Standard phraseology
BelArgUSA is 100% right, and well said.
I am a ground instructor in Thailand and at this time am conducting English proficiency courses for pilots and atc's. I'm an OZ and tell my trainees that that makes me inherant level 3. (Nice to have a good sense of humour).
As I see it the problem is not so much the lack of English skills as such but the lack of STANDARD PHRASEOLOGY. The worst offenders being those from the USA. Now before you shoot me down, local phraseology works OK amongst the locals but makes it very difficult and dangerous for pilots from other countries.
Also tends to breed bad habits amongst the newbees. Recently I pulled up one of my controller trainees for using the term "runway three" instead of "runway zero three". Yes I am nit picky, it's my job to be so.
I come from the old school where as a student pilot if one used "oh" instead of "zero" one was repremanded. My instructor told me "oh" is what I'll yell when he kicks me up the ars for saying it.
411A there have been many accidents and incidents were miscommunication that been the primary cause. A case in mind is the KLM - Pan Am accident at Tenerif. in which 583 people were killed. Had standard phraseology and procedures been used these people would not have lost their lives. In this accident it was not a case of lack of English language skills but lack of radiotelephony procedures and lack of use of standard phraseology.
When instructing English proficiency courses I stress and work on improving (a) Standard phraseology. (b) Correct pronunciation. (c) Pace, (many speak too fast). (d) Standard radiotelephony procedures. (e) Stress on the important information. (f) Use of SIMPLE plain English when needed.
For examples I mainly use audio visual recordings from the UK. An example is at this link.
I would appreciate any comments on language problems and any suggestions as to what areas I should work on to improve trainees communication skills.
On the matter of English proficiency testing the downfall in the ICAO system is that each member state CAA conducts it's own testing and sets criteria for same. Here in Thailand the criteria to attain level 4 or above is quite stringent. However other states are questionable. In Korea and China I believe many are coming away from the test at level 5+ ????
Testing must be done relative to the aviation environment. I had a Asia student who had studied at Oxford and had near native Englsh skills. She was shocked when I told her she was level 3. Her radiotelephony was terrible and her response to a role played emergency far from adequate.
Some interviewer raters around are academic linguists and have no idea about flight procedures.
Personally, I find European non native speakers harder to undersatnd than Asians. Particularly Turks. And yes many native speakers are hard to understand especially if they speak too fast.
Anyhow, it's a serious problem and hope the ICAO English proficiency requirements help. At least now communication skills are getting more attention in training programs.
For the sake of flight safety we all need to speak the same language and thats not English, it's STANDARD PHRASEOLOGY in English.