Miscommunication in Commercial Aviation: The Role of Accent, Speech Rate, Information Density, and Politeness Markers

IF 1 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED International Journal of Aerospace Psychology Pub Date : 2023-01-02 DOI:10.1080/24721840.2022.2154672
Y. H. P. S. A. Y. Dissanayaka, B. Molesworth, Dominique Estival
{"title":"Miscommunication in Commercial Aviation: The Role of Accent, Speech Rate, Information Density, and Politeness Markers","authors":"Y. H. P. S. A. Y. Dissanayaka, B. Molesworth, Dominique Estival","doi":"10.1080/24721840.2022.2154672","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Objective This study is specifically designed to examine the effect of accent (native or non-native English sounding), rate of speech, complexity of transmission (information density), and politeness markers on commercial pilot (mis)communication. Background Aviation accident reports often cite miscommunication as a contributing factor. Anecdotal reports from pilots, along with limited empirical studies on pilot communication, further confirm that miscommunication remains a problem. Method Approximately 250 ATC-Pilot transmissions from each of four international airports: Kingsford Smith, Sydney, Australia (YSSY); Hong Kong International Airport (VHHH); Los Angeles International Airport, USA (KLAX); and Haneda, Tokyo, Japan (RJTT) were analyzed. Pilot communication errors were compared between the four locations based on pilot and ATC accent alignment, rate of speech, number and order of items in transmission, and politeness markers. Results Native English-sounding pilots committed more errors than accented pilots. Alignment of pilot and ATC language background reduced communication errors, but not when native English speakers were involved. Longer messages increased the number of communication errors. Politeness markers did not affect communication and pilots committed fewer errors when the readback order was not scrambled. Conclusion Communication errors still occur in ATC-Pilot radio communication. These errors appear more common with native English sounding pilots than accented pilots. Hence, the origin of the problem appears to stem from proficiency in the lingua franca of Aviation English, rather than with the English language.","PeriodicalId":41693,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Aerospace Psychology","volume":"33 1","pages":"79 - 97"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Aerospace Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24721840.2022.2154672","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective This study is specifically designed to examine the effect of accent (native or non-native English sounding), rate of speech, complexity of transmission (information density), and politeness markers on commercial pilot (mis)communication. Background Aviation accident reports often cite miscommunication as a contributing factor. Anecdotal reports from pilots, along with limited empirical studies on pilot communication, further confirm that miscommunication remains a problem. Method Approximately 250 ATC-Pilot transmissions from each of four international airports: Kingsford Smith, Sydney, Australia (YSSY); Hong Kong International Airport (VHHH); Los Angeles International Airport, USA (KLAX); and Haneda, Tokyo, Japan (RJTT) were analyzed. Pilot communication errors were compared between the four locations based on pilot and ATC accent alignment, rate of speech, number and order of items in transmission, and politeness markers. Results Native English-sounding pilots committed more errors than accented pilots. Alignment of pilot and ATC language background reduced communication errors, but not when native English speakers were involved. Longer messages increased the number of communication errors. Politeness markers did not affect communication and pilots committed fewer errors when the readback order was not scrambled. Conclusion Communication errors still occur in ATC-Pilot radio communication. These errors appear more common with native English sounding pilots than accented pilots. Hence, the origin of the problem appears to stem from proficiency in the lingua franca of Aviation English, rather than with the English language.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
商用航空中的误解:重音、语速、信息密度和礼貌标记的作用
摘要目的本研究旨在研究口音(母语或非母语英语发音)、语速、传输复杂性(信息密度)和礼貌标记对商业飞行员(mis)通信的影响。背景航空事故报告经常提到沟通失误是一个促成因素。飞行员的轶事报告,以及对飞行员沟通的有限实证研究,进一步证实了沟通失误仍然是一个问题。方法从澳大利亚悉尼金斯福德·史密斯机场(YSSY)四个国际机场各发送约250个ATC飞行员信号;香港国际机场;美国洛杉矶国际机场(KLAX);和日本东京羽田(RJTT)。根据飞行员和ATC的口音对齐、语速、传输项目的数量和顺序以及礼貌标记,比较了四个位置之间的飞行员通信错误。结果母语为英语的飞行员犯下的错误比口音飞行员多。飞行员和ATC语言背景的一致性减少了沟通错误,但当涉及母语为英语的人时则不然。较长的消息会增加通信错误的数量。礼貌标记不会影响沟通,当读回顺序没有被打乱时,飞行员犯下的错误更少。结论空管飞行员无线电通信仍存在通信差错。这些错误在以英语为母语的飞行员中似乎比口音飞行员更常见。因此,问题的根源似乎源于对航空英语通用语言的熟练程度,而不是英语。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
7.70%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Qualitative Analysis of General Aviation Pilots’ Aviation Safety Reporting System Incident Narratives Using the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System Effective Monitoring for Early Detection of Hypoxia in Fighter Pilots The Effects of Aeronautical Decision-Making Models on Student Pilots’ Situational Awareness and Cognitive Workload in Simulated Non-Normal Flight Deck Environment The Relationship between Preparation, Impression Management, and Interview Performance in High-Stakes Personnel Selection: A Field Study of Airline Pilot Applicants It Was This Wing Wasn’t It? Identifying the Importance of Verbal Communication in Aviation Maintenance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1