曝光台 注意防骗
网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
(Hopkin, 1995).
Controllers and team leaders may infer another’s planned course of action by
overhearing communications directed to others. This pattern of indirect
communications and inference is contingent upon controllers developing a ‘shared
mental model’ and allows teams to co-ordinate their behaviour even when task load
makes personal communications impossible (Bowers, Blickensderfer and Morgan,
1998). As a flight passes from one sector to another, the controller may need to pass
on aspects of his or her situational awareness to the next controller. Prior to Avianca
Flight 052’s crash near New York in 1990 which killed 73 people, important
information about the aircraft’s fuel status was passed by the crew to controllers in
one facility but this information was lost at the point of hand-off to another. The
terminal area controllers then treated the flight like any other when they could have
expedited the aircraft’s approach (Roske-Hofstrand and Murphy, 1998).
A mismatch of situational awareness between controllers and aircraft crews is a
source of miscommunication. An example is the break down of separation between
two Boeing 737’s in the Cullerin holding pattern (near Sydney) in 1994 where,
following control instructions, pilot and controller expectations of aircraft actions
differed (BASI, 1997b), exposing a critical gap in procedures and a subsequent
refinement of ATC phraseologies. Another is the 1972 crash of Eastern Airlines
Lockheed Tristar into the Everglades near Miami which killed 103 people. The
controller, watching the aircraft slowly descending, knew that the crew was engaged
in determining the status of their nose landing gear, but like the crew, he did not know
that the auto pilot had been inadvertently disengaged. He simply asked, “how are
things comin’ along out there?”, an insufficiently precise question to bring the crew
out of their mental state. They remained preoccupied with the nose gear indicator and
the aircraft descended into the swamp (Gero, 1996).
13
ATC: Yankee Kilo, you not have my field in sight?
G-APYK: Affirmative.
—Misunderstanding attributed to language difficulties
and lack of standard phraseologies,
Douglas DC-4 crash,
Roussillon, France, 1967.
(Gero, 1996)
3. The Nature of Language
Communication is fundamental to all human cultures and language is the basis of
communication. It is the heart of human information processing, inextricably linked
with the cognitive processes as well as with communication. There are the natural
languages, such as English or German, and others such as mathematics and computer
languages, but each is a system comprising a set of symbols (vocabulary) and a set of
rules (syntax or grammar). The importance of language in problem solving should
not be underestimated. Inappropriate language structures can make simple problems
difficult, or even impossible, to solve. Consider this problem:
47 LXIV
29 XXIX
+ 64 + XLVII
140 CXL
(from Edwards, 1985.)
There are pitfalls and subtle miscues in the nature of language which can subvert the
messages that seem clear to the sender. An understanding of these is critical for pilots
and air traffic controllers.
3.1 Phonemes
Any word or sentence may be analysed into a chain of discrete sounds called
phonemes, the smallest acoustic unit of language that can make a meaningful
psychological difference in that language (Ericsson and Simon, 1993). For example,
the word bit is made up of three phonemes; by substituting the first phoneme /p/ for
/b/, the meaning of the three resulting phonemes is changed from bit to pit. There is
not always one phoneme in the pronunciation of each letter in the spelling. No
machine can yet identify the sequence of phonemes in speech nearly as well as the
human ear because the same phoneme is not always perceived for a given sequence of
sound. For instance a 4-year old girl, a man and an operatic soprano do not emit the
same physical sound for /b/, nor do they sound exactly the same way each time one of
them says it, yet we still perceive /b/. Similarly, we can usually understand different
14
dialects of English even though the actual sequence of phonemes may be different.
Americans, for example, pronounce water as [WAH-der], whereas Australian
pronunciation is more like [WAR-tuh]. Even with three out of four phonemes
different, Ericsson and Simon (1993) say, most people will identify a word, especially
if the context is meaningful.
Spoken language is more complex than written language because there are no
consistent physical boundaries between words or phrases comparable to the spaces in
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
航空资料34(80)
