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
errors can occur at either end.
The content, structure, dialogues, vocabulary and sequences of spoken air traffic
control messages have been standardised by ICAO to avoid ambiguity and potential
sources of error. The phonetic alphabet was adopted from the North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation (NATO) and, according to Hawkins (1993), it was developed with the
requirement that words with Latin roots should be given preference in developing the
standard phrases. ICAO PANS-RAC and Annex 10 set out the ICAO standards for
number and alphabet pronunciation, word usage and message phrasing. In Australia
they are given effect by CAR 82 which states that CASA “may give directions in
relation to the words and phrases to be used in communicating with, or in relation to,
aircraft, using radio communication systems...” (CASA, 1998), and published for
controllers in the Manual of Air Traffic Services (MATS), and for pilots in the
Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP).
The communications technique required by ICAO is a four-step
‘confirmation/correction closed-loop’:
1. the sender transmits a message;
2. the receiver actively listens to the message;
3. the receiver repeats the message back to the sender;
4. the sender actively listens for the correct readback.
The system’s safety margin depends on all four elements being performed correctly.
The standard format makes the tasks of issuing and responding easier because the
parties are in a ‘primed’ state of mind. It attempts to compensate for distractions and
the ambiguity of context by requiring certain actions by controllers and pilots to
ensure that the intended meaning of their message has been understood. It is designed
to compensate for the fallibility of memory. But miscommunication can occur at each
step due to noise, the use of non-standard idiomatic phrases, paraphrasing, slang,
regional accent or when the listener’s expectations influence what is heard. Errors
generally occur in step 1 due to these linguistic traps. Steps 3 and 4 are the defences
in depth but will not prevent error if acknowledgements become so routine that they
26
are not actively listened to. Readbacks are not always accurate and controllers
sometimes fail to detect the inaccuracies.
Non-routine communications occur when pilots and controllers focus on the
communication itself to resolve misunderstandings (Morrow and Rodvold, 1998).
These are ‘multi-loop’ transactions because more than one exchange is required to
understand the message. Although they lengthen communications and reduce
efficiency, these non-routine communications are critical to air safety.
Misunderstandings which were not clarified have contributed to major accidents,
including Tenerife where the pilots were unsure of which taxiway to take.
The demands on controllers while communicating cannot be ignored.
Communicating with pilots places demands on controllers’ information processing
resources. Controllers must filter the radio communications by focused attention
(distinguishing the signal from noise) and selective attention (sampling the sources to
select those directed to them). It takes time to deliver instructions and listen to the
pilot’s readback. Controllers must focus on the pilot’s speech to acquire the message,
often against a noisy background, integrate this message with their knowledge of the
flight and traffic situation, and, in the case of a pilot request, evaluate it and formulate
a response. Pilot communications may be considerably less standard than that of
controllers because there are considerably more pilots and the level of skill, standard
of training, and fluency in English and phraseologies is far more diverse. Frequency
congestion can cause long waiting times for access, and interrupted or overtransmitted
messages may have to be issued again. This will have measurable affects
on controller performance which cannot be alleviated through better training (Roske-
Hofstrand and Murphy, 1998).
The parallel processing involved when communicating and continuing to track and
separate aircraft, and the linear, serial nature of speech communications, imposes time
constraints, resulting in pressure to save time by keeping messages brief. The limited
vocabulary, along with the standardised format and syntax of ATC language, is
designed for both brevity and clarity—a fundamental conflict. As Hawkins
(1993:169) notes, “in other fields, such as law and government, messages are
lengthened to ensure they are unambiguous. In aviation, phrases are being shortened,
due to time pressures, but they still need to be unambiguous”. Part of the problem,
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(87)
