Teaching pilots Morphology and syntax- Air Safety English

[Yun Zhong Jian]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Safety
Language experts in the *beep*? The misinterpretation of the problem

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yun Zhong Jian
Hainan University
China
April 2004
[email protected]

Abstract: This short article examines the argument for ‘interpreters in the *beep*’ as a solution to the ongoing communication crisis in Aviation.

The background-Tenerife to China
The last fifty years has witnessed a massive increase in international air traffic that has brought more and more pilots and controllers into contact with each other. The International language of aviation is English, however experience has shown that the standards of non-native pilots and controllers is generally low. The problem of communication breakdown was first brought to public attention with the first Tenerife disaster back in the 1970s. Recent fatal accidents that were also caused by communication breakdown due to poor English brought this aspect of Air safety to the fore again with the result that from 2008 Pilots and controllers will have to pass a formal language test. With English being pushed everywhere as the World lingua franca inevitably standards will be low until everyone is educated in English. If everyone is educated in English can they also be educated in their own language at the same time? A bi-lingual education for all is clearly not a practical option, and neither is it seen as desirable by non-English speaking countries in which the native language is an expression of local culture. In spite of this many people in non-English speaking countries now consciously see English as something without which they can’t function. In the current environment of the ‘New American Imperialism’ with it’s Capitalist god and English speaking high priests, English as a lingua franca has become simply a commodity or ‘product’ that people buy and sell and make money out of. Businesspeople masquerading as educators market sub standard products for common consumption and rake in the huge profits. The MD 80 1993 plane crash in China which revealed that the pilot had no idea what ‘pull up’ meant should give all of us pause for thought!!. Either we go back to a system of a few highly trained experts who train English majors to become teachers or interpreters, or we create a system that gives a native speaker proficiency for all those who have to use English. In a compromise solution that lowers the standard, it is meaningless to talk about effective communication. This then is the conflict: An educational thinking which requires the best and a capitalist market which produces the worst. This then is the battle for English. This article looks at the ongoing ‘campaign’ in the aviation industry.
2008-The new test
The 2008 new formal test does not require native-speaker proficiency, and so the communication problems will likely continue. The top ‘Level 6 rating’ is strangely classified as ‘expert’, while the lowest acceptable ‘level 4’ is termed ‘operational’, and will allow pilots to keep flying on condition that they agree to be retested at intervals. There are 2 fundamental issues here:
1. The aptitude of pilots for language training, Training to think in English, or training to attain a certain level of English for the purposes of limited communication.

2. The definition of ‘effective communication’
Let us consider the first issue:

Aptitude-suitable for flying or for language?
Let us look at the problem in another way: Firstly, lets take the pilots and give them an aptitude test for the job of interpreter. To be an interpreter the minimum requirement is a near native command of another language. This is usually the starting point from which further specialized training can begin as below:
To understand the way other languages are used by native speakers in the living context of the language
To be able to maintain intense concentration and think rapidly
To have a wide knowledge of the language, history, culture, and a specialist knowledge of one or more areas, for example aviation
To have confidence for interpreting in public
We are therefore asking for an expert level of understanding that only an expert can have. Pilots may well pass the aptitude test, however the point is that, firstly they must undertake the necessary training to become ‘native speakers’ before we let them loose in the *beep*. How long will it take them to reach this level? To make this type of system work the learning and testing programs will have to be rethought. Will Airline companies put pilots on a sabbatical system to raise their English level? 1 or 2 years out in which they become completely immersed in an English speaking environment? Or will they give them the traditional crash course cultural bath treatment? This mentality is still around. One or two more crashes might well finally dispatch it to the dustbin of History.
In conclusion, either we hire bi-lingual pilots, or make a native speaker level Language Test.
The second issue concerns ‘effective communication’.
Effective communication- native speaker proficiency

If ‘effective communication’ requires a native speaker level, then we can simply set this standard.

Now lets look at the whole problem from a different angle.

Let us design a flying test for a native speaker who has for the sake of argument a minimal knowledge of the principles of flight, and not much aptitude for flying. Would you employ this type of pilot to fly your planes? Of course this would be considered absurd. Is it not equally absurd to expect pilots to become experts in another language?
To understand completely the subtleties of English stress? To understand the workings of a modern jet liner? To misinterpret a verbal ‘go around’ in a situation in which a ‘go-around’ would not be an option? To make a mistake because you only had an ‘operational’ pilots license? If we put this system in place then we can hardly blame the pilot if he crashes: Under these systems the black box crash scenarios are as follows
Black box scenario
Scenario 1. Language expert with limited flying ability
Black box: (unprofessional pilot): “where’s the flight manual?”
Scenario 2. Expert pilot with limited language ability.
Black Box: (unprofessional linguist): “where’s my phrase book?”

Can we really expect one person to do another persons job in addition to their own?

Alternatives?- interpreters-communications officer

And so to the question of interpreters. With the Flight Engineer almost history, there is a real opportunity to create a new *beep* layout with a ‘Communications Officer’. An expert in the language of the country to which the plane is flying.

The following extract about interpreters from a congressional hearing reveals the closed mind set. The solution to put interpreters in the *beep* is logical, and meets a real need, but such thinking is only logical to Mr. Cooksey if the tables were turned and American pilots had to learn Chinese. At the end of the extract you can almost hear him sigh with relief: ‘I’m glad were not having to learn Chinese’.


Mr. COOKSEY. My concern is that the pilots of foreign airlines out there say, ''Well, look, we can't train these people to be proficient in English; we ought to put an interpreter in there.'' To me, that's not good enough. That's my concern.
Mr. MCSWEENY. Let me try to deal with that.
My recollection of the ICAO requirements is that they used the words, ''crew member.'' So it would have to be one of the crew members, either one of the two flying crew members on a two-person crew, or one of the three if it were an older airplane like a DC-10, which has a flight engineer.
I would like to make a point, though, about China Air. I was privy to a meeting that we had last week, a briefing that was presented in a meeting we had last week in Australia with six of the bilateral partners that we work with on a regular basis. A presentation was made by the Chinese authority on English language training that they have initiated. They have, in fact, issued a rule that requires every pilot, by June of next year, to pass a proficiency training course, both in English proficiency in general and in telecommunications. Every carrier in China now has a program to train their pilots better and to pass this test. Four thousand pilots have been tested already, the good news; and the bad news is that 61 percent failed. The rest of them did not pass. The test is a CD-ROM based test; it has a random set of questions, so when you take it again, you are going to get different questions. They have actually offered it to other countries to use as the basis of training of their pilots. There was quite a bit of interest in the meeting from some of the other countries that were there.
So I think the activity that we're doing in ICAO to really heighten the awareness of this issue is bearing a lot of fruit, and I was just pleased that China had taken this initiative.
Mr. COOKSEY. That's very reassuring, and I'm glad to know that they're doing that. I just hope that other airlines do it as well. I am glad that we're not having to learn Chinese.

This is a good example because it will demonstrate to pilots who read this that so much of our language is taken for granted. In a sense we are experts in our own language though we are not always conscious of it. To Cooksey ‘it’s not good enough’ that foreigners can’t master English. The same logic has it that ‘it’s not good enough’ if Cooksey can’t master Chinese. Finally, an introduction to the complexities of English for all those who have a limited understanding of what Linguists mean when they talk about morphology and syntax. If we think English is somehow easy to learn then we might be shocked to discover that illiteracy is a big problem both in America and the UK!

Structure of language- The Nature of English

If the language training option wins out, and it seems it already has, then pilots and controllers should at least be given some proper training, instead of what is currently being dished out. Below, I have listed some of the particular areas of knowledge that must be structured into a learning strategy.

The largely Germanic structure of verb(pull) + particle(up) dominates our everyday language while coexisting with Latinate words that can often give similar, but also quite different meanings. These verb forms are commonly referred to by linguists as ‘phrasal verbs’, however the term compound word is more appropriate because we are dealing with two words. This compound word structure is the most difficult part of syntax for non-natives. A native speaker has a command of about 3000 of these verbs, 300 or so noun forms, and 300 joined up compounds usually referred to as Minor Pattern compounds( words like ‘overshoot’ ).
These Germanic compound words together with the Germanic base words form the core of the language, and are mastered by native speakers during their formative early years. By adding the Latinate and Greek words that form the other part of the core vocabulary, we have a ball park figure of 18,000 words and compound words.
Many of these ‘phrasal verbs’ have figurative uses and no amount of guessing will reveal the meaning. Here, an extract from the preface to Samuel Johnson’s dictionary of the English language will suffice to give some indication of the situation facing the non-native learner 250 years ago:

‘There is another kind of composition more frequent in our language than perhaps in any other, from which arises to foreigners the greatest difficulty. We modify the signification of many verbs by a particle subjoined; as

to come off, to escape by a fetch;
to fall on, to attack;
to fall off, to apostatize;
to break off, to stop abruptly;
to bear out, to justify;
to fall in, to comply;
to give over, to cease;
to set off, to embellish;
to set in, to begin a continual tenour;
to set out, to begin a course or journey;
to take off, to copy;’
The same situation exists today, with very little instruction or analysis of these forms.
The stress always shifts onto the verb in the noun forms, which are by convention written as one word or with a hyphen. While the noun forms are fewer it has to be clearly understood that languages are ‘living’, by which we mean that new words can be built on the principles of the existing structure. ‘Go-around’ is good example of a relatively new addition to English. A native speaker outside the aviation world may never have heard this word in its noun form with the stress on the ‘go’, but most would be able to correctly interpret it in context. This noun form can not be found in most good dictionaries. Similarly in speech we might meet an hoc use of ‘pull-up’, which might not even be in the aviators vocabulary, but could be used nonetheless.

The implications of this are that if we teach English to non-natives we have to teach them this structure. If we don’t, and clearly we haven’t been so far, then we are cheating them.
The following is a list of other ‘problem areas’ for non natives:

The minor pattern of compound verbs
Example: over
overact overachieve overawe overbalance overbook overburden overcast overcast overcharge overcloud overcome overcompensate overcrowd overdevelop overdo overdose overdose overdraw overeat overexpose overextend overflow overflow overgraze overhang overhang overhaul overhaul overhear overheat overindulge overlap overlap overlay overlay overlook overload overload overman overplay overpopulate overpower overprice overproduce overprotect overrate override override overreach overreact overrule overrun oversee overshadow overshoot overspend overstep oversex overstaff overstate oversubscribe overtake overtax overthrow overthrows overturn overwhelm overwork overwrite overwrite
Total: 59
Noun forms: 11
Because of the double meaning of ‘over’ the potential for misunderstandings here have to be understood in terms of ad hoc formations that may use ‘over’ in either of the two senses.
mostly Germanic one syllable words that have a dual function as both noun and verb;( a fly-past, with or without hyphen, but usually with) & fly past as the verb form;
Commonly used 2 word ad hoc compound nouns consisting of one noun in front of another with the stress typically on the first word. Some examples:
compound noun: instrument lights &
verbal form: the instrument lights
compound noun: Monitor trouble &
verbal form: monitor trouble
Commonly used 3 & 4 word ad hoc compound nouns
‘Aircraft safety procedure rules’ completely different from ‘Aircraft safety procedure rules’ & Aircraft safety rules procedure’ The highlighted, italicized ‘rules’ function as verbs. The stressed words in the sentence are underlined. In these types of compounds in which a word can function as noun or verb, the meanings are given by the stress pattern. The potential for being misunderstood is very great.
Cultural background. This is vast area that requires a complete rethink of how language is taught.
Slang: The living language and passive vocabulary. This part of the language needs to be addressed as it forms an integral part of the native speakers wide knowledge of forms that they may not actually use themselves but understand.


We should also bear in mind that the stress patterns are not fixed in the context of the sentence and stress can be freely applied to any word to change the meaning as desired. In terms of overall vocabulary, a ball-park figure for an educated graduate would be 60,000 words minimum.


Anyway, the overall picture is now clear. What a native speaker can decode in what we might call a critical instant, and in an ad hoc situation, would take the average non-native a millennium of Maydays to figure out! With the exam system in sight now, all pilots and ground contollers should think seriously about what they are being asked to do. The native English speaker pilots have to seriously discuss their own language structure as outlined above, before deciding how it should be taught, if at all, in the context of EFL now.

If I was a pilot without a native speaker ability in English, I would certainly demand a first class interpreter for my country of destination that I could call on IN the *beep* in case of need. It should be clear that if the Captain’s decision making ability is compromised then he can’t do the job. I can only pity the pilot who survives a fatal crash to face the inquisition that will follow. Crash courses in English anyone? Sign up now and pay the price later!
Finally, the NASA angle, and a song I’ve written entitled ‘Captain Quick’:


The pace of activities has made interpreters as indispensable as engineers in spite of crash language programs. The ground control teams in Houston and in the Moscow suburb of Kaliningrad that will orchestrate the docking as well as the flight crews will rely primarily on their native tongues. Their procedural manuals are scripted in both languages.






Song

Captain Quick

1.
Pull out quick said the Tower, give it stick.
Stick? Said the Captain, I’ve just *beep* a brick.
For GOD’S SAKE cried the Tower, it’s got out of hand.
‘GUTS ACHE’ that’s a roger, emergency land.

Chorus
Oh Miss Understanding come show me the way.
I’ve a job for an expert, let’s call in May Day.
May Day oh May Day.
Oh may the day come when I say don’t dismay.
If I master the meaning of her charming way.
Up and down, ups and downs, over and out.
It’s a way of expressing grammatical clout.
Off and on, in and out oh what a pain.
That’s a roger, it’s a Merry old go-round again.
If I say what I mean, do I mean what I say.
And so it goes on, it’s forever May Day.

2.
I’ve no one to turn to right? Said the Tower.
I’m landed in trouble again with no power.
‘Turn to the right’, that’s a roger said Quick.
As he *beep* up his leg to give the rudder some stick.

3.
Shut up in the *beep*, oh *beep*-a-doodle-do.
And nobody has even a half DECENTclue.
DESCENT? That’s a roger said Quick with a smile.
And the Jumbo went into a dive for a while.
4.
What’s going down here is a state of dissent.
Without my assent, you decide to descend.
Come in Quick Captain quick reach for the sky.
‘Coming in’ that’s a roger She’s in descent now I’ll try.

5.
Get on the air stewardess said the Tower in despair.
And the Captain complied that’s a roger I swear.
Oh Captain, oh Tower of strength she cried.
The joystick is twisted and broken, it’s died.
6.
What a carry-on comedy of turbulent times.
‘Carry on, Carry on’ that’s a roger Quick chimes.
The rise and the fall of her tone under stress.
Led the Captain to push the wrong button in distress.
7.
‘This dress’ she cried, ‘Distress? YOU decide
I want to get outta dis stress she cried.
Get back to your post said Quick, I’ve full power,
You’re in for a right dressing down said the Tower.
8.
I didn’t quite get it, come again said old Quick
I’ve just pulled it out Oh my God what a *beep*.
What a *beep*-up in his *beep* a *beep*-up again.
‘*beep* up’ that’s a roger I’m in charge of the plane.
9.
From out of the cloud came the dirty great jet
Mayday arise from your slumber get set
It’s a holiday nightmare said Quick, I confess
Preparing to crash in a Cap-it-all ist mess.