What constitutes professional communication in aviation: Is language proficiency enough for testing purposes?

Abstract

This paper aims to identify what aviation experts consider to be the key features of effective communication by examining in detail their commentary on a 17-minute segment of recorded radiotelephony discourse between a Russian pilot and a Korean air traffic controller. The segment was played to three practising pilots and three air traffic controllers. Their commentary on the qualities of communication displayed in the interaction was recorded and coded thematically, using a grounded ethnography approach. The analysis revealed that although the Russian pilot was viewed as having limited English proficiency, the strategies he used to make himself understood were evaluated positively as fulfilling the requirements of the professional role. By contrast, the Korean air traffic controller, although not evaluated as having limited proficiency, was criticized for his lack of professional knowledge. The discourse analysis and the feedback given by these expert informants highlight not only the nature of the miscommunication arising in unexpected situations, but also the multiple factors that may contribute to it. While language proficiency is clearly an issue, there are many other sources of miscommunication that emerge during the exchange. These findings are used to critique the narrow, language-focused oral proficiency construct as articulated in the holistic descriptors and the rating scale stipulated by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO, 2010) as the basis for tests of aviation English worldwide. Instead the paper proposes an expanded construct of oral communication incorporating elements of professional knowledge and behaviour with a focus on interactional competence specific to this context.

Keywords

Aviation communication distributed cognition ICAO LPRs LSP testing pilot and air traffic controller radiotelephony professional knowledge

Recent work in the testing of Languages for Specific Purposes (LSP) has pointed to the importance, for valid construct definition, of drawing insights from domain experts on those features of communication that are critical for safe and effective functioning in the relevant occupational or professional context. The studies of assessment criteria in professional settings cover the fields of tour guiding (Brown, 1995), veterinary science (Douglas & Myers, 2000), classroom teaching (Elder, 1993), health (Lumley, 1998; Manias & McNamara, 2016; Pill, 2016), and physics (Jacoby, 1998) (see ‘indigenous assessment criteria’ in Jacoby & McNamara, 1999). These studies raise the question of whether it is valid and fair to consider linguistically focused factors alone as the assessment criteria in LSP testing. More fundamentally, it asks if it is indeed possible to separate linguistic factors from professional communicative competence, given that they appear to be closely intertwined. Douglas (2000, 2005) clearly points to the interaction between language knowledge and specific purpose content knowledge as what distinguishes testing LSP from general purpose language use. However, as Byrnes (2008) points out, there is a significant conceptual problem in the field where the focus historically has been on the description of second language knowledge independent of an individual’s cognitive ability to process a textual level of knowledge. Indeed, in most widely accepted assessment frameworks (e.g., Bachman & Palmer, 1996) language tends to be treated separately from these other elements.

The aim of this paper is to explore the features that aviation specialists consider to be important in professional radiotelephony communication between airline pilots and air traffic controllers (hereafter referred to as controllers), and consider the proficiency construct and the appropriateness of assessment criteria embodied in the current Language Proficiency Requirements (LPRs) in relation to the complex interactional demands of radiotelephony communication. The LPRs were established by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a special agency of the United Nations with 191 member states, and apply to any language used for international radiotelephony communication with English as the default. The language of the radio station on the ground (e.g., Korean is used by aviation personnel in Korea) can also be used. I investigate the context of radiotelephony communication in Korea, as part of the international radiotelephony communication context, where an English test is used to assess readiness to function in a highly specialized professional capacity.

The LPRs are internationally applicable in stipulating that all non-native English speaking pilots and controllers engaging in the international operation should take a specific purpose test and prove that they have the minimum required operational level of proficiency. The six assessment criteria against which their speaking proficiency is assessed, namely Pronunciation, Structure, Vocabulary, Fluency, Comprehension, and Interactions, are similar to those conventionally adopted by many general purpose language tests. The descriptors are phrased in traditional terms: pronunciation “almost never interfere with ease of understanding”; the ability to use “complex grammatical structures” and “idiomatic and nuanced vocabulary”; being able to “vary speech flow for stylistic effect”; “comprehension of linguistic and cultural subtleties”; and being “sensitive to verbal and non-verbal cues” for each assessment criterion respectively ( ICAO, 2010; see Appendix 1 for details).

Literature review

Two areas of literature are reviewed for this study: research into the linguistic features of radiotelephony communication, and research on the context of professional communication based on the theory of distributed cognition. The theory of distributed cognition stems from the field of cognitive anthropology from a sociocultural perspective. This approach is concerned with interactions between individuals or groups of people, or between individuals and artefacts in situated contexts. A similar theoretical perspective discussed in the field of applied linguistics is interactional competence (see, e.g., Chalhoub-Deville, 2003; Kramsch, 1986) or co-construction (Jacoby & Ochs, 1995); however, there has been little discussion about the characteristics of real-world communicative cultures and activities, the complexity of contexts, and the many factors embedded within them through naturally occurring discourse.

Linguistic features of pilot and controller communication

There are two distinct language types in pilot and controller communication: phraseology and plain language (which is sometimes called plain English). Phraseology comprises a prescribed, standardized set of English words and phrases specially developed for the purpose, based on nine principles (ICAO, 2001), and used in all routine situations. Plain language is the language used when phraseology does not suffice in radiotelephony communication, and it “should be delivered in the same clear, concise, and unambiguous manner as phraseologies” (ICAO, 2004, pp. 2–3). One of the noteworthy linguistic features of phraseology is the use of simple grammatical constructions and lexical choices to ensure optimum transmissibility over the radio. In addition, three other principles are dedicated to phonetic features, as follows: avoiding words and phrases which are prone to be influenced by differences of pronunciation; using phrases proven by experience to be phonetically suitable; and avoiding words containing sounds or syllabic constructions that are difficult for non-native English speakers to pronounce. A syntactical analysis of phraseology conducted by Philps (1991) shows a preponderance of imperatives (42.5%) as well as deletion (e.g., of direct objects and linking verbs). The author explains that the latter distinguishing feature is possible because the sources are already determined by the extralinguistic context. The author stresses that since the structural system of phraseology and referential values common to its domain are interwoven, this codified language can effectively function as a communication tool by being explicit and elliptical at the same time. These characteristics lead to phraseology being described as an extremely restricted language (Halliday, McIntosh, & Strevens, 1964), a special language (Mackay & Mountford, 1978), or a language that must be learned and practised like a second language including native speakers of English (Estival, Farris, & Molesworth, 2016). In contrast with the clear protocol for phraseology, there is no clear definition of plain language except as briefly mentioned in the ICAO document mentioned above. It is thus vulnerable to subjective interpretation.

There are standardized communicative turns in radiotelephony: initiate, present information, and accept information (Morrow & Rodvold, 1998; Morrow, Rodvold, & Lee, 1994). The most notable conventions are readback and hearback at the acceptance phase. A pilot initiates a turn in order to make a request or a controller to give an instruction. It is usually the controller who presents information. It is then the responsibility of the pilot to read back or repeat the message received from the controller and it is the task of the controller to listen attentively to the message repeated by the pilot (this is called hearback). When the message is repeated correctly by the pilot, a whole set of turns is completed. However, if there are any errors or essential information is partially repeated by the pilot, the whole closed loop has to be repeated. This confirmation procedure is critical and thus an important part of the construct, because it is a phase that can change what the pilot perceives to be the situation. Both the pilot and the controller share and update a mental model of the situation and the planned actions through this collaborative scheme (Morrow & Rodvold, 1998). In other words, the demonstration of interactional competence is systematically embedded in the procedural conventions in radiotelephony communication.

Major studies analysing live radiotelephony discourse carried out in the United States pay attention to readback or hearback errors, and how the actual language use deviates from prescribed standard phraseology (e.g., Burki-Cohen, 1995; Cardosi, 1993; Howard, 2008; Morrow, Lee, & Rodvold, 1993; Morrow et al., 1994). All of the studies stress the importance of adhering to standard phraseology and plain language and paying more careful attention to correct readback and hearback for safer and more efficient communication. This is because one piece of unclarified information can lead to an incident as observed in past catastrophic accidents.

Characterizing the collaborative nature of pilot and controller communication as an example of English used as a lingua franca, some studies (e.g., Estival et al., 2016; Kim & Elder, 2009) take the view that both interactants regardless of their native language or levels of English proficiency share responsibility for the success or failure of communication. Based on a qualitative analysis of discourse, Kim and Elder (2009) argue that the effort of more proficient pilots or controllers to adjust their language use to a less proficient interlocutor is an important quality in the international radiotelephony context. A study by Kim and Billington (2018) also maintains that the ability to identify pronunciation features that can possibly cause problems is critical for both native and non-native aviation personnel in order to employ appropriate strategies for enhancing intelligibility in radiotelephony communication. Further, Kim and Elder (2015) are critical of the ICAO scale, claiming that non-native English speaker proficiency (or lack thereof) is overemphasized in previous research investigating factors that led to past aviation accidents, whereas non-compliance with radiotelephony conventions (i.e., the use of phraseology and plain language) by many native speakers of English is overlooked.

In general, the above studies highlight the specificity or unique features of radiotelephony communication in aviation, where interaction between interlocutors is never face-to-face. In the interests of safety and efficiency, and since visual and non-verbal cues are non-existent in this form of communication, all the studies stress the importance of compliance with radiotelephony procedures and conventions.

The context of professional communication: The theory of distributed cognition

In this section, the complexity of contexts of human interaction, in which human and environmental factors are involved, is explained by drawing on the theory of distributed cognition offered by Hutchins (1995). Interaction is considered in three contexts: in naval vessels, in the airline cockpit, and in air traffic control. Rather than focusing on an individual’s internal cognitive process, the sociocultural view of the notion of distributed cognition focuses on how cognitive activity in natural surroundings is distributed between humans interacting with one another and with various artefacts or technological systems. As an example of how this works, Hutchins offers an ethnographic description of how navigational tasks such as taking visual bearings, recording them, and plotting lines of position are accomplished among the team members on a large US naval vessel. Hutchins describes the features as follows:

One important aspect of the social distribution of this task is that the knowledge required to carry out the coordinating actions is not discretely contained inside the various individuals. Rather, much of the knowledge is intersubjectively shared among the members of the navigation team. This permits the human component of the system to act as a malleable and adaptable coordinating tissue, the job of which is to see to it that the proper coordinating activities are carried out. In their communication and in their joint actions, the members of the navigation team superimpose themselves on the network of material computational media. They provide the connecting tissue that moves representational state across the tools of the trade. (p. 219)

In addition, in terms of understanding how communication works within this framework, Hutchins stresses that meanings do not exist in the statements themselves or independently of context, but instead are negotiated by the participants as they perform their joint activities based on their understanding of the activities being carried out. When they encounter ambiguities, they resolve them by guessing each other’s tasks, and meaningful interpretations for particular statements are proposed and presupposed on the basis of the sequence of activities. It is thus the flow of such activities that constitutes evidence of the success of the communication. These collaborative efforts for meaning negotiation are also core elements of interactional competence (see Chalhoub-Deville, 2003; Jacoby & Ochs, 1995; Kramsch, 1986).

The interpretation or the impact of a message on the receiver hinges on what the receiver knows, in other words, that person’s expertise in practice. Experience is considered crucial to expertise, which is built up during the course of a career trajectory. More expert workers are better at detecting and diagnosing errors, for example, because they already have experience with the operations that lead to those errors, and because their knowledge subsumes the knowledge of those who are less experienced. In this sense, the carrying out of tasks constitutes a context for learning and the accumulation of expertise in the communities of practice (see Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998).

Hutchins and Klausen (1996) describe what happens in the airline cockpit as a distributed cognition system. Drawing on a transcript of audio and video recordings made in the cockpit of an aircraft requiring a crew of three, they describe how information presented (representational state) is propagated in the system across representational media. The representational media include individual pilots, communication between the pilots in the cockpit or between one of the pilots and the controller over the radio, and other physical artefacts in the cockpit environment. The authors show how the pilots in the cockpit are able to carry out each other’s tasks without explicit verbal communication because they have constructed a shared understanding of each other’s duties and situation. In the course of obtaining clearance for altitude change from the controller and changing the radio frequency, the crew develops a plan to reach their goal of changing cruise altitude. All have access to the information spoken between one of the pilots and the controller; therefore, they can depend on each other when one of them fails to retrieve the information, and thus form an expectation of what will follow. Their expectation is not always realized; for example, they expect an instruction for higher altitude from the controller but instead the controller delivers an instruction to change frequency. The authors show how the communication that occurs is based on a constructed shared understanding of the situation as follows:

The Captain looks at the First Officer and says nothing. The First Officer says “thirty two eight” to the Captain. Then the Captain asks, “thirty two eight?”… the First Officer’s utterance assigns a meaning to the Captain’s blank stare to which it is a response. It classifies the Captain’s action of looking at the First Officer as a question about the frequency to be used. (pp. 22–23)

The authors claim that this intersubjectively shared understanding is possible because of the special distribution of knowledge within the pilot community. Reading back messages from a controller allows for error checking and a complete set of duplicate instruments for each pilot is designed to create the necessary backup in the case of error.

Distributed cognition is also invoked by Fields, Wright, Marti, and Palmonari (1998) in analysing the way communication works in air traffic control. They first describe the way information is represented in air traffic control systems, using external representation media that includes charts and standard routes, flight strips (paper strips with information such as aircraft identification, flight level, speed, estimated time of arrival at the next specified geographical location), strip boards (showing aircraft grouped under the names of beacons along the route), radar (a snapshot of the current horizontal location of aircraft with its speed and its direction in which the longitudinal axis of an aircraft is pointed), and call signs (flight identification or the airline’s flight number, which are both important means of coordinating the information represented in all the external representations). The authors then explain how those external representations are used for detecting conflicts, and how the information present in the media is used for collaboration with the other controllers in the same control sector. Even overt verbal communication, the authors assert, may make sense only within the context of information which is represented in physical artefacts and shared knowledge between the interactants. They explain that the overlapping information produced by more than one artefact in the system is an important factor for the system’s robustness, and that two or more of the representational media are sometimes necessary to be coordinated by controllers.

In sum, the studies described here highlight the complex nature of professional communication and the many cognitive and contextual factors which influence performance. They reveal the richly context-embedded features of performance, a tacit agreement between interactants, and how an interactant perceives information and delivers that information to another interactant or uses the information for the following action. How such constructs can be operationalized, for assessment purposes, is a challenge that is yet to be addressed. However, it is evident that a broad approach is necessary to achieve a more profound understanding of constructs, such as radiotelephony communication.

Research questions

The literature suggests that the linguistically focused features alone are insufficient to evaluate communicative competence in radiotelephony. Thus the following research questions are addressed in this study:

What aspects of professional competence contribute to effective and successful radiotelephony communication?

How appropriate is the speaking proficiency construct embodied in the descriptors of the ICAO rating scale and associated assessment criteria for testing professional radiotelephony communication ability?

Method

The data are drawn from a larger study (Kim, 2012), which explores the construct of aviation communication using multiple sources and multiple methods. The focus of this paper is on a particular segment of radiotelephony discourse collected from an international airport in Korea, which is explicated with reference to insights elicited from a group of Korean pilots and controllers with knowledge and experience of the professional domain. The particular segment selected for analysis was chosen because it exhibits the significance of shared understanding and knowledge of the context, and of expected interaction with physical artefacts in the situated context to solve the problem encountered. To explore the important professional communication aspects and the appropriateness of the proficiency construct represented in the ICAO rating scale and assessment criteria, the framework adopted is grounded ethnography, which is “an approach to describing and understanding a target language use situation from the perspective of language users in that situation” (Douglas, 2000, p. 93). The audio-recorded radiotelephony discourse was a primary data source for discourse analysis and was also used as the stimulus for eliciting the commentaries of domain experts on the performance of the pilot and the controller.

Discourse analysis of live communication

The researcher first attempted to transcribe the audio-recording, but portions of the transcript remained incomplete owing to her limited contextual understanding. One of the controller informants helped with supplying the missing components, especially the parts involving phraseology. The transcript was then completed during a focus group session with controller informants.

Expert evaluation of the discourse

A focus group session was held with three controller informants from the Area Control Centre with 17 to 21 years of experience. Three pilot informants with 13 to 14 years of experience provided their commentaries individually. All informants were provided a full transcription of the discourse and the audio-recording was played to them. They were then asked to comment on the following: (1) the Russian pilot and the Korean controller’s overall performance in terms of professionalism in handling the situation; and (2) the appropriateness of language use according to the ICAO LPRs. These informants’ commentary sessions were all recorded and transcribed in Korean, and then later translated into English. Multiple passes through the transcribed commentaries allowed the researcher to develop main themes in the larger study (Kim, 2012). Subordinate themes were also grouped under each main theme. The four main categories comprise the following: Review of Radiotelephony Transcript and Context, Professional Competence, Linguistic Competence, and General Issues. Professional Competence and Linguistic Competence are the focus of this study as they are directly related to evaluation of the performance. Subcategories grouped under two evaluative categories, which reveal the unique nature of interactional competence in this context, are explained in the second part of the findings section where the experts’ commentaries on the performance are reported.

Findings

A brief background on the context of the episode is provided in the Setting the scene section. In the Radiotelephony discourse section, transcripts of the relevant stretches of radiotelephony discourse accompanied by annotations are presented. This is followed by the Expert evaluation section, which provides the aviation expert informants’ evaluative feedback on the performance.

Setting the scene

The abnormal situation (i.e., an aircraft has a problem that does not affect its operation, ICAO, 1996) in this episode is a request for diversion by a Vladivostok aircraft to its home country, Russia, via an alternative route owing to a technical problem encountered while flying into Incheon in Korea from Pattaya in Thailand. When an airplane flies to a destination, it also has an alternate destination, in the event of an emergency. After landing at Incheon, the airplane is scheduled to fly to Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky in Russia with Vladivostok as its alternate destination, at a distance of approximately three and a half hours’ flying time. The request is made by the Russian pilot of the aircraft to the Korean controller. The duration of the whole transmission is 17 minutes and 11 seconds, and there are 131 turns in the discourse in total. For this kind of abnormal situation, a controller needs to map out a route by coordinating possible routes with other controllers who manage traffic in the associated routes. In the case of this episode, the controller has to plan a route to Russia, which means he needs to contact controllers in North Korea and Russia. Since this is an abnormal situation, the pilot can propose his preferred route, but the route must be confirmed by controllers in the area through which the aircraft will pass.

Radiotelephony discourse

Key sections of the transmission are presented in full and a summary description is provided for the remainder of the radiotelephony interaction. The discourse is shown in the left column and the annotations are shown in the right column. Below is an early part of the exchange where the Russian pilot, who originally planned to land at Incheon international airport, requests a diversion to an airport in Vladivostok for technical reasons. The letter p designates pilot and the letter c designates controller.

<T=0.33>

(6) p: Incheon Control, Victor Lima Kilo 1740, request
(7) c: Go ahead
(8) p: Victor Lima Kilo 1740, we have er… our alternate Uniform Hotel Whisky Whisky and due to technical reason we requesting er… ### to my alternate
(9) c: Confirm er… you need divert to alternate airport?
(10) p: Affirmative, Vladivostok, Uniform Hotel Whisky Whisky and request using after Charlie Juliet Uniform, Alfa 586 airway
(11) c: Okay, standby sir
(12) p: Roger

Incheon Control is the name of an air traffic control facility on the ground.
Victor Lima Kilo is the ICAO code name for Vladivostok Air.
Uniform Hotel Whisky Whisky (UHWW) is an airport in Vladivostok. All airports are named with a 4 letter code.
Affirmative means “yes”.
Charlie Juliet Uniform refers to Jeju international airport in Korea.
Alfa 586 is an airway, a control area established in the form of a corridor
Roger means “I have received all of our last transmission”.

In turns (6) to (9) the pilot requests the diversion and in turn (10), the pilot lists the first two indicators of his route, the airport and the airway. In the subsequent turns between (25) and (41) which are not presented here, the controller confirms his understanding of the Russian pilot’s request and this is confirmed by the pilot. The controller then asks the reason for the diversion in general English, but the Russian pilot appears not to understand this request as he simply repeats his original destination. The controller repeats the question again in general English and the reason is supplied by the pilot. A different frequency is then assigned to the pilot in turns (40) and (41), so that they can interact without interruptions from other transmissions.

Once communication on this new frequency has been established, the pilot proposes a route to his alternative airport, but the confirmation of the route by the controller does not go smoothly because of the controller’s unfamiliarity with the names of airways and intersections.

<T=4.19>

(42) p: Incheon Control, Victor Lima Kilo 1740, maintaining 350 squawk 7155 (43) c: Victor Lima Kilo 1740, er, roger, maintain flight level 350 (44) p: Victor Lima Kilo 1740, maintain flight level 350 and I request using after Charlie Juliet Uniform er… to [Papa] Sierra November er… and I er… requesting to my alternate [interrupted by other transmission]	Squawk is a unique code that can be set in an airplane. When this code is put into the transmitter, it imports all data. It is also a code for a controller to know the airplanes he/she is in charge of. Charlie Juliet Uniform refers to Jeju international airport and Papa Sierra November is one of the location designators in Korea.
(45) c: Okay, Victor Lima Kilo 1740, say your proposing route after Charlie Juliet Uniform (46) p: Victor Lima Kilo 1740 after Charlie Juliet Uniform er… requesting via Alfa 586 er… [Papa] Sierra November next Alfa 586, INTOS, next Bravo 467, KANSU, er, Golf 711 (47) c: What’s point for Golf 711, what’s name of fix? (48) p: Golf 711 er… standby	Alfa 586, Bravo 467, and Golf 711 are airways, and INTOS and KANSU are intersections/fixes in air routes. Fix refers to a navigational point acting as an intersection in air routes.

The pilot states his preferred route by listing the airways and fixes in turn (46), but instead of reading it back to confirm the route, the controller asks the name of the fix Golf 711 in turn (47). In the following transmission, the fix name is provided by the pilot, but the controller asks the spelling of it in general English. Then, turns are extended to confirm the spelling.

<T=5.47>

(49) p: After point KANSU Golf 711 er… AGITA
(50) c: How do you spell that? … … Let me know by ICAO phonetic alphabet
(51) c: Victor Lima Kilo 1740, let me know, let me know let me know the name of fix Golf 711, Golf 711, next of fix er… by the ICAO phonetic alphabet
(52) p: Sorry, after Golf er… after er… after KANSU, Golf 711, AGITA, Golf 721, LATIS, alternate Uniform Hotel Whisky Whisky
(53) c: Er… sorry say again slowly, Victor Lima Kilo 1740

The controller, who has not understood the fix name the pilot provides (the straight line in Figure 1), requests that it be spelled out in the radiotelephony spelling alphabet in turns (50) and (51), but this request is not understood by the pilot. Instead, the pilot provides further route details after Golf 711 to his alternate destination in turn (52).

Figure 1.

Route map to the airport in Vladivostok.

In turns (56) to (62), the pilot provides the controller with the spelling of the fix in question, but the controller does not confirm the spelling but rather checks further route details to the alternate destination. A further step for clearance is taken by the controller. In order to gain time to coordinate controllers at designated air traffic control centres along the route, the controller asks the pilot to wait. Meanwhile, the pilot asks if he can reroute but this is not responded to by the controller. In the following transmission, the missed confirmation of the spelling of the fix surfaces again.

<T=8.49>

(63) c: Victor Lima Kilo 1740, Incheon(64) p: Victor Lima Kilo 1740, go ahead(65) c: Yes, after Golf 711, Golf 711, what’s fix, name of fix by ICAO phonetic alphabet?(66) p: Victor Lima Kilo 1740, speak slowly please and er… say again(67) c: Okay, I understand your route of flight er… after KANSU after KANSU then Golf 711 to AGIVA Alfa Golf India Victor Alfa then Golf 721, Golf 721, then Uniform Hotel Whisky Whisky(68) p: Roger, affirmative, Victor Lima Kilo 170, 1740(69) c: Is that AGIVA Alfa Golf India Victor Alfa, that’s right?(70) p: Alfa Golf India Tango Alfa(71) c: Okay, Alfa Golf India Tango Alfa, thank you

The controller again asks the pilot the spelling of the fix in turn (65), which was requested earlier in turns (47) and (50) and provided by the pilot in turn (56), using the radiotelephony spelling alphabet. Without the pilot providing additional spelling, the controller reads out the name of the fix incorrectly in turn (67), but the pilot fails to correct it and instead confirms what the controller reads out. After repeated confirmation of the spelling in turn (69) the pilot corrects it in turn (70) in the radiotelephony spelling alphabet. Thus far, the exchange over the fix name and the route takes 25 turns, from (47) to (71), to be resolved.

The subsequent 14 turns from (72) and (85) are carried out in Korean between the controller and another Korean controller in Flying Information Centre at Incheon airport with regard to this airplane’s changed schedule. In the following omitted turns between (86) and (96), the controller asks the pilot if he has enough fuel to reach the changed destination, which leads to confusion over the destination. In the following transmission, the issue of the air route is reintroduced. A new fix name is mentioned by the pilot and the choice between the two routes is given to the pilot. Then, the pilot says only the fix name that has been clarified between himself and the controller and the destination. The route is decided as the controller reads back the second choice that the pilot listed in earlier turns.

<T=12.44>

(97) c: Victor Lima Kilo 1740, Incheon(98) p: Victor Lima Kilo 1740, go ahead(99) c: Roger, er… I want to know exact route of flight after KANSU, so please say again route of flight after KANSU(100) p: Victor Lima Kilo 1740, after KANSU we can fly Golf 711 but we can fly to Bravo 467, NULAR. … … Are you have to decide er… what the er… route can I fly?(101) c: Okay, Victor Lima Kilo 1740. It’s your choice, it’s your choice.(102) c: Victor Lima Kilo 1740, 1740, only ask me what’s your correct route of flight to Uniform Hotel Papa Papa. After that we can give you, we can approve.(103) c: Victor Lima Kilo 1740, Incheon(104) p: Victor Lima Kilo 1740(105) c: Yes sir, 1740, let me know the correct route of flight after KANSU(106) p: After KANSU, airway Golf 711 to Uniform Hotel Whisky Whisky(107) c: Victor Lima Kilo 1740, okay, after KANSU, Bravo 467, NULAR NULAR, then what’s your route, what’s your route of flight after NULAR? [very slowly](108) p: After KANSU, Bravo 687, correct?(109) c: Yes, Bravo 467, Bravo 467, NULAR(110) p: Bravo 467 correct, Victor Lima Kilo 1740(111) c: Victor Lima Kilo 1740, say estimated time of KANSU(112) p: Victor Lima Kilo 1740, standby please. KANSU estimated 14:40, Victor Lima Kilo 1740(113) c: Copy, thank you(114) p: Standby er, your request, Victor Lima Kilo 1740(115) c: Okay

Uniform Hotel Papa Papa (UHPP) is the airport in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky in Russia.

The controller asks for the flight route after the fix KANSU, up to which point clarification between the pilot and the controller has seemed to be firmly established in turn (99). The pilot provides a new fix name, NULAR (the dashed line in Figure 1) in turn (100). A decision between the two routes, one proposed earlier and the other being proposed in turn (100) is handed over to the pilot in turns (101), (102) and (105), but the pilot provides only the fix name KANSU, an already clarified position, and his alternative destination in turn (106), omitting the route in between. Then, the controller says the new fix name NULAR, proposed by the pilot in turns (100) and (107). Airway Bravo 467 is confirmed in turns (108) to (110), which was confirmed in a much earlier turn (46). Without the matter being settled, the turns move on to the estimated time the airplane will pass the fix KANSU (turns 111 and 112).

In the last transmission, the pilot, still confused, confirms his route by listing all the fix points and airways to his destination again. However, the pilot now repeats his alternate destination as Uniform Hotel Whisky Whisky, having been incorrectly confirmed in the earlier turn for the destination of Uniform Hotel Papa Papa. This misunderstanding remains unsettled to the end. Finally, the controller asks the pilot to reconfirm his route when he gets into airspace in North Korea. The communication ends as the controller hands over the transmission by giving the pilot a new frequency.

Expert evaluation: Professional competence

This category encompasses all comments pertaining to role behaviour, or in other words whether the language behaviour of the pilot or controller accords with conventional practice or with what would normally be expected of a professional in the situation. This category is divided into three subcategories: Professional competence in general, Radiotelephony convention compliance, and Pilot/Controller motive or behaviour. Although the Russian pilot’s strategic competence (e.g., listing all the airways and fix positions on the route map) was commented on favourably by the aviation experts, the vast majority of the negative comments were about the Korean controller’s performance. First, the controller’s overall level of professional competence was commented on as the most influential factor that made the communication inefficient and overly long. Pilot Informant 2 commented:

Well, first, what the controller didn’t know was situations that could possibly happen to overflying airplanes. He was totally clueless about fix names and airways. He couldn’t make head or tail of it. He wasn’t prepared for overflying airplanes which were headed to countries other than Korea. It was just a simple request. The aircraft was scheduled for Incheon but it requested for diversion to Vladivostok, but look at how many turns were made only over destination. The controller was the problem rather than the Russian pilot’s level of English because the controller was so lacking in knowledge about adjoining airways … An unexpected name of the airport cropped up and the controller got completely muddled about it. He had little knowledge about adjacent airways that he should have known.

[Pilot Informant 2]

Of the extended turns over the fix name issue, one of the pilot informants commented that the controller should have looked at a chart map to find the fix in question:

The controller was problematic. If he didn’t know the fix name in question, he could find it out in the route map, the point that Golf 711 met. Maybe it isn’t a huge deal that the controller didn’t know the fix name, but it was in question over the turns and the chart simply solves the problem. So, the pilot listed out all the fixes and airways.

[Pilot Informant 1]

Second, the Korean controller’s non-compliance with radiotelephony convention was the next feature most commented on in this category. His unclear language use in the form of a mix between phraseology and general English and his failure to comply with readback and hearback procedures in many turns were noted as a factor which made the communication much more extended and ambiguous than it needed to be. For instance, when the pilot listed his proposed route to the alternate airport in turn (46), the controller did not read back the pilot’s message, but posed a question in the following turn (47). Additionally, in referring to turn (47) Pilot Informant 1 commented that the sentence “what’s name of fix” was ambiguous itself because it was unclear whether he was asking for the fix of the airway Golf 711 or the fix the airplane would take after using airway Golf 711. The controller’s partial readback in turn (57) is a similar example, which caused an extension in the number of turns. The pilot stated the route to his alternate airport by listing all the fixes and airways in the previous turn (56), but the controller omitted “AGITA”, which was confirmed in a later turn.

Third, the controller’s inquiry about the fuel matter was negatively commented on, not because the question itself was inappropriate, but because there were other more urgent matters to be resolved and confirmed. Twenty-six turns were exchanged, from (46) to (71), to confirm the route, but without fulfilling the pilot’s request, the controller initiated a contact to ask if the aircraft had enough fuel to reach the destination. However, by picking up the word “destination” the pilot answered that his destination was UHPP, which was different from what the controller had understood. Pilot Informant 1 commented that it was not a matter that the controller had to be concerned about, but a matter that the pilot had looked into before he decided to request the diversion. One of the pilot informants made the following observation while he was commenting on the controller’s overall inefficient way of responding to the pilot:

About the fuel matter, alright, it’s a question a controller could ask out of concern just to make sure. However, it just caused more confusion. If only the controller had been concerned about it after having done his job, such as getting the request right and confirming the pilot’s intention right properly. The controller had a busy mind, and he just asked and said whatever came to his mind.

[Pilot Informant 2]

It seems that this informant believed that the controller’s enquiry about the matter of fuel was either irrelevant or at the very least a secondary issue which should not have been raised at that point in the communication.

Fourth, the controller’s inefficient general English use for the turns which could have been rendered in phraseology was a feature commented on by the informant:

The controller kept saying “let me know blah blah, let me know blah blah”. Do you know why? It’s because he couldn’t get to the point. He needed to respond to the pilot but didn’t exactly know what to do, so he was just using general English to be recognized, superficially and falsely, as competent … Don’t I use general English? I do, I do use general English, but for those which are muddled up like in this situation, we’ve got to get straight to the core … If things could be muddled up in communication because of many potential difficulties, we have to say only the point, precisely and unambiguously.

[Pilot Informant 2]

In fact, it appears that the controller may be in the habit of using general English even when standard phraseology is available, according to the expert informants; therefore, he fails to comply with the conventions. For example, first, the parts where the controller said I understand… were unnecessary and the turns could have been completed by reading the pilot’s previous turn. Second, his use of I’d like to know…, I want to know…, what’s… or let me know… were replaceable with “say…”. And lastly, a long sentence such as let me check and see and call you again could be replaced with “standby”. Frequent misuse of phraseology by the controller was also a feature commented on by the informants (e.g., copy or good copy instead of “affirm”, “roger”, or “wilco”, depending on circumstances) as a possible source of confusion. Pilot Informant 3 commented that both the pilot and the controller used the words “roger” and “affirmative” carelessly even when something remained unconfirmed (although this raises the question of whether either party was fully aware at any given moment of the other’s level of misunderstanding). Several informants also criticized the inflexible nature of the controller’s use of general English. They felt that his failure to change the phrasing of his questions in the face of incomprehension by his interlocutor contributed to the ongoing misunderstanding and the tedious repetitions which ensued. Lastly, the controller’s behaviour in leaving the responsibility to clarify the route with the pilot was unequivocally disapproved of by all informants.

Expert evaluation: Linguistic competence according to the ICAO LPRs

The linguistic competence category encompasses all comments on overall English proficiency as well as on speech features that are perceived by the informants to facilitate the communication or cause difficulty in communication according to the six ICAO assessment criteria. The failure of the Russian pilot to understand the message sent by the Korean controller, classified under Comprehension, accounted for the largest part of the informants’ commentary. The next most influential feature commented on was the Russian pilot’s difficulty in dealing with the situation owing to his low English proficiency. For example, even though the Russian pilot himself proposed the route to the alternate airport in Vladivostok (UHWW), the questions posed by the controller confused him, leading him to provide inconsistent answers to the questions. They also resulted in more turns expended in clarification and confirmation. When the reason for diversion and the fuel matter were raised, it seems that the pilot treated the question as new, picking up the word “destination” in the controller’s previous turns, and provided the conflicting answer of the airport in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky (UHPP). Controller Informant 1 blamed the Russian pilot’s failure to understand the controller’s questions on his lack of proficiency in English in his comment:

Suppose that I’m a poor English speaker, and the other interlocutor asks “What’s the reason for changing the destination?” Then I may think “destination?” and then respond “Oh, destination is where, where”. The destination in the controller’s question “Why do you want to change your destination” implies the alternate airport, Uniform Hotel Whisky Whisky, which the pilot requested. However, the pilot didn’t interpret it in the same way the controller did. The pilot picked up the word “destination”, and provided an answer “Uniform Hotel Papa Papa”.

[Controller Informant 1]

In the opinion of the expert informants, however, responsibility for comprehension failure in this episode is clearly shared between the Russian pilot and the Korean controller. Although a substantial number of comments in this category were made about the Russian pilot, the Korean controller’s non-compliance with radiotelephony and procedural conventions were contributing factors to the Russian pilot’s difficulty and failure to understand the controller, as discussed earlier.

Some of the informants’ comments concerned vocabulary and pronunciation. The comments regarding Vocabulary refer to the implementation of a strategy used when a sign of communication difficulty is recognized. Even though many of the turns were extended for clarification and confirmation of the meaning of the word “destination” for each interlocutor, neither the pilot nor the controller attempted to clear up the meaning by changing the word. Both of them repeatedly used the word “destination”, based on their own understanding, and their different interpretations persisted until the communication was handed over to the other controller. Pilot Informant 2 pointed this out, along with the necessity of training in language use:

The word should have been said in a clearer way. If only they had said, for instance, “the original destination and new destination” or “the planned and or a new destination” using easy and clear words. Things we should be trained for are those things, not those fancy, complicated words and structures of English.

[Pilot Informant 2]

The Russian pilot’s pronunciation was negatively evaluated by the informants, and the importance of pronunciation features in radiotelephony communication was also noted.

Discussion

The aim of this paper was to explore the aspects of professional competence that matter to aviation experts in radiotelephony communication and to review the proficiency construct espoused by the ICAO. With regard to the first research question, What aspects of professional competence contribute to effective and successful radiotelephony communication?, there are many sources contributing to the miscommunication emerging during the exchange. The most marked feature shared in the discussion by informants was the limited background knowledge of the Korean controller. This finding confirms the fact that professional knowledge plays a critical role in naturally occurring professional settings, and understanding language use and performance embedded in the contexts is complex, as discussed in the literature on distributed cognition (Fields et al., 1998; Hutchins, 1995; Hutchins & Klausen, 1996). Limited sensitivity to each other’s role and tasks, and failure to prioritize in eliciting information were also discussed by informants as contributing factors, which were all owing to the lack of professional experience. In relation to language use in this particular professional setting, the non-compliance with radiotelephony conventions, namely readback and hearback and the use of phraseology whenever possible, was evident in this episode. This leads to the second research question, How appropriate is the speaking proficiency construct embodied in the descriptors of the ICAO rating scale and associated assessment criteria for testing professional radiotelephony communication ability? The importance of observance of the conventions shown in this study reiterates what has been reported in the literature on pilot and controller communication (Burki-Cohen, 1995; Cardosi, 1993; Howard, 2008; Kim & Elder, 2009; Moder & Halleck, 2009; Morrow et al., 1993; Morrow et al., 1994). In fact, the ICAO emphasizes such unique characteristics of radiotelephony communication in its documentation elsewhere; however, they are not reflected at all in the ICAO’s proficiency construct.

The informants’ specific mention of the importance of pronunciation and comprehension features in this study echoes the issues raised by Kim and Billington (2018), who question the application of the LPRs to non-native English speaking aviation personnel alone, arguing that perceiving and processing various accents influenced by first language is just as likely to be challenging for native English speaking aviation personnel. The expert informants commented on the need for the unambiguous use of words by the Russian pilot and Korean controller for clarifying the intended destination, which is in stark contrast to the descriptors in the ICAO scale. The descriptors for Structure and Vocabulary are couched in traditional terms of complexity of grammar and the ability to use idiomatic and nuanced vocabulary at the top end of scale (i.e., Expert level). As noted previously, these are at odds with the ICAO’s own policy on plain language use: clear, concise, and unambiguous use of plain English and avoidance of jargon, slang, and idiomatic expressions (ICAO, 2004, 2010). Furthermore, it is important to note that Kim and Elder (2015) canvassed the views of aviation experts and discovered that Korean pilots and controllers see the descriptors for Interactions, Comprehension, and Pronunciation as more appropriate than Vocabulary, Structure, and Fluency. Support for the inappropriateness of the assessment criteria is also found in Knoch’s validation study (2014), in which commentary by subject specialists on the ICAO rating scale revealed a reliance on non-linguistic aspects, such as technical knowledge and experience, rather than general features of language. In fact, the mention of “various speech flows for stylistic effect and uses of appropriate discourse markers and connectors” in the Fluency rating scale could be problematic in radiotelephony communication where efficiency and brevity are stressed. It is unclear why such features should be assessed in radiotelephony communication.

The opinion of the informants that the responsibility for comprehension failure on the part of the Russian pilot also fell on the Korean controller is another aspect worth discussing. The Korean controller’s failure to comply with radiotelephony conventions, his inappropriate use of general English, and insensitivity to his interlocutor were also pointed out as contributing factors to the Russian pilot’s difficulty in handling the communication more efficiently. The Korean controller’s lack of ability or willingness to accommodate to the Russian pilot’s level of proficiency underscores the point made in Kim and Elder (2009) that accommodation strategies are essential characteristics required for successful interaction between interlocutors of different proficiency in English as a lingua franca communication. Support for this is found in the literature on communication in professional settings within the framework of distributed cognition (Hutchins, 1995) discussed earlier as well as on interactional competence. Kramsch states that “successful interaction presupposes not only a shared knowledge of the world, the reference to a common external context of communication, but also the construction of a shared internal context or ‘sphere of inter-subjectivity’ that is built through the collaborative effort of the interactional partners” (1986, p. 367). Since interactional competence is co-constructed through interaction, responsibility for “the creation of sequential coherence, identities, meaning, and events” is also distributed between participants (Jacoby & Ochs, 1995, p. 177). The co-constructed nature of interactional competence is not at all reflected in the traditional linguistic-based ICAO rating scale. Interaction in the setting of air traffic control demands not just good language skills but also sufficient professional knowledge. A participant in radiotelephony communication must have a command of both in order to communicate effectively. The highly specific interactional demands of radiotelephony communication are markedly different from the features of interactional competence in contexts for more general purposes; therefore, a definition of interactional competence incorporating the features of this professional context seems essential.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the importance of discourse analysis as a tool for defining the construct of communication for specific purpose language testing and reaffirms the importance of gathering domain experts’ perspectives as part of this process. This study has also shown that evaluation of interactants’ language use in a professional setting is inseparable from the expertise and professional behaviours they display towards the situation encountered. Since the efficiency and success of communication depends on assumed expertise and professional behaviours, when it falls short of expectations, communication is unavoidably extended and prolonged in order to resolve the gap. This is not necessarily an issue of English proficiency per se, which, as has been demonstrated here, is only one of the many factors that influence performance in a professional setting. More recent work on assessment frameworks calls for reconceptualizing the constructs of LSP tests in this regard (e.g., Elder, McNamara, Kim, Pill, & Sato, 2017; Hoekje, 2016). Fully capturing the complexities of radiotelephony communication as described in the literature and exemplified in the current study may be beyond the realm of possibility in the artificial environment of a language test; however, revising the construct currently espoused by the ICAO and reflected in its rating scale to better represent the way communication unfolds in aviation is a matter of justice in language testing, as well as a critical matter of aviation safety.

Footnotes

Appendix 1

ICAO language proficiency rating scale (ICAO, 2004, 2010).

Level	Pre-elementary 1	Elementary 2	Pre-operational 3
Pronunciation	Performs at a level below the Elementary level.	Pronunciation, stress, rhythm, and intonation are heavily influenced by the first language or regional variation and usually interfere with ease of understanding.	Pronunciation, stress, rhythm, and intonation are influenced by the first language or regional variation and frequently interfere with ease of understanding.
Structure	Performs at a level below the Elementary level.	Shows only limited control of a few simple memorized grammatical structures and sentence patterns.	Basic grammatical structures and sentence patterns associated with predictable situations are not always well controlled. Errors frequently interfere with meaning.
Vocabulary	Performs at a level below the Elementary level.	Limited vocabulary range consisting only of isolated words and memorized phrases.	Vocabulary range and accuracy are often sufficient to communicate on common, concrete, or work-related topics, but range is limited and the word choice often inappropriate. Is often unable to paraphrase successfully when lacking vocabulary.
Fluency	Performs at a level below the Elementary level.	Can produce very short, isolated, memorized utterances with frequent pausing and a distracting use of fillers to search for expressions and to articulate less familiar words.	Produces stretches of language, but phrasing and pausing are often inappropriate. Hesitations or slowness in language processing may prevent effective communication. Fillers are sometimes distracting.
Comprehension	Performs at a level below the Elementary level.	Comprehension is limited to isolated, memorized phrases when they are carefully and slowly articulated.	Comprehension is often accurate on common, concrete, and work- related topics when the accent or variety used is sufficiently intelligible for an international community of users. May fail to understand a linguistic or situational complication or an unexpected turn of events.
Level	Pre-elementary 1	Elementary 2	Pre-operational 3
Interactions	Performs at a level below the Elementary level.	Response time is slow and often inappropriate. Interaction is limited to simple routine exchanges.	Responses are sometimes immediate, appropriate, and informative. Can initiate and maintain exchanges with reasonable ease on familiar topics and in predictable situations. Generally inadequate when dealing with an unexpected turn of events.
Level	Operational 4	Extended 5	Expert 6
Pronunciation	Pronunciation, stress, rhythm, and intonation are influenced by the first language or regional variation but only sometimes interfere with ease of understanding.	Pronunciation, stress, rhythm, and intonation, though influenced by the first language or regional variation, rarely interfere with ease of understanding.	Pronunciation, stress, rhythm, and intonation, though possibly influenced by the first language or regional variation, almost never interfere with ease of understanding.
Structure	Basic grammatical structures and sentence patterns are used creatively and are usually well controlled. Errors may occur, particularly in unusual or unexpected circumstances, but rarely interfere with meaning.	Basic grammatical structures and sentence patterns are consistently well controlled. Complex structures are attempted but with errors which sometimes interfere with meaning.	Both basic and complex grammatical structures and sentence patterns are consistently well controlled.
Level	Operational 4	Extended 5	Expert 6
Vocabulary	Vocabulary range and accuracy are usually sufficient to communicate effectively on common, concrete, and work-related topics. Can often paraphrase successfully when lacking vocabulary in unusual or unexpected circumstances.	Vocabulary range and accuracy are sufficient to communicate effectively on common, concrete, and work-related topics. Paraphrases consistently and successfully. Vocabulary is sometimes idiomatic.	Vocabulary range and accuracy are sufficient to communicate effectively on a wide variety of familiar and unfamiliar topics. Vocabulary is idiomatic, nuanced, and sensitive to register.
Fluency	Produces stretches of language at an appropriate tempo. There may be occasional loss of fluency on transition from rehearsed or formulaic speech to spontaneous interaction, but this does not prevent effective communication. Can make limited use of discourse markers or connectors. Fillers are not distracting.	Able to speak at length with relative ease on familiar topics but may not vary speech flow as a stylistic device. Can make use of appropriate discourse markers or connectors.	Able to speak at length with a natural, effortless flow. Varies speech flow for stylistic effect, e.g., to emphasize a point. Uses appropriate discourse markers and connectors spontaneously.
Level	Operational 4	Extended 5	Expert 6
Comprehension	Comprehension is mostly accurate on common, concrete, and work- related topics when the accent or variety used is sufficiently intelligible for an international community of users. When the speaker is confronted with a linguistic or situational complication or an unexpected turn of events, comprehension may be slower or require clarification strategies.	Comprehension is accurate on common, concrete, and work-related topics and mostly accurate when the speaker is confronted with a linguistic or situational complication or an unexpected turn of events. Is able to comprehend a range of speech varieties (dialect and/or accent) or registers.	Comprehension is consistently accurate in nearly all contexts and includes comprehension of linguistic and cultural subtleties.
Interactions	Responses are usually immediate, appropriate, and informative. Initiates and maintains exchanges even when dealing with an unexpected turn of events. Deals adequately with apparent misunderstandings by checking, confirming, or clarifying.	Responses are immediate, appropriate, and informative. Manages the speaker/ listener relationship effectively.	Interacts with ease in nearly all situations. Is sensitive to verbal and non-verbal cues and responds to them appropriately.

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on the author’s PhD thesis. I would like to thank my two supervisors, Cathie Elder and Tim McNamara, for their guidance and continued support throughout the process of completing the research. I am also grateful to the Korean airline pilots and air traffic controllers for their enthusiastic participation in this study. Thanks are also due to the editors of this special issue and anonymous reviewers of this paper for their comments and suggestions.

Declaration of conflicting interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Bachman

L. F.

Palmer

A. S.

(1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Brown

(1995). The effect of rater variables in the development of an occupation-specific language performance test. Language Testing, 12(1), 1–15.

Burki-Cohen

(1995). Analysis of tower (ground) controller-pilot voice communication (No. DOT-VNTSC-FAA-95–41). Cambridge, MA: John A. Volpe National Transportation System Center.

Byrnes

(2008). Assessing content and language. In Hornberger

N. H.

Shohamy

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, Vol. 7: Language testing and assessment (2nd ed., pp. 37–52). New York: Springer Science+Business Media LLC.

Cardosi

(1993). An analysis of en route controller-pilot voice communication (No. DOT-VNTSC-FAA-93–2). Cambridge, MA: John A. Volpe National Transportation System Center.

Chalhoub-Deville

(2003). Second language interaction: Current perspectives and future trends. Language Testing, 20(4), 369–383. doi:10.1191/0265532203lt264oa

Douglas

(2000). Assessing language for specific purposes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Douglas

(2005). Testing languages for specific purposes. In Hinkel

(Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Douglas

Myers

(2000). Assessing the communication skills of veterinary students: Whose criteria? In Kunnan

A. J.

(Ed.), Fairness and validation in language assessment: Selected papers from the 19th Language Testing Research Colloquium, Orlando, Florida: Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

10.

Elder

(1993). How do subject specialists construe classroom language proficiency? Language Testing, 10(3), 235–254.

11.

Elder

McNamara

Kim

Pill

Sato

(2017). Interrogating the construct of communicative competence in language assessment contexts: What the non-language specialist can tell us. Language & Communication. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2016.12.005

12.

Estival

Farris

Molesworth

(2016). Aviation English: A lingua franca for pilots and air traffic controllers. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

13.

Fields

R. E.

Wright

P. C.

Marti

Palmonari

(1998). Air traffic control as a distributed cognitive system: A study of external representations. In Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (pp. 85–90). Roquencourt, France.

14.

Halliday

M. A. K.

McIntosh

Strevens

(1964). The linguistic sciences and language teaching. London: Longmans.

15.

Hoekje

(2016). “Language,” “communication,” and the longing for the authentic in LSP testing. Language Testing, 33(2), 289–299. doi:10.1177/0265532215607921

16.

Howard

J. W.

(2008). Tower, am I cleared to land?: Problematic communication in aviation discourse. Human Communication Research, 34, 370–391.

17.

Hutchins

(1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

18.

Hutchins

Klausen

(1996). Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. In Engeström

Middleton

(Eds.), Cognition and communication at work. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

19.

ICAO. (1996). Aeronautical telecommunications, Annex 10: To the convention on international civil aviation. Montreal, Canada: International Civil Aviation Organization.

20.

ICAO. (2001). Annex 1: Personnel licensing. Montreal, Canada: International Civil Aviation Organization.

21.

ICAO. (2004). Manual on the implementation of ICAO language proficiency requirements. Montreal, Canada: International Civil Aviation Organization.

22.

ICAO. (2010). Manual on the implementation of ICAO language proficiency requirements (1st ed). Retrieved from International Civil Aviation Organization: www4.icao.int/aelts/uploads/icaodoc9835 (2nd ed, pdf).

23.

Jacoby

(1998). Science as performance: Socializing scientific discourse through the conference talk rehearsal. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of California, Los Angeles, CA.

24.

Jacoby

McNamara

(1999). Locating competence. English for Specific Purposes, 18(3), 213–241.

25.

Jacoby

Ochs

(1995). Co-construction: An introduction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(3), 171–183.

26.

Kim

(2012). Exploring the consturct of aviation communication: A critique of the ICAO language proficiency policy. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

27.

Kim

Billington

(2018). Pronunciation and comprehension in English as a ingua franca communication: Effect of L1 influence in international aviation communication. Applied linguistics, 39(2), 135–158. doi:10.1093/applin/amv075

28.

Kim

Elder

(2009). Understanding aviation English as a lingua franca: Perceptions of Korean aviation personnel. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 32(3), 23.01–23.17.

29.

Kim

Elder

(2015). Interrogating the construct of aviation English: Feedback from test takers in Korea. Language Testing, 32(2), 129–149. doi:10.1177/0265532214544394

30.

Knoch

(2014). Using subject specialist to validate an ESP rating scale: The case of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) rating scale. English for Specific Purposes, 33, 77–86.

31.

Kramsch

(1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The modern language journal, 70(4), 366–372.

32.

Lave

Wenger

(1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

33.

Lumley

(1998). Perceptions of language-trained raters and occupational experts in a test of occupational English language proficiency. English for Specific Purposes, 17(4), 347–367.

34.

Mackay

Mountford

(1978). English for specific purposes: A case study approach. London: Longman.

35.

Manias

McNamara

(2016). Standard setting in specific-purpose language testing: What can a qualitative study add? Language Testing, 33(2), 235–249. doi:10.1177/0265532215608411

36.

Moder

C. L.

Halleck

G. B.

(2009). Planes, politics and oral proficiency: Testing international air traffic controllers. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 32(3), 25.01–25.16.

37.

Morrow

Lee

Rodvold

(1993). Analysis of problems in routine controller-pilot communication. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(4), 285–302.

38.

Morrow

Rodvold

(1998). Communication issues in air traffic control. In Smolensky

Stein

(Eds.), Human factors in air traffic control (pp. 421–456). New York: Academic Press.

39.

Morrow

Rodvold

Lee

(1994). Nonroutine transactions in controller-pilot communication. Discourse Processes, 17(2), 235–258.

40.

Philps

(1991). Linguistic security in the syntactic structures of air traffic control English. English world-wide, 12(1), 103–124.

41.

Pill

(2016). Drawing on indigenous criteria for more authentic assessment in a specific-purpose language test: Health professionals interacting with patients. Language Testing, 33(2), 175–193. doi:10.1177/0265532215607400

42.

Wenger

(1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.