Aero-linguist
26th Jul 2009, 13:52
Hi everybody,
I have heard about some major airlines planning to check plain language skills during OPC, LPC or any LOFT events. Hereby, the actual test has to be taken in the simulator! Though I could not find any ICAO statement about whether this is a good practice or not, I deem this a thouroughly inappropriate way of testing "plain" language skills in aviation. ICAO defines plain language as "spontaneouas, creative and non-coded use of any given natural language". In contrast, during a simulator session standard procedures are tested, and as to the verbal communication (besides the more important points of basic flying and navigational skills) the focus is put on "standard phraseology" (coded form of English, which is non-spontaneous, non-creative, etc.). Up to now, this system of simulator checks makes sense, because approx. 95 percent of routine situations can be coped with standard phraseology. Plain language is only necessary when phraseology is not enough during non-routine (also some routine) situations. This is one point for not combining simulator checks with plain language tests.
Does your airline check language proficiency in the simulator? Do you agree with such a way of testing plain language?
Though being more economical at the first glance, in the long run however such a way of testing professional pilots for their plain language skills might have a dangerous impact on pilots behaviour. Granted that the purpose of the training in the simulator is to prepare pilots to real life by conditioning and standardising their behaviour for dealing both with routine and non-routine events, all of them are quite predictable (also the non-routine events). What I fear is that if a pilot is trained for longer responses already within the simulator (in order to get rated for his/her plain language skills he/she has to talk more...the check pilot is forced to do the same), also in the real life he/she might deviate from "being concise and precise", in short, the standard phraseology. This might turn the skys into a chatterbox with unnecessarily long blockage of frequencies.
How do you think about such arguments?
Awaiting your opinions/ Best regards
Franz (www.aero-lingo.com (http://www.aero-lingo.com/))
I have heard about some major airlines planning to check plain language skills during OPC, LPC or any LOFT events. Hereby, the actual test has to be taken in the simulator! Though I could not find any ICAO statement about whether this is a good practice or not, I deem this a thouroughly inappropriate way of testing "plain" language skills in aviation. ICAO defines plain language as "spontaneouas, creative and non-coded use of any given natural language". In contrast, during a simulator session standard procedures are tested, and as to the verbal communication (besides the more important points of basic flying and navigational skills) the focus is put on "standard phraseology" (coded form of English, which is non-spontaneous, non-creative, etc.). Up to now, this system of simulator checks makes sense, because approx. 95 percent of routine situations can be coped with standard phraseology. Plain language is only necessary when phraseology is not enough during non-routine (also some routine) situations. This is one point for not combining simulator checks with plain language tests.
Does your airline check language proficiency in the simulator? Do you agree with such a way of testing plain language?
Though being more economical at the first glance, in the long run however such a way of testing professional pilots for their plain language skills might have a dangerous impact on pilots behaviour. Granted that the purpose of the training in the simulator is to prepare pilots to real life by conditioning and standardising their behaviour for dealing both with routine and non-routine events, all of them are quite predictable (also the non-routine events). What I fear is that if a pilot is trained for longer responses already within the simulator (in order to get rated for his/her plain language skills he/she has to talk more...the check pilot is forced to do the same), also in the real life he/she might deviate from "being concise and precise", in short, the standard phraseology. This might turn the skys into a chatterbox with unnecessarily long blockage of frequencies.
How do you think about such arguments?
Awaiting your opinions/ Best regards
Franz (www.aero-lingo.com (http://www.aero-lingo.com/))