Testing plain language during a simulator event
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
From: Braunschweig/ Germany
Language Proficiency Requirements/ Testing plain language in the simulator
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)
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)
Last edited by Aero-linguist; 2nd August 2009 at 16:27.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
From: Italy
Dear Franz,
my company does use this system at sim RT/LPCs and my experience has been quite satisfying.
Do not forget that for a sim session there is also a huge part of briefing/debriefing and that in a well constructed LOFT scenario there will also be the need to use plain language, either with cabin crew/company/pax or to discuss the actual scenario with your fellow crewmember when a "not so by the book" situation arises and considerations/options/decision making come into play before even getting into a technical procedure.
Regards,
Davide
my company does use this system at sim RT/LPCs and my experience has been quite satisfying.
Do not forget that for a sim session there is also a huge part of briefing/debriefing and that in a well constructed LOFT scenario there will also be the need to use plain language, either with cabin crew/company/pax or to discuss the actual scenario with your fellow crewmember when a "not so by the book" situation arises and considerations/options/decision making come into play before even getting into a technical procedure.
Regards,
Davide
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
From: Braunschweig/ Germany
Hi Davide,
sorry for answering a little bit late.
I have to recognise that my question was not very precise. What I meant was testing in the simulator (I have changed the thread accordingly). Therefore I agree with you in the possible testing of plain language in the "debriefing" (at the very end, when the "procedural" part is really over; by the way, I also regard the "briefing" as inapropriate because here it is aimed for mentally preparing for the actual "procedural" part). During the LOFT scenario, in my humble opinion, no mental capacity should be spent for plain language! If not, I fear that one day there will be a major incident/accident where the human factors studies determine focusing on "plain language" during routine cockpit work as one important factor that has led to miscommunication and to the resulting catastrophe. This is what I derive from my studies so far. YET I HOPE I AM WRONG! Thank you for your answer, Davide, maybe my fear is exaggerated. Let's hope so...
Many happy landings,
Franz
sorry for answering a little bit late.
I have to recognise that my question was not very precise. What I meant was testing in the simulator (I have changed the thread accordingly). Therefore I agree with you in the possible testing of plain language in the "debriefing" (at the very end, when the "procedural" part is really over; by the way, I also regard the "briefing" as inapropriate because here it is aimed for mentally preparing for the actual "procedural" part). During the LOFT scenario, in my humble opinion, no mental capacity should be spent for plain language! If not, I fear that one day there will be a major incident/accident where the human factors studies determine focusing on "plain language" during routine cockpit work as one important factor that has led to miscommunication and to the resulting catastrophe. This is what I derive from my studies so far. YET I HOPE I AM WRONG! Thank you for your answer, Davide, maybe my fear is exaggerated. Let's hope so...
Many happy landings,
Franz
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 156
Likes: 2
From: London
Aero
I think you may becoming overly concerned about the testing of this skill-set in the Sim. It begs the question, why not? As you already say
well unless that is a figure you plucked out of the air (excuse the pun) there is another 5% of situations to be resolved.
Mental Capacity is lost by carrying out an unfamiliar task or a difficult task that has not been practiced regularly. Why not practice plain language in the sim? When you say 'this is what I derive from my studies so far', what studies do you mean? What were your studies that have led you to these conclusions.
I think you may becoming overly concerned about the testing of this skill-set in the Sim. It begs the question, why not? As you already say
95 percent of routine situations can be coped with standard phraseology
During the LOFT scenario, in my humble opinion, no mental capacity should be spent for plain language! If not, I fear that one day there will be a major incident/accident where the human factors studies determine focusing on "plain language" during routine cockpit work as one important factor that has led to miscommunication and to the resulting catastrophe. This is what I derive from my studies so far.
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
From: The wx is here, I wish u were beautiful
Have to agree with Roger. Why not? In fact, I even think it's preferable to some silly "describe your typical duty day" language proficiency interview.
I believe the problem is "concentrating on plain language" tasks. Just fly the airplane (well, sim in this case). If the test is well constructed and integrated into the sim scenario, it should be non-obtrusive. By that I mean, during your debrief, you shouldn't really have any idea of how your plain language was tested. Your proficiency should have been measured just by your using it in the appropriate situations during the scenarios.
The ICAO "scoring" is in 6 areas. Comprehension is one that doesn't even require you to speak. Throw in as many strange accents and voices pitches on the ATC side. "Sim 12Alfa, turn left 260 immediate." Just as with a live controller in real life, if you turn to a heading of 260, your verbal response is unimportant. You passed your comprehension test item.
Plain language requirements don't mean you are necessarily capable of ordering a pizza in a country that uses the language. It means you can understand and be understood with minimal effort whilst driving the airplane.
Chill...you got enough to worry about with the LOFT scenarios.
I believe the problem is "concentrating on plain language" tasks. Just fly the airplane (well, sim in this case). If the test is well constructed and integrated into the sim scenario, it should be non-obtrusive. By that I mean, during your debrief, you shouldn't really have any idea of how your plain language was tested. Your proficiency should have been measured just by your using it in the appropriate situations during the scenarios.
The ICAO "scoring" is in 6 areas. Comprehension is one that doesn't even require you to speak. Throw in as many strange accents and voices pitches on the ATC side. "Sim 12Alfa, turn left 260 immediate." Just as with a live controller in real life, if you turn to a heading of 260, your verbal response is unimportant. You passed your comprehension test item.
Plain language requirements don't mean you are necessarily capable of ordering a pizza in a country that uses the language. It means you can understand and be understood with minimal effort whilst driving the airplane.
Chill...you got enough to worry about with the LOFT scenarios.
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
From: Braunschweig/ Germany
I refer to Dietrich's "Bottleneck-Effect", also to be found in my book (check check http://www.shaker.eu/Catalogue/details.asp?ID=9796807&CC=29432&ISBN=3-8322-8233-5
or www.aero-lingo.com )
Of course, if you want to find something to be blamed after an accident you surely will found something - Human Factors has turned out to be very inventive. (95% was indeed just an estimation of mine). Franz
or www.aero-lingo.com )
Of course, if you want to find something to be blamed after an accident you surely will found something - Human Factors has turned out to be very inventive. (95% was indeed just an estimation of mine). Franz
