to ensure linguistic competence beyond an academic context in specific areas of activity where the accurate and reliable use of language is critical, using purposefully designed assessment tools, but it is indicative of our more developed awareness of the essential role effective oral communication plays at the heart of an increasingly complex and technological world. APPENDIX A: ReferencesAviation English
Aviation Background
Official Bodies
ICAO Publications
APPENDIX B: A few words on ICAEA (International Civil Aviation English Association)ICAEA is a non-commercial, non-partisan association created to:
ActivitiesICAEA’s main activities to date have been:
List of ICAEA events
|