曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

My interest in the subject was aroused some years ago when I was sequencing traffic
into Sydney. A vector I issued to “Tango alpha delta” (TAD) was acknowledged by
“Tango alpha alpha” (TAA) and the wrong aircraft commenced a turn before I could
cancel it, fortunately without consequences. Homophony confusion with “alpha” and
“delta” occurs occasionally with most controllers, as does a pilot reading back “Flight
level two seven zero” when the controller has issued “Climb to flight level two zero
zero”. These are also examples of ‘expectation error’ because pilots of both TAD
and TAA were expecting vectors, and the crew of a departing jet is expecting to climb
higher than twenty thousand feet. But they may also be due to poor pronunciation,
poor microphone technique, a distracted, busy crew or a noisy frequency—perhaps all
of these.
Amongst controllers there is insufficient awareness of the pervasiveness of the
miscommunication problem and its various manifestations. The insidiousness of
some of these requires that controllers be provided with a deeper insight into the
structures of language and the way which phrases and words can be misinterpreted.
1.2 Scope of the Study
Miscommunications between pilots and air traffic controllers are an international
problem. The main source of aviation human factors research is the United States of
America which has the world’s largest aviation industry. Yet the question arises just
how relevant are US miscommunications problems to the Australian situation? My
research indicates that much of it is irrelevant. Hawkins (1993:156) writes:
It is perhaps a paradox that in spite of universal recognition of the importance of
discipline in the use of standard phraseology for safe aircraft operation, the world’s
largest aviation country, the USA, is often accused of being one of the greatest
offenders. The USA is becoming increasingly isolated in its use of local time instead of
GMT [Greenwich Mean Time] and non-metric units in aviation (statute miles, degrees
Fahrenheit, inches of mercury, pounds, etc.), complicating international
communication....the international pilot flying into the USA will sometimes need to
interpret a different form of radio telephony (RTF) from that in use in the rest of the
developed world. The English language over Frankfurt in Germany may be closer to
international standards, and so more intelligible, than that over, say, Chicago.
The literature bears this out. The use of slang and idiomatic phrases, combined with
strong regional accents and the failure to use the standard phraseologies
recommended by ICAO, are a feature of Cushing’s (1994) US study. Many of his
examples are not applicable to the Australian air traffic system. I have, therefore,
5
made a deliberate effort in this paper to use Australian examples or, where these have
not been available, non-US international examples.
We cannot, however, ignore what is to be learned from any aviation accident. Of the
14 key historical events, most of them accidents, that have transformed the US
national airspace system since the 1950’s, and thereby influenced the Australian
system, miscommunications were implicated in five of them (National Research
Council, 1997). They were:
• the TWA crash at Dulles in 1974. This accident was caused by communication
ambiguity on part of both the pilots and controllers, resulting in the
misunderstanding of each other’s responsibilities.
• the Tenerife collision in 1977 which demonstrated, amongst other issues, the
weakness of voice communications that take place by non-native English speakers.
• the San Diego mid-air collision between a Boeing 727 and a Cessna 172 in 1978.
Inadequate phraseologies by controllers were a major factor in this accident which
killed 146 people in the aircraft and on the ground.
• the Avianca Boeing 707 fuel starvation crash at John F. Kennedy Airport in 1990.
The failure of the Spanish speaking crew to use standard English phraseologies to
convey the urgency of their perilous fuel state to controllers resulted in the deaths
of 76 passengers and crew.
• the McDonnell Douglas DC-9 and Boeing 727 collision at Detroit in fog in 1990,
partly caused by the lack of clear taxi instructions and a failure to transmit a stop
takeoff warning..
The review by Gero (1996) includes every mishap on a passenger flight with at least
60 fatalities involving an air carrier of the industrialised world that has taken place
since 1950 and every crash causing at least 80 deaths that is known to have occurred.
Of the 274 listings, miscommunication between pilots and controllers can clearly be
　
中國航空網 m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：航空資料34(75)