SOCIOLINGUISTIC ASPECTS OF THE STUDY OF PECULIARITIES OF RADIO COMMUNICATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18372/2306-1472.67.10445Keywords:
airmen, air traffic controller, aviation English, communication, pilot, radio phraseologyAbstract
Purpose. Flight safety has always been in the center of attention of scientists and practitioners in aviation. That is why in the end of the last century the ICAO assembly recognized inadequate English proficiency among flight crews and controllers as a contributing factor in aviation accidents. It also directed the ICAO’s Air Navigation Commission (ANC) to strengthen the provisions for the use of English in aeronautical radiotelephony (air traffic communications) in Annex 1 - Personnel Licensing and Annex 10 – Aeronautical Telecommunications. Results. The article is devoted to the study of peculiarities of communication in aviation – radio communication between an air traffic controller and pilot, which is very important for promotion of flight safety. The author pays special attention to the study of social factors influencing the choice of certain lexical units and functional styles. Methods. For our research we used scientific general methods which are main ways of studying scientific sources, and comparative-historical method for synchronic comparison of event in the same region. Discussion. The factors that explain such linguistic choice during communication have been characterized. Similar and different features of professional radio communication and usual every day communication have been revealed. Some examples are given and explained according to specific professional activity.
References
Simmons, James L. Efficient Conversation: The Talk between Pilots and Air Traffic Controllers. U.S. Department of health education & welfare of National institute of education, Department of Sociology, University of Colorado, 1974, P. 6-20.
Garfinkel H., Sacks H. On Formal Structures of Practical Actions // Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Development. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970, P 6.
O. V. Prinzo, A. Thompson. The ICAO English Language Proficiency Rating Scale Applied to Enroute Voice Communications of U.S. and Foreign Pilots. Final Report (DOT/FAA/AM-09/10), Office of Aerospace Medicine, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC. 2009, P. 9-12.
Rose, Edward L. A Looking-Glass Conver¬sation. Boulder, Colo.: Institute of Behavioral Sciences. 1967, P. 11.
Aviation News. Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of transportation. Vol. 41, No. 3, April 2002. – P. 17
D. Mcmillan, Miscommunicatios in Air Traffic Control. Queensland University of Technology. – 1998. – P. 5- 9.
C. Drury, J. Ma, C. Marin. Language error in Aviation maintenance. University at Buffalo The state university of New York. W. Hughes technical center. August 2005 – P. 10 p.
Prinzo, O.V., Hendrix, A.M., Hendrix, R. Pilot English language proficiency and the prevalence of communication problems at five U.S. Air Route Traffic Control Centers. DOT/FAA/AM-08/21. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration. 2008, P. 6.
A. Schultz, m. Huglen, D. Lim. English education and communication studies: ambiguity in the International airway. U.S. Department of education, Office of educational research and improvement Educational resources information center, 2001. – P. 8 - 10.
Aviation safety action programs. Instructor guide for training module F: participating in ERC meeting Federal aviation administration, 30 April 2012, P. 120-129.
