Domov | O Zborniku | 10 let društva | SDUTSJ
Inter Alia 1
Teaching Aviation English and Radiotelephony communication in line with the newly established International Civil Aviation Organization language proficiency requirements for pilots
This paper considers the structure of Aviation English and radiotelephony courses
currently provided by the Aviation English Department at The Faculty of Mechanical
Engineering, University of Ljubljana. It aims to define teaching strategies in line
with new requirements from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) that
mandate acceptable English language levels for pilots and other licensed aviation
staff. It shows how the teaching of Aviation English combined with the teaching of
standard phraseology can work together for the purpose of training students in their
interaction and communication skills. This teaching model serves as a tool for managing
classroom processes used for ab initio students as well as in refresher courses in
airlines and flight schools. The paper describes the use of teaching materials to
encourage the development of interaction and communication. Suggestions are made
for ways in which a teacher can foster real-
Keywords: radiotelephony (R/T) communication, language proficiency requirements, aviation phraseology, International Civil Aviation Organization, European Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), Joint Aviation Regulations (JAR).
At the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Ljubljana University, the programme for the aviation students in the Aviation Department includes Aviation English and Aviation English Terminology and Phraseology. The programme is structured as follows:
2nd year: Aviation English 60 hours
3rd year: Aviation English Terminology and Phraseology 60 hours
In the Aviation English course comprising 60 teaching hours, the teacher is faced with a demanding scope of English language requirements based on the syllabus which, in addition, includes basic radiotelephony phraseology; however, students get broader and more specific knowledge in the 3rd year aviation English terminology and phraseology course.
The students should achieve and consolidate level B2 (Independent User) of Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages while presenting aviation-
Joint Aviation Regulations (JAR) programme enables aviation students to pass international aviation exams in different aviation subjects including Aviation English in order to obtain Airline Traffic Pilot Licence (ATPL).
From the year 2003 when International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) introduced their language proficiency requirements the need for some alterations in the programme and new teaching strategies appeared.
Newly established language proficiency requirements
The concern about the role of language proficiency in aviation safety resulted in
the ICAO revision of the provisions related to the use of language for radiotelephony
communication. When investigating a variety of incidents and accidents it has been
found that insufficient English language proficiency on the part of the pilot or
the controller had played a contributing role in the chain of events leading to the
incident or accident. English proficiency levels (1 – 6) have been introduced. Students
should reach at least entry level 4, with an emphasis on listening comprehension,
spoken interaction and production. They should be able to communicate on common,
concrete and work-
Students should be familiar with basic aviation flying procedures and the corresponding
phraseologies. The majority of students already possesses private pilot licenses
and are therefore acquainted with basic phraseology and aviation terminology. Other
students acquire aeronautical knowledge in the course gaining their communicative
competence more slowly. Practical experience gives them ability to recognize routine
The ICAO language proficiency requirements are focused on R/T communication between
the pilot and the air-
The role of aviation English and phraseologies in R/T communications
The aim of the ICAO standard phraseologies is to cover many routine circumstances
and include some predictable emergency or non-
Before the introduction of new language proficiency requirements in 2003, the »restricted«
language of air traffic control, occuring in a specifiable set of what Firth (1957:
182 ) calls »limited situational context« (Widdowson, 1983: 29) had seemed to be
sufficient enough to enable safe and understandable communication between pilots
and air traffic controllers. The ambiguus language used in non-
The language of R/T phraseology defined
When the intra-
Linguistic regulations for radiotelephony are presented in aviation documents. The
language is produced by working groups, including aviation specialists and linguists,
whose responsibility is to create a language which will be appropriate to particular
situations and can be understood by speakers of more than 200 languages. Words with
Latin roots are chosen to make the language easier to pronounce and to be understood
R/T phraseology consists of a list of standard phrases from which air traffic controllers and pilots compose their messages according to the requirements laid down for a particular procedure. It should be noted that pilots and air traffic controllers should strictly follow the rules of this prescribed language.
Despite the fact that a student is competent in handling the above language requirements,
there are other factors limiting successful communication. These are inappropriate
transmitting technique, low grade acustic mode, regional accents etc. Situation-
A broader coverage of language skills calls for general English in the course, especially
if the teacher notices a lack of fluency of some students. As there are not many
teaching hours available, such a course runs the risk of wasting the time needed
for professional requirements. Therefore, it is suggested to take a job-
These domains are essential in syllabus planning as they generate events or real flight situations. The inventory includes mainly aerodrome and flight procedures. The vocabulary can be tied to each of these domains and can make up the lexical core of the syllabus. The following examples show two domains: aerodrome and flight information service and generated events (taxiing and traffic information).
(routine) Pilot: taxiing via taxiway A to holding point runway 35, S-
flight information service/event: traffic information
(routine) Controller: S-
The message in the second example is considered routine as similar circumstances occur frequently. The frequent use has resulted in the production of an inventory of information related to different events, e.g.:
wind shear reported 3000 feet final RWY 15
traffic is a light aircraft
construction work immediatelly adjacent to taxiway A
grass mowing in progress
compacted snow on runway 35
work in progress adjacent to taxiway C
marked trench right side of taxiway B
Language functions correspond to the speaker's intention in uttering a given message. In R/T communication there is a variety of functions which the students should master.
Making a request request departure information
Asking for information request actual weather data
Giving information flight information available
Describing a state over threshold runway 32
Describing an action in progress lining up runway 25
Checking understanding read back clearance
Correcting a misunderstanding negative, QNH 997
Self –correcting correction, Runwas 25 right
Asking for and giving clarification verify level; maintaining altitude 3500 feet
Asking for and giving confirmation confirm passing flight level 130; passing flight
The functions of messages are expressed by standard phraseology in routine procedures. The pilot uses certain lexical items that are mandatory in radiotelephony communication.
3.Communication in non-
The use of general English/aviation English is mandatory in non-
There are numerous general English sentences used in R/T comunication considered to be parts of the official coded language. The responses, however, should follow R/T phraseology rules:
Can you lose time on route? Affirm, S-
What is the delay? Expected delay 15 minutes,
What is your level? Climbing to flight level
Do you want vectors? Affirm, S-
Do you have the latest Ljubljana SIGMET? S-
Very often there is a need of using the coded language in combination with general English, e.g:
Pilot: Negative, we have engine trouble and want to return to the apron,
Unexpected event calls for explanation in general English:
The pilot having received an instruction in radiotelephony language (hold position)
and the information in general English, responds: We'll wait instead of : holding,
A problem generated by false recognition of routine and non-
Pilot: I would like to take right turn.
instead of: request right turn.
Controller: You should make right turn to heading 080 because of
instead of: avoiding action, turn right heading 080 immediately.
The pilot will recognize the second case, e.g. the message transmitted in standard phraseology much sooner and will react accordingly.
The combined approach to training in phraseology and aviation English can be effective only if the teacher is aware of the problems generated in such communications.
How much grammar in communication?
The majority of students who have finished secondary school are good at English grammar the knowledge of which is essential for the use of radiotelephony language. Usually they have difficulties in coping with the language in its communicative use. It is significant, however, that the teacher introduces those grammar structures which are essential in this area.
Let us demonstrate two grammar exercises based on the communicative approach.
The controller instructs the pilot to carry out some flying procedures. The chain of events is demonstrated by the pilot’s response using present continuous:
Event: level instructions
Climb to flight level 130 climbing to flight level 130
Expedite climb to flight level 130 expediting climb to flight level 130
Maintain flight level 130 until further advised maintaining flight level 130
Descent to flight level 130 descending to flight level 130
Another chain of situations includes the use of different grammar structures in one procedure:
Event: after landing
Vacate first exit right vacating first right
Report runway vacated wilco ….. runway vacated
The teacher should further demonstrate how the sentences are put in communication
by providing non-
Event: unexpected vehicle breakdown on a taxiway
We have just vacated the runway and are taxiing along runway B. There
is a broken vehicle at the end of taxiway B, at the apron entrance.
The students are taught what values the sentences may have as instructions, reports, descriptions etc. One linguistic form can fulfill a variety of communicative functions and one function can be fulfilled by a variety of linguistic forms ( Widdowson, 1979 ).
Programmes require good material resources i.e. books and multi media. Two text books
are available at present. “Flying -
The teacher can prepare additional materials based on the authentic situations that are not provided by the text books used in the classroom. The students who are flying already very often present their own experiences thus creating authentic situations in the classroom.
The emphasis is put on the need of recurrent training for many reasons. We know that language skills slip if we do not use and practice them. At a certain level of language proficiency we do not lose these skills any longer. Bearing in mind that the pilots should be retested in certain periodical intervals, refresher courses should be organized based on the above strategies. It has been proved that the required language qualifications are more easily and speedily acquired by pilots who undergo systematic and continuous courses of training conforming to a planned syllabus.
Professional pilots have opportunity to practice R/T language in the flight simulator. Furthermore, they use both of their language skills, general (AviationEnglish) as well as R/T communication in their professional work. They can record the communication in the cockpit and discuss it with the teacher and the colleagues in class.
We were faced with several problems when introducing new language requirements. The use of comprehensive syllabus should be given a great deal of thought and flexibility. How should we distribute the limited number of teaching hours to certain language competences which the students should master? It should also be taken into account that general language proficiency has a strong relationship to ESP achievement and that the limited number of teaching hours does not allow effective training of general language for students whose general English competence is poor.
Being aware of the fact that proficiency in communication and listening comprehension is a professional requirement for pilots, the emphasis is laid on these two language competencies.
Nevertheless, with the introduction of newly established language proficiency requirements
focusing on communication, interaction and listening comprehension, we should not
devote attention exclusively to communicative acts. Reading and writing tasks in
the classroom have been reduced, but not excluded from the syllabus as future pilots
are expected to be good at writing incident and technical reports. Above all, a need
of new teaching strategies appeared with regard to effective teaching of two closely-
It is worth noting that the teacher can effectively use the above teaching strategies with a great majority of students as they are usually highly motivated.
Brown, G. (1990). Cultural values: The interpretation of discourse. ELT Journal,
Brumfit, C. J. and Johnson, K. (1979). (Eds.) The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford: OUP.
Domogala, P. (1991). What happens if R/T standards start to slide? Proceedings of
the Fourth International Aviation English Forum (p.155-
Firth, J.R. (1957). Papers in linguistics 1934-
Hutchinson, T. and Walters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: CUP.
International Civil Aviation Organization, (1996). Procedures for Air Navigation
Services, Rules of the Air and Air Traffic Service, Doc. 4444-
International Civil Aviation Organization, (2006). Annex 1, Language Proficiency Requirements. Montreal: ICAO.
Jeppesen, eds. (2005). Communications. (JAA ATPL Training). Frankfurt: Jeppesen GMbH.
Kukovec.A. (1998). Language Specialists and Aviation Specialists in Radio-
Kukovec, A. (2001). How do you read me, Letalska frazeologija. Ljubljana: Select CO d.o.o.
Kukovec, A. ( 2001). Flying, Aviation English. Ljubljana: Select CO d.o.o.
Mathews, E. (2003).Recent ICAO annex amendments strengthen requirements for language
proficiency. ICAO Journal. Volume 58: 7 -
Mell.J. (1991). What is not standard in real R/T? Proceedings of the Fourth International
Aviation English Forum (p.125-
Mell, J. (1996). A need-
Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching Methodology. Chapter 8. London: Prentice Hall.
Robertson, F. (1987). Airspeak. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Trimble, L.(1989). English for Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Widdowson, H. G. The teaching of English as communication. V: Brumfit, C.J. and Johnson, K. Ur. 1979: 117 – 121.
Widdowson, H. G. (1984). Learning Purpose and Language Use. London: Oxford
(CC) SDUTSJ 2008. Zbirka Inter Alia je objavljena pod licenco Creative Commons