Авторская версия статьи. Опубликовано: «Новости аэронавигации», 2001, № 4
Авторская версия статьи. Опубликовано: «Новости аэронавигации», 2001, № 5
Авторская версия статьи. Опубликовано: «Новости аэронавигации», 2001, № 6
Авторская версия статьи. Опубликовано: «Новости аэронавигации», 2002, № 1
Авторская версия статьи. Опубликовано: «Новости аэронавигации», 2002, № 2
Авторская версия статьи. Опубликовано: «Новости аэронавигации», 2002, № 3
Авторская версия статьи. Опубликовано: «Новости аэронавигации», 2002, № 4
Brian DAY. ICAO JOURNAL Issue 3/2002
представитель IFALPA в группе PRICESG
Dear Michael, Mike and colleagues, I would like to share my understanding of ICAO Scale with you and ask for your advice whether I am right or wrong.
As we know, the Scale is called “ICAO language proficiency rating scale”, not “ICAO radiotelephony proficiency rating scale”. What makes me think that the Scale cannot and shall not be used for evaluating phraseology?
Pronunciation. The requirements are the same both for General English and RTF.
Structure. There are no complex grammatical structures in RTF (due to obvious reason); reduced forms of the verb are common practice, so Grammar of RTF cannot be rated according to the Scale.
Vocabulary. Vocabulary of RTF shall be neither “idiomatic”, nor “nuanced, and sensitive to register”. Moreover, “one word — one meaning” is a requirement in phraseology. Communicants should understand each other easily.
Fluency. “Speaking at length with a natural, effortless flow” is a nightmare in high-intensity areas. RTF requires a rate of speech of 100 words per minute, and it should be concise. Some of the Moscow ATCOs who have started their English course, are trying now to show their achievements while communicating with foreign pilots. They may use three times more words than in standard “Say again”. It takes a lot of time and efforts to cut short such lexical diarrhea.
Comprehension. I doubt that Chapter XII of PANS-ATM 4444 gives an opportunity to demonstrate “comprehension of linguistic and cultural subtleties”.
Interaction, as well as Pronunciation, is fully acceptable both for RTF and GE evaluation. (“Deals adequately with apparent misunderstandings by checking, confirming, or clarifying”).
These statements make me think that the Scale should be used for what it has been developed: evaluation of General English. Situations when pilots and controllers use «unrestricted» speech instead of formulaic ICAO language are common place, and that is why some of us think that at least some parts of RTF can be evaluated according to the ICAO Scale.
If national CAAs were more enthusiastic in implying adherence to ICAO phraseology, the problem we are discussing today might have been, well, not negligible, but not that cute.
ICAO, the house for dozens and dozens of aviation authorities, has developed a language for communication between pilots and controllers, keeping in mind that whenever it is used the communicants shall understand each other irrespectively of their nationality and the land/sea under the wings.
In practice, US have their RTF, UK have their RTF, Canada has its own RTF… Moreover, Germany, Bulgaria, Ukraine have their RTFs, but they are almost a 100% replica of 4444 and 9432. Paying so much of our time to General English and problems of its learning and testing, let us not forget about the necessity to use THE SAME standardized phraseology everywhere.