Abstract

This article describes the English language problem that Japanese student pilots undergo in flight training in American airspace, and it gives some background as to why this has become a growing concern to Safety Officers within the U. S. Federal Aviation Administration--especially over the last twenty years. Specifically stated, the problem is that Japanese student pilots conduct most of their in-flight training and in-flight testing for unrestricted private pilot certification in uncontrolled American airspace where fast spoken English is not required, but unrestricted pilot certification authorizes them to fly in congested controlled airspace where fast spoken English is the norm. There is no objective way to evaluate and avoid this safety problem. The author provides clear examples of aviation language problems by incident and accident type, and further explains the efficiency and accuracy constraints of the aviation environment which sometimes cause "cognitive overload" on pilots, which potentially lead to misunderstandings and misinformation in flight--and possibly, to mishaps that endanger life and property. The article's appendices provide examples of language-related aviation accidents and a summary of the minimum qualification criteria for student pilots to earn private pilot certification in America, while the text refocuses on the need for an objective measuring instrument for Aviation-English language proficiency determinations. The author describes the theoretical framework necessary for building an objective near-real-time computerized flight simulator that is capable of automated measurement of language skills. The article concludes with a brief description and schematic diagram of the author's design for such an instrument.

© 1997 CLIFFORD ELLIOTT NOBLE II ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

The Aviation-English Problem

Flying is an exacting, serious business. It demands everything you have of knowledge, attention, effort, judgment, and skill. If you give it any less than your best, it exacts a high price for your mistakes (Pilot's Information File, USAAF,1944)

Since the end of the Second World War, the skies over America have become increasingly populated with thousands of civil aviation aircraft. Today, pilots under instruction and newly designated pilots with little to no flight experience operate more aircraft in this airspace. Much of this flying population is of Asian-Pacific origin--many of whom cannot pass American college entrance examinations of English (KCAL TV, 1995). This directly impacts aviation safety because English is the designated language for international aviation (International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), 1990), and as the industrial boom in Asia increases, so does the demand for basic flight training in America; therefore, the situation causes concern to Aviation Safety Officers within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) who are responsible to manage the air space problem (U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration 1988: 8300.10, vol. 1, p. VI-1).

Accordingly, flight training and language training in English have become complementary markets in America. Extended education departments of state-operated universities work cooperatively with local flight schools by providing student VISA status and English classes to foreign students who live and train at airports where independent Fixed-Base Operators (FBO) provide flight instruction under Part 61 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. The flight training curriculum of Part-61 based FBOs is less structured than FAR Part-141 certificated flight schools who can provide student VISA status just as universities can. These flight schools have more structure, and most require a prerequisite level of English proficiency before students can begin flight training in controlled airspace where instrument training is intense. FBOs contract with local colleges for English instruction and student VISA status for foreign students with marginal English skills who seek private pilot certification.

Some Asian flight schools offer flight training in America that requires high Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) scores (TOEIC Service, 1996), but this is rare. Foreign students who score low on the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) or the TOEIC are drawn to America's FAR Part 61 flight schools. This is primarily because of America's spaciousness, favorable climate, attractive tourist sites, and low entrance barriers for flight training (Boyd, 1990). Japanese student pilots form a significant population among the Asian-Pacific flight trainees in America.

Low entrance barriers for flight training in America include the low costs for aircraft rentals, aviation fuel, aircraft maintenance and instructor fees. The general cost to train in America may be ten times cheaper than in other countries (KCAL TV, 1995). Moreover, third class medical examinations are easy to obtain. No requirement exists to pass an English test or earn a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) radio-license before flight training (U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 1995: FAR 61.103). This ensures a student pilot-pool of low English proficiency.

Most foreign flight training schools require students to earn a very difficult domestic radio-communication license examination before flight training--due to congested air space; however, in America, native flight instructors and flight examiners decide English proficiency before pilot certification. There is no objective and standardized test that measures student pilots' or private pilots' understanding of English (U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration, 1993: 8700.1, vol. 2, p. I-24).

The English language requirement for private pilot certification in America requires that the pilot read, speak and understand English (Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration, 1995: FAR 61.103b). Student pilots must pass a multiple-choice test in English before flying solo. Passing this test normally fulfills the reading portion of the English language requirement because it requires effort and ground instruction to understand the material. This is deceptive because flight schools sell study guides that contain all the questions and answers that are on the test. Students memorize these questions and answers without fully understanding them (KCAL TV, 1995). The understanding-of-spoken-English requirement is vague, and its evaluation is generally subjective.

Asian-Pacific languages such as Japanese are non-Indo-European based languages. The Japanese language lacks many of the phonemes of spoken English. It has markedly different syntactical structures than that of the English language as well (Tsujimura, 1996); therefore, Japanese flight students who are poor at English must rely heavily on their native-speaking flight instructors for communications in dual flight. Most of their solo flights and their in-flight evaluations for private pilot certification take place in uncontrolled airspace where spoken English is minimal or not legally required. This is not surprising. Even deaf persons can receive certification to fly in uncontrolled American airspace where there is no requirement for two-way radio communication between the pilot and air traffic control (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, 1996:16).

The risk to aviation safety increases with the increase of limited-English-proficient (LEP) pilots in American airspace. This is particularly true in controlled airspace where high performance air traffic is dense, and where compliance with complex, time sensitive verbal instructions are critical for aviation safety. Pilots operating in controlled airspace must obey Air Traffic Controllers' verbal instructions in a timely, efficient and accurate manner to maintain safe separation from other aircraft, many of which are operating in reference to instrument flight rules, as opposed to visual flight rules. Of equal concern, however, is the increase of LEP pilots at uncontrolled airports where pilots must rely more on their own judgement, which requires them to communicate with each other and with non-ATC facilities for air traffic-separation, the winds, and for runway information. Pilots use this information in uncontrolled airspace to take off, land, or maneuver into position for self-determined navigational tasks and safe airspace separation.

The real danger materializes after LEP student pilots earn their privilege to fly solo and after private pilot certification. Many foreign students earn it in uncontrolled airspace where cognitive load is minimal. Once certified as private pilots, these same individuals may legally fly into controlled airspace where fast spoken English is the norm. It is not clear if the absence of an objective test for measuring in-flight-English-proficiency increases the threat to life, property and aviation safety in America. Research is needed to determine if an objective, computerized, and real time-based flight simulator test of understanding English is a better predictor of flight performance for real world flight operations than what currently exists.

Background of the Problem

In 1987, the U. S. airspace system was projected to fail by the year 2000 due to airspace management problems caused by an anticipated 51 percent growth rate in the commercial carrier fleet and a 22 percent growth rate in the number of civil aviation aircraft. In short, 4,400 commercial carriers and 269,000 general aviation aircraft were expected to compete for U. S. airspace by the year 2000. Total time in the air for carriers would be up 62 percent and total time for general aviation aircraft would be up by 45 percent. On the other hand, the military anticipated more airspace for technologically improved aircraft and tactics, demanding more airspace windows and restrictions on airspace normally available to civil aircraft (Atkinson, 1990). This description of the future airspace situation is one of congestion and intense operations that demands heightened aviation safety measures. The FAA Aviation Forecast for fiscal years 1996-2007 accentuates this problem in its forecast that the U. S. economy will continue to grow at a rate of 2.6 percent annually--calling for over 6,500 commercial carriers by the year 2007 (Phillips, 1996) and for a boom of general aviation aircraft as well. A higher production rate of general aviation aircraft was spurred by President Clinton's approval of the General Aviation Revitalization Act in 1994. This underscores a higher volume of general aviation aircraft than was previously estimated. This General Aviation Revitalization Act limited the aircraft producer's product liability to 18 years, encouraging companies like Cessna to gear-up to produce 2,000 new airplanes a year from the year 1996 (Britt, 1994).

At the same time, imminent deregulation of the international aviation industry and the economic boom in Asia create a high demand for more international and domestic aircraft as well as for more domestic and international pilots throughout the world. That requires intensive flight training where costs are low and weather is good. As recently as March 1, 1997, discussions have been set to discuss America's "open skies" for international aviation where airlines from all agreeing nations can " fly wherever and whenever they want between the two signatory countries consistent with ... safety" ( Paradise, 1997). Japan has proposed that two airlines from Japan be allowed to fly to any destination in America.

Small countries like Japan have limited amounts of land and little favorable aviation weather for flight training, so they set up flight training facilities in America where operational costs and excellent flying weather are geographically, climatically and financially realistic. For example, Japan Air Lines started sending its pilots to Napa County, California for training in the early 1970s where they now have more that 46 training aircraft. Additionally, Nippon Airways opened up a year-round flight training facility in Bakersfield, California in the Fall of 1992. Another competitor, Japan Air Systems, opened a flight training facility in Redding, California in 1993. Even Korean Airlines started intensive flight training in Livermore, California (Pelline, 1993). By 1992, foreign flight training bases started to emerge all over the state of California where Japanese students would start training with no flight experience and poor English skills.

While Napa County and Redding are in the San Francisco areas, Japanese flight students abound in Southern California in areas like Bakersfield, Redlands, Santa Monica, Hesperia, San Diego and in the LA Basin. There, in Southern California, the air space below 13,000 feet (where most small single engine aircraft operate) is saturated with more than 15,000 aircraft at a time over 46 Southern California airports. This sunny paradise is where air traffic has "more than doubled during the past 20 years" (Arner, 1995). Private pilot certification abounds as well.

According to the General Aviation Manufacturing Association, over 60,000 student pilot certificates were issued by the FAA in 1995 and more than 27, 000 private pilot certificates were awarded (cited in Flight Training, November, 1996 p. 18). A growing percentage of these certificates are earned by nonnative English speaking Japanese students who barely speak English (KCAL, 1995); however, the FAA does not maintain a nationality data base for foreign citizens who are issued student pilot certificates or private pilot certificates in America.

Furthermore, the FAA does not maintain a nationality data base on pilots who have English language restrictions placed on their certificates in the event that there is an incident or situation that requires the issuance of such a restriction (FAA Regulatory Support Division Manager, John G. Bent, personal communication, March 30, 1995). Moreover, the FAA English requirement states that to be eligible for a student pilot certificate, a person must merely:

(b) Be able to read, speak, and understand the English language, or have such operation limitations placed on his pilot certificate as are necessary for the safe operation of aircraft, to be removed when he shows that he can read, speak, and understand the English language. (U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration,1993: FAR Part 61.83(b)

Medical examiners could recommend a language restriction because the medical certificate is the student pilot certificate, and it is required before solo flight. Flight physicians, however, seldom if ever deny third class medical certification as long as the applicant is in good health, so the student pilot certificate is very easy to obtain (Marko, 1993). The primary flight instructor is the next person who makes a judgment if the student pilot can read, speak and understand English prior to solo flight; but often times, primary flight instructors overlook this requirement throughout the training syllabus until it is time to sign an endorsement in the student's flight logbook, certifying that the student is ready to take the in-flight portion of the private pilot examination with an FAA Designated Pilot Examiner or with an FAA Inspector, in hopes that the student will pass.

Many of these Designated Pilot Examiners work "in house" and there is pressure from management to pass the students. One such pressure comes from FAR Part 61 operations who have applied for pilot school certificates, whereby the applicant must have, "within the 24 months before the date of application... trained and recommended for pilot certification ... at least 10 applicants ... for pilot certificates and ... at least 8 of the 10 most recent graduates tested by the ... Designated Pilot Examiner [in-house-examiner] passed that test the first time" (FAR §141.5). Often, the in-flight examination takes place in uncontrolled airspace where English communication is minimal, and there may be little requirement to speak English in flight. In the event that an examiner feels that the student needs a restriction placed on his certificate, he will issue a restriction on the certificate. To get the restriction removed, the airman must go to a Flight Standards Safety District Office and be evaluated by an FAA Inspector. Although general English proficiency guidelines are stated in the inspectors' safety manuals, there is no mention of English proficiency requirements or criteria in the FAA's Practical Flight Standards guideline booklet that students purchase to prepare for their in-flight evaluation for passing the in-flight portion of the private pilot test (Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 1987: FAA-S-8081-1A). The guidelines for determining if the pilot can read, speak and understand English are not standardized; rather, loosely stated and subjective as is indicated in the following guidelines:

(d) To determine the airman's ability to read and understand English, the inspector should provide the airman with a random selection from a book, magazine, or newspaper, not necessarily aviation oriented. Usually, if the person can read aloud without significant hesitation or slowness, the person is comprehending what is read, but the inspector may want to ask questions about what has been read to determine comprehension. (e) When the airman successfully demonstrates the ability to read, speak, and understand English, the inspector shall issue the airman a temporary airman certificate with appropriate category and class ratings but without the previous limitation. (U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration,1993: 8700.1, v2, p. 1-23)

The obvious problem with this process is that the student pilot will have accumulated more than 20 hours of solo flight time before taking the in-flight portion of pilot certificate examination before being evaluated by an FAA Inspector (Marko, 1993). This accentuates the need for standardized and objective English language proficiency assessments throughout the flight certification process. Some of this solo flight time is in controlled airspace requiring two way radio communication with ATC where fast spoken English is standard (See Appendices A-E for private pilot certification requirements and appendix D item 9 for solo in controlled airspace).

Language proficiency is very much a part of flight task proficiency and it often has a direct bearing and impact on safety. (See Appendix F for common examples of language related aviation accidents or incidents). For example, 351 people died aboard a Boeing 747 in the third-worst aviation disaster in aviation history in a midair collision over New Delhi where a Russian aircraft may have misunderstood "feet-denominated instructions from controllers" ("Pilot Error," 1996: A8). Two hundred and sixty three died in an Airbus A300-600R twin-engine wide-bodied jet in Nagoya, Japan when the copilot may have misunderstood an ambiguous pronoun when the pilot told him to "push it" or "connect it" (Associated Press, 1994, p. A30). The pronoun it could have been the yoke or the go-around button. ("Vivid Confusion," 1994). (See Appendix G for a partial transcript). Seventy-three died in Cove Neck, New York when a Columbian Boeing 707 jetliner ran out of fuel because its captain, knowing the aircraft was too low on fuel to attempt another missed approach, requested " a priority" instead of "an emergency." Columbian pilots were trained that "priority" carried the same meaning; therefore, the pilot thought requesting "a priority" conveyed an emergency situation to Air Traffic controllers--who would have given immediate vectors to land. New York ATC's understanding of "priority" did not carry the same meaning as an "emergency." This resulted in ATC extending the jet's time in the air instead of clearing it for an immediate emergency landing (National Transportation Safety Board, 1990). Investigators blamed the pilot for fuel mismanagement rather than a lack of English language proficiency. This may be partially due to the absence of a standardized and objective test of understanding of English communications in flight. Research is needed to discover why language is such a problem and to determine if a specialized and objective test of English that is both safe and realistic can aid in the valid predictability of linguistic related flight performance of nonnative English speaking pilots. Many factors come into play here including human factors, psycholinguistic factors, and even cultural values. For example, Japanese pilots may hesitate to inform the pilot in command of a potentially dangerous situation or to take immediate corrective action due to a culturally ingrained sense of respect for their senior flight instructor or senior pilot (Linde, 1988).

McDaniel and Rankin (1991) described how research is needed to improve the reliability of flight instructors' expert judgments in determining student pilots' proficiency because it was determined that flight instructors often make errors in judgment due to "limited capabilities of people to integrate information" (McDaniel and Rankin, 1991: 293). For example, Helmreich, Wilhelm, Gregorich and Chidester (1990, as cited in McDaniel and Rankin) found that instructors' evaluations of their students may vary widely due to variance in instructor skill levels or from differential subjective criteria, and often times, instructors would claim a student proficient to escape risk to themselves. This accentuated the need for an objective and valid test that was safe and accurate. For flying tasks, this is all the more critical due to the higher risks associated with flight. Lintern, Sheppard, Parker, Yates and Nolan (1989) pointed out that generally speaking, most professionals believe that training tasks should be as close to the operational tasks for maximum transfer of learning:

Possibly the most fundamental concern for applied instruction relates to the design of a program that will maximize transfer to the operational setting. Machine simulators that permit student interaction with real time representations of operational tasks offer considerable promise for enhancing training in the control of complex and dynamic systems. Thus the design and use of machine simulators are important issues for optimization of training in complex person-systems environments.... operators, technicians, design engineers, and behavioral scientists generally believe that maximum transfer is achieved by making the training task as similar as possible to the criterion task (Lintern et al. 1989: 87).

Until now there have been two options for testing: real life testing and non-contextual testing. Both of these have problems. Real life testing is dangerous, biased, and in most cases--expensive; whereas, noncontextual testing is hard to transfer. The best test appears to be one that is contextualized, non-biased and safe. If the statement of Lintern et al. about transfer in learning is correct, then the same should hold true for testing. In testing, the closer the simulated environment is to the operational environment in the real world, the better the predictability of performance in the real world.

Statement of the Problem

Nonnative English speaking Japanese student pilots can obtain private pilot certification in United States uncontrolled airspace where spoken English is minimal or not required, which authorizes them to operate aircraft, without an objective evaluation of their understanding of English, in congested United States controlled airspace where spontaneous understanding of English and compliance to fast spoken English is required for aviation safety. There is no objective way to evaluate and avoid this safety problem. Research is needed to determine if an objective, computerized flight test that simulates the operational aviation environment of the real world, is a better predictor of performance and safety than what currently exists.

Measurement of Expert Aviation-English Performance

"Communication must be rapid because pilots and controllers talk about dynamic situations, and because many pilots talk to the same controller over the same radio frequency. Understanding of each piece of information is often essential for air safety" (Morrow, Rodvold and Lee,1994: 236). Accordingly, there is a great need for measurement of expert language performance in the field of aviation because aviation is an exact and unforgiving discipline. This includes expert aviation communications. This is especially true in consideration of the lack of theories of performance that can predict actions for broad interpretation such as for general aviation safety (Vreuls and Obermayer, 1985). Computerized flight simulator assessment instruments if properly constructed, can provide simulated flight environments with realistic situations in controlled and uncontrolled airspace for more objective evaluations of student pilot flight performance than that of subjective evaluations made by primary flight instructors, and in combination, may assist in lowering the risk of potential aviation incidents or accidents before and after private pilot certification. Often, as is the case, automated computerized simulator assessments are not designed with theories that drive the performance measures, and in the end, performance evaluation falls back on subjective expert opinion or upon conditions that are limited to the simulated environment. Designing an environment that truly measures understanding is a complex process because a model of the mind of the user is hard to build (Anderson, 1993). Antithetically, if the parameters of performance were clearly defined in such a way that provides for objective evaluation and valid predictability of performance outcomes in aviation, they should eliminate instructor bias and produce more precise determinations of the student pilot's in-flight understanding of English as required in controlled and uncontrolled airspace without endangering the tester, testee, or the lives and property within the real world aviation environment. This should help protect the public from possible harm at the hands of limited English proficient pilots. Furthermore, such research may feasibly lead to the development and use of a standardized instrument that is objective which could be used by Federal Aviation Administration safety officials. To build such an instrument requires a theoretical framework.

Theoretical Framework for Designing an Objective Aviation-English Performance Instrument

It is assumed that the complexity of American airspace will continue to grow and that uncontrolled airspace will continue to diminish to levels that require more frequent communication between private pilots and air traffic controllers. It is further assumed the findings of Morrow et al. (1994) are true, in that flying in controlled airspace where fast spoken English is required increases pilots' cognitive processing loads. This increase in cognitive processing load is initiated by air traffic controllers' verbal instructions to pilots to perform navigational tasks or to update information, and is intensified with nonroutine collaborative schemes which occur as a result of understanding problems in English or mental update problems with the navigational model (the pilot's mental conceptualization of the current navigational model). The instrument relies heavily on the collaboration model of Clark and Schaefer (1987, as cited in Morrow et al.) as a theoretical framework for objective measurement and analysis of student pilot performance in controlled airspace wherein "communication takes place against a background of shared knowledge about language (English), ATC communication conventions (e.g., readbacks), and the operational environment (the navigational task, air space conditions)" (Morrow et al. 1994: 236). In this model, aviation efficiency and accuracy constraints tax pilots' cognitive processing load within real world aviation environments. The pilot's manipulation of aircraft controls and radios (actions) determine the values of aviation variables within that environment. Variables are defined as such items as pilot-response-time to air traffic controllers' (ATC's) verbal commands, and pilot responses to ATC-directed aircraft headings, altitudes, radio frequencies and transponder codes. The study further assumes that pilots' accurate understanding of each piece of information and shared understanding of language (English) can be measured subjectively in flight by aviation expert observers, or objectively with task-analytic methods such as verbally initiated navigational tasks in a real-time based flight simulator.

The potential safety problem demands a framework of objective measurement of low level cognitive skills (listening ability) in operational U. S. airspace from which a theory of performance can be developed to predict nonnative English speaking Japanese pilots' understanding of English. It is within this framework and with these assumptions of increased cognitive loads in future airspace that a theory of whole-task-performance is sought which can predict real world performance outcomes.

Theoretical support for the instrument is found in the research of Gagne, Foster, and Crowley (1948, as cited in Cormier and Hagman,1987: xii, 260) in terms of laying a basis for providing a model for task-to-task transfer for type of effect (positive or negative). That study eventually led to the Instructional System Designs approach used in military training and task analysis, and to future studies on effects of verbal training on whole-task-performance. In particular, the research findings of Edwin Fleishman (1963, as cited in Cormier and Hagman,1987: xiii, 75) state that "the best predictions of total-task-performance were [are] achieved from performance on those components having common ability requirements with the total task" (Cormier and Hagman,1987: xiii). The common ability requirement in the proposed instrument is nonnative English speaking student pilots' understanding of English in a real world aviation environment and in a simulated environment that closely resembles a real world aviation environment.

Further theoretical support for an objective instrument are the similarity paradox in human learning theory of Osgood (1949, as cited in Cormier and Hagman), which is modeled entirely on the basis of verbal learning research where maximum stimulus and response similarity yield maximum positive transfer, and the observation by Lintern et al. (1989) that most professionals believe that training should be as close as possible to the operational task for maximum transfer. With regards to learning and transfer theory, the author assumes that maximum transfer is achieved by making the training task as similar as possible to the criterion task, and what holds true for training should hold equally true for testing.

Specific theoretical support for the use of aurally-activated navigational tasks to measure operationally oriented secondary tasks (understanding of English) is found in the studies of Simons, Courtright, and O'Donnell (1980, as cited in Hart and Bortolussi, 1984) and Acton, Crabtree, Simons, Gomer and Eckel (1983, as cited in Hart and Bortolussi) where pilot radio communication tasks were used in a simulated environment as a "controlled source of workload variation that could be tailored to specific system and mission contexts" (Hart and Bortolussi, 1984: 547). It was found that pilot errors resulting from such communication tasks could be the cause of increased workloads rather than the symptom of increased workloads. Such errors could alter the intended nature of the originally intended tasks of the expert measurement system because new workload levels would be determined by the pilot's errors. It is this point that is critical in the design of the instrument of the current study, because the instrument allows for the pilot to make errors and assigns a new task based solely on the user's actions. It is hypothesized that this flexibility will provide for better assessment of the pilot's understanding of English and for increased prediction validity through the firing of random commands that are realistic for the new values of the environment that the user created for himself or herself through error or through appropriate action. A detailed discussion of how this is actually programmed will be discussed in the section of this article entitled "The Instrument." Based on the assumption that what applies to training and learning should apply equally to testing and measurement, this approach to assessing and predicting performance in a task-oriented environment that models a real world environment is not without theoretical merit. For example, the BAIRN system (Wallace, Klahr and Bluff, 1987, as cited in Klahr, Langly and Neches, 1987) is an unconventional production system that is an integrated system of performance and learning. Performance is generated by a "world model" that represents BAIRN's knowledge, and learning derives from processes that monitor the interaction between the world model and BAIRN's performance in the current environment. Development starts when the initial "kernal" world model begins to interact with the environment, and the learning processes monitor and react to the symbolic products of that interaction, producing a revised world model. This integrated cycle of performance and learning continues indefinitely. (Klhar, Langly and Neches, 1987: 359)

Considering the previous assumption that what holds true for learning should hold true for testing, and assuming that the student pilot is indeed at the state of proficiency where his primary instructor feels he can be expected to perform competently as a private pilot, and assuming that the rules of the simulated aviation environment match the rules in a real world environment with automated expert performance parameters, then the following statement should hold true for testing and predicting the student's performance in the real world just as the production systems of BAIRNS holds true for learning and performance:

Measurement of private pilot performance is generated by the firing of rules that set expert aviation parameters within a simulated environment. Performance measurement derives from production processes that monitor the interaction between those parameters and student pilot actions in the current environment. Testing starts when the student pilot begins to interact with the environment, and automated measurement productions monitor and react to the symbolic products of those interactions, producing a revised world model. This continues until the test is finished. The closer the revised model is to the expert model, the greater the likelihood of success in the real world. [Modified by author]

The production-system framework of Anderson (1983) is used to program an interactive near-real world aviation environment for ecological testing and measurement of low level cognitive skills (listening comprehension) of student pilots who interact in that environment. The production system is created as a "simple expert system that does not purport to model human cognition" (Gray and Orasanu, 1987, as cited in Cormier and Hagman, 1987: 189); rather, to model the environment so low-level human cognition can be measured through task analysis. The author hypothesizes, however that there is a significant relationship between the processing medium of production systems of the environment and the production systems in human cognition which add to the predictable validity of the instrument. A detailed analysis is presented in the description of the instrument of the study; however, the use of production systems to create a realistic testing environment supports the theoretical framework of the instrument to the extent that productions are the basic units of knowledge in procedural memory (Anderson, 1993: 18). Procedural knowledge is knowledge that people can only manifest in their performance (such as language performance). Production systems, if properly designed, can set rules and conditions that can create operational environmental scenarios that can fire realistic instantiations (ATC-directed navigational tasks) that give opportunity for pilots to take responsive actions that can be recorded and analyzed to determine their procedural knowledge, such as understanding of English. The CaBLE-theory of Feifer and Socolof, and Schank (1991, as cited in Reisman, 1994), which states that learning is maximized if users are allowed to make choices that lead to mistakes from which they can develop insight and understanding from technical experts, is combined with the theory of Anderson's production rule capabilities to form a foundation for the development of the instrument. Specifically stated, Anderson's production rule theory allows users to make mistakes which fire productions that give the user other realistic performance opportunities appropriate to environmental conditions created by user choices. Keeping the previous assumption on transfer of skills in learning and testing in mind, it is asserted that the CaBLE theory of Feifer and Socolof (1991, as cited in Reisman, 1994) for maximizing learning, and the production system approach of Anderson (1983) for maximizing predictability of performance outcomes ... form the theoretical framework for the current study.

The study of Adelman, Cohen, Bresnick, Chinnis, and Laskey (1993) on expert-system interface suggests that the type of real time expert system interface can significantly affect performance because of the effect of the interface on the user's cognitive process. Further study reveals that if the user were given a choice of where to direct the expert system's attention, workload efficiency and performance evaluations could improve once the user determined the options available in the interface. This suggests that performance measures are more valid on real time based computer systems when the user is given an interface that more closely resembles interfaces that are used with actual machinery in real world operational environments.

In summary, the theoretical framework draws from a mix of frameworks, assumptions, and learning theories in an attempt to form an objective theory of performance for using a computerized real-time based flight simulator. Support for the framework draws heavily from the proposition of Lintern et al. (1989) that real-time representations of operational tasks maximize transfer of learning, and the assumption that this should hold equally true for testing. Osgood's (1949) theory of similitude generally supports aurally prompted navigational task-analysis for real-time measurement of pilots' understanding of English in a simulated environment, and the studies of Simons et al. (1980) and Acton et al. (1983), give specific theoretical support. The aviation collaborative scheme model of Clark and Schaefer (1987), identifies the aviation constraints that are present in that environment and the production systems of Anderson (1983), which were originally used to support "theoretical accounts of human performance" (Klahr et al. 1987: ix), provide the principle theoretical medium for building simulated models of the aviation environment for evaluating student pilots' understanding of English. The models are "stated in terms of condition-action rules" that specify the behavior of the aviation environment and which measure the procedural knowledge (understanding of English) of student pilots who interact with those simulated environments. The primary advantage is the absence of instructor bias and increased safety. This forms the basis for the author's development of an objective instrument that proposes to be a better predictor of student pilots' performance of communication tasks in controlled and uncontrolled airspace than the subjective predictions of primary instructors. Hart and Bortolussi's (1984) suggestion that errors resulting from such communication tasks could be the cause of increased workloads rather than the symptom of increased workloads adds value to the prediction validity of the instrument of the study. Underpinnings of the framework draw from the CaBLE-theory of Feifer and Socolof, and Schank (1991), which states that maximum learning is achieved by allowing the user to make mistakes, afterwhich experts explain the mistakes through realistic stories. The theoretical spinoff in this study is that the user's mistakes allow for new performance opportunities for expert measurement rather than expert explanation. This may provide better predictions of performance.

Instrumentation

Expert systems and multimedia-authoring software now make possible the design of computerized near real-time-based simulated flight environments that can be programmed to include an automated measurement system, which allows for objective analysis of task-based language performance outcomes for aviation safety determinations. The instrument under development by the author conforms to the underlying principals of design of expert system interface supported in the study of Adelman et al. (1993: 244) which states that users should only consider cases that require their attention. This assumption is held to be valid in the author's programming and development of an instrument intended to simulate an interactive flight environment and to predict the users' understanding of English through his or her reactions to computer generated aural commands to perform navigational tasks.

The instrument of the study conforms to the design of similitude, which states that "maximum transfer is achieved by making the training task as similar as possible to the criterion task" (Lintern et al.,1989:87). Furthermore, the instrument's designer takes into consideration the fact that the users' performance with interfaces that fail to resemble real world interfaces between man and machinery may have potential effect of mediating performance through the effect of the interface on the users' cognitive processes (Adelman et al., 1993: 259). That may compromise prediction validity; therefore, the interface is designed as close as possible to real world interfaces through the use of controls that resemble real aircraft's controls, digitized Air Traffic Control phraseology in real time controlled airspace, and aircraft instruments and radios that closely resemble and function like actual avionics and radio equipment in the actual training aircraft (Lintern et al.).

The instrument under development is a computerized flight simulator program that the author is designing using SuperCard, a Macintosh compatible multimedia authoring tool. The program uses a yoke, headset, and a mouse as the primary interfaces to the program. The yoke is used for climbing, descending and turning. It is a near replica of the control yoke used in flight training aircraft and is a Virtual Reality Flight Pro model that was specially modified for the author by CH Products in Vista, California for use with the Macintosh computer. The control yoke is mounted in front of a computer screen and secured to a table where the student will fly the simulator. The head set is a standard aviation headset which can be plugged into the back of a Power Macintosh with an adaptor. The user wears the headset to minimize external noise interference. Currently, a mouse is the interface for dialing in radio frequencies or transponder channels. The developer is considering wiring actual radios to the computer as realistic interfaces for changing radio frequencies or setting transponder channels. Radio frequencies are used for communicating with Air Traffic Control. Transponder channels are used to relay altitude encoding information to Air Traffic Controllers' radar screens so they can locate the aircraft by type and by position in airspace. The environmental context supports a cockpit scenario in a Cessna 152 aircraft with functional radios, flight controls, flight instruments and out-of-the-cockpit Visual Flight Rule scenery.

Computer action starts by initiating a verbal instruction that requires the user to perform an operational navigational task. A navigational task is defined as any action that requires the user to check for other aircraft, perform control functions with the pitch, and roll controls, set any instrument or take any radio-action requested by Air Traffic Control. Functional avionics performance equipment and flight instruments in the cockpit design are provided for user reference. They are responsive to control input by the user and they contain information that the computer records in two time-history shells--one for user initiated actions and one for computer initiated action. The values of global variables such as altitude, heading, radio frequencies, etc., are continuously updated as controls and radios are manipulated by the user. Variables are self-created containers that can be named and programmed to assume assigned values. Global variables are variables whose values can be accessed and changed and remain functional as long as the program is running (Winkler, Kamins and DeVoto, 1994: 111, 703). The global variables in this program assist in keeping actions empirically and ecologically realistic.

The instrument initiates action from the project's programming script when the program is opened and it fires a realistic random computer action that plays a sound file from a list of vocal command files. The vocal command files are digitized Air Traffic Control tapes that are certified by the Federal Aviation Administration. The vocal commands may or may not require user action. The users must determine if action is required through their understanding of spoken aviation English and the environmental context presented on a computer screen.

The instrument's programming script is written in Superscript and the program's real time engine is designed and implemented using a modified application of John R. Anderson's ACT* theory (1993) which states that "cognitive skills are realized by production rules" (Anderson, 1993: 3). Production rules are written to set performance parameters in flight for realistic navigational tasks that Air Traffic Control initiates through scripting and productions.

Production systems are special purpose programming languages that seem especially suited to dealing with information-processing theories of performance....At the simplest level of description, a production system consists of two data structures which interact via a simple processing cycle. When modeling human cognition, the two data structure are thought of as working memory and production memory. The processing cycle consists of a three-stage recognize-act cycle. It matches one or more production rules (from production memory) with the contents of working memory, decides which of the matched rules to fire (sometimes called conflict resolution), and fires (the execution or act stage) the selected rule(s). Firing a rule may result in actions in the external world as well as in the contents of working memory. (Gray and Orasanu, 1987, as cited in Cormier and Hagman, 1987:187-188)

Using Anderson's production rule theory, the author designs production systems that help measure and record performance of low level cognitive skills that are considered critical for aviation safety. Production systems are built in SuperCard and form the basis for the instrument's programming engine. Production systems can be built with rule-generation capability by assigning types and strengths to production rules and conditions which would apply and "fire" at appropriate times in keeping within reasonable time and accuracy constraints associated with the specific navigational tasks at hand. This enables the conflict resolution stage of the production system to select which productions to fire.

The designer programs productions which can disappear and reappear to conserve memory and to enhance speed constraints. Such productions are called Demons. Demons are instantiations of production systems that fire when they are called upon, which make themselves disappear when their function is served. This conserves memory and operates much like the process of the human mind. For example, there is no way that our brains can keep all of our long term memory active in a working memory space at once. We are designed to deal with the most necessary functions in conservative ways for accuracy and for efficiency. In computer terms, this is best managed by production systems. Since demons are a type of production, they can be designed to fire productions which can create or remove themselves while simultaneously updating and acting on information within working memory. This is useful for real time based testing and is useful in programming with global variables.

Global variables, along with the computer's built-in timing mechanism and aviation constraint parameters that are written into the projects script from expert aviation knowledge--all work together with the conditions within the program's production centers, which fire instantiations when certain conditions are true. Therefore, instantiations can be fired from the project's script, and from any other production center that the designer desires to incorporate into the production schema. Such productions are capable of, but are not limited to the following: 1) determine and fire random realistic commands; 2) determine when to repeat the same verbal command; 3) record computer actions; 4)record user actions; 5) determine if there is a navigational failure; 6) determine if there is an initial error that is correctable; 7) Calculate probability of success in real world operations. The schematic in Appendix G is the author's working concept of the programming flow for an instrument which will be used to measure Japanese pilots' understanding of aviation English in a near-real-time computerized flight simulator. The steps are described in Table 1, below:

Table 1

© Clifford E. Noble II 1997 All Rights Reserved

1 Computer script fires the first action to activate the Concrete Random Input Selector.

2 Concrete Random Input Selector randomly selects & fires appropriate verbal command.

3 Audial Input (ATC) fires data to the Computer Action Time History shell.

4 The event is recorded and the time is recorded in the Computer Action Time History shell.

5 User decides action. Productions or script calculate & start response time for the task.

6 User action determines next command and is recorded in User Action Time History shell.

7 If no user action within allotted time frame, audial command is repeated.

8 Computer Time History shell updated. Global variables are reset for refiring of productions.

9 If no response, productions can fire the same audial command up to 3 times.

10 Computer Time History shell is updated each time the same command is repeated.

11 If > 3, then script fires the Concrete Random Input Selector (CRIS).

12 CRIS Productions randomly select appropriate new command after considering variables.

13 Steps 2 -11 repeated. Global variables are (Altitude, Heading, Radio Frequencies,Time)

14 If user takes appropriate action, CRIS Productions randomly select new appropriate action.

15 Steps 2 - 11 repeated.

16 Allowance given for user's initial incorrect responses, if corrected in reasonable time.

17 Reasonable time is determined by the flight parameters criteria in the script.

18 If corrected in time, the command is repeated which resets the production variables.

19 The event is recorded as a repeat, rather than a failed event.

20 If not corrected in time and expert set parameters are broken, then:

21 A failed event will be recorded in the User Time History Shell.

22 The script will fire productions in CRIS.

23 Concrete Random Input Selector will calculate and fire a new random command.

Performance Criteria

Performance measurement will be determined by a formula yet to be designed; however, it will be simple. It will focus on the number of successful/failed events recorded in the time history shells and the number of repeats fired as a result of user actions. The reasoning for such evaluation is that failures can get you killed in the real world. Repeated verbal instructions can increase the likelihood of cognitive overload, and too much of that could increase the likelihood of a failure. It is recognized that some actions may take longer than others, but it is hypothesized that if the user is allowed to determine future random actions within a real-time-based simulated environment, then measurement will be a more valid predictor of performance in the real world in terms of PASS/FAIL.

Performance criteria is a tricky business. There is a lack of general theories of performance that are applicable over a broad range of circumstances. There is hidden knowledge and embedded performance which requires a model of the human to determine why the pilot takes the actions that he does in the real world and in simulators. There is measurement validity and operational performance criteria that may break down without the ability of the system to detect patterns or to analyze complex operational tasks that must be performed simultaneously.

To make inferences about internal processes based on minor actions or no actions at all requires measurement of system inputs, outputs, and states, as well as a model of the internal processes of the operator... thus, any particular performance measure or set of measures is indirect for most purposes, taps only a small sample of the internal processes, and must make inferences about human processes that are confounded by their interaction with the specific characteristics of the simulation. The measures selected are often specific to the task and the situation, and, conversely, are not generalizable" (Vreuls and Obermayer, 1985: 243).

"No commonly acceptable methods currently exist to determine person-machine allocation of function for performance assessment in simulators" (Vreuls and Obermayer, 1985: 249), but perhaps this model is a start, however adequate, for stimulation of thought.

Anderson, J. R. (1983). The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge & London: Harvard.

Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the Mind. Hove and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Adelman, L. , Cohen, M. S. , Bresnick, T. A., Chinnis, J. O. , & Laskey, K. B. (1993). Real-time expert system interfaces, cognitive processes, and task performance: An empirical assessment. Human Factors, 35 (2), 243-261.

Atkinson, G. (1990). Airspace regulation: Redefining the public domain. Journal of Economic Issues, 24 (2), 473-480.

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (1996, December). AOPA action. AOPA Pilot, 39, 16.

Arne, M. (1995, April 11). FAA's new air traffic center busiest in U. S. The San Diego Tribune, p. B1.

Boyd, D. (1990, December). Unique ESL course takes off. Extensions, 2, 1.

Britt, R. (1994, November 22). Outlook for light airplanes brightens: Legislation prompts manufacturers to increase output. The San Diego Tribune, p. C4

Cormier, M. C., & Hagman, J. D. (Eds.). (1987). Transfer of Learning: Contemporary Research and Applications. San Diego: Academic Press.

Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. (1987). Private Pilot Practical Test Standards (No. FAA-S-8081-1A). Washington DC: U. S.

Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. (1988). Airworthiness Inspector's Handbook (No. 8300.10). Washington DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. (1988). General Aviation

Inspector's Handbook (No. 8700.1). Washington DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. (1995). Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (FAR). Washington DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Feifer, R. (1994). Cognitive Issues in the Development of Multimedia Learning Systems. In S. Reisman Multimedia Computing: Preparing for the 21 Century (pp. 289-291). Harrisburg, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

Hart, S. G. & Bortolussi, M. R. (1984). Pilot errors as a source of workload. Human Factors, 26 (5), 545-556.

International Civil Aviation Organization. (1990). Memorandum on IACO: The Story of

the International Civil Aviation Organization (14th ed.). Montreal, Canada: Author.

KCAL TV (with Harvy, P., Jackson D. & Lopez, S.). (1995, July 24, 9 PM). Prime 9

News: Japanese Pilot/Burbank Airport [videotape]. Los Angeles, CA: Author.

Klahr, D., Langley, P. & Neches, R. (Eds.). (1987). Production System Models of Learning and Development. Cambridge: MIT.

Linde, C. (1988). The Quantitative Study of Communicative Success: Politeness and Accidents in Aviation DIscourse. Language in Society, 17 (3), 375-399.

Lintern, G., Sheppard, D. Parker, D., Yates, K. & Nolan, M. (1989). Simulator design and instructional features for air-to-ground attack: a transfer study. Human Factors, 31(1), 87-99.

Marko, M. (1993, October). Warning: Instructors beware! SoCAL Aviation Review, pp. 1-2.

McDaniel, W. C., & Rankin, W. C. (1991). Determining flight task proficiency of students: A mathematical decision aid. Human Factors, 33 (3), 293-308.

Morrow, D., Rodvold, M. & Lee A. (1994). Nonroutine Transactions in Controller-Pilot

Communications. Discourse Processes, 17, 235 -258.

National Transportation Safety Board. (1990). Aircraft Accident Report: Avianca, the airline of Columbia, Boeing 707-321B, HK 2016, fuel exhaustion, Cove Neck, New York, January 25, 1990. (NTIS No. PB91-910404). Washington, D.C. : Author

Paradise, J. (1997, March 1). Room for optimisim. The Japan Times, p. 19.

Pelline, J. (1993, April 26). Asia airlines find state is ideal site to train pilots. The San Diego Union-Tribune, p. A3.

Phillips, W. (1996, October). Playing the odds: Is now the time to consider an airline career? Flight Training, 8, pp. 60-62.

Pilot error suspected cause of Delhi crash. (1996, November 14). The Daily Yomuri, p. A8.

The TOEIC Service International of the Test of English for International Communications (1996). Goldsun's pilot training takes off. The Reporter (Number 21), 1-4. Author.

Tsujimura, N. (1996). An Introduction to Japanese Linguistics. Cambridge: Blackwell.

Vivid confusion in the cockpit. (1994, April 26). The Mainichi Shinbun, p. 27.

Vreuls, D. & Obermayer, R. W. (1985). Human system performance measurement in training

simulators. Human Factors, 27, 241-250.

Winkler, D., Kamins, S., & DeVoto, J. (1994). HyperTalk 2.2: The Book (2nd ed.). New York: Random House

1 Be at least 17 years of age

2 Be able to read, speak, and understand the English language, or have such operating limitations placed on his pilot certificate as are necessary for the safe operation of aircraft, to be removed when he shows that he can read, speak, and understand the English language

3 Hold at least a current third-class medical certificate issued under Part 67

4 Pass a written test on the subject areas on which instruction or home study is required by § 61.105

5 Pass an oral and flight test on procedures and maneuvers selected by an FAA inspector or examiner to determine the applicant's competency in the flight operations on which instruction is required by the flight proficiency provisions of § 61.107

6 Comply with the sections of this part that apply to the rating he seeks.

Note. The data in the above table are in modified format from the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (FAR). Washington DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, in FAR paragraph 61.103

1 The accident reporting requirements of the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Regulations applicable to private pilot privileges, limitations, and flight operations for airplanes or rotorcraft, as appropriate, the use of the "Airman's Information Manual," and FAA advisory circulars

2 VFR navigation using pilotage, dead reckoning, and radio aids

3 The recognition of critical weather situations from the ground and in flight, the procurement and use of aeronautical weather reports and forecasts

4 The safe and efficient operation of airplanes or rotorcraft, as appropriate, including high density airport operations, collision avoidance precautions, and radio communication procedures

5 Basic aerodynamics and the principles of flight which apply to airplanes or rotorcraft, as appropriate

6 Stall awareness, spin entry, spins, and spin recovery techniques for airplanes.

7 An applicant for a private pilot certificate must have logged ground instruction from an authorized instructor, or must present evidence showing that he has satisfactorily completed a course of instruction or home study for which a rating is sought, in at least the above subject areas.

Note. The data in the above table are in modified format from the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (FAR). Washington DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, in FAR paragraph 61.105

1 Preflight operations, including weight and balance determination, line inspection, and airplane servicing

2 Airport and traffic pattern operations, including operations at controlled airports, radio communications, and collision avoidance precautions

3 Flight maneuvering by reference to ground objects

4 Flight at slow airspeeds with realistic distractions, and the recognition of and recovery from stalls entered from straight flight and from turns

5 Normal and crosswind takeoffs and landings

6 Control and maneuvering an airplane solely by reference to instruments, including descents and climbs using radio aids or radar directives

7 Cross-country flying, using pilotage, dead reckoning, and radio aids, including one 2 hour flight

8 Maximum performance takeoffs and landings

9 Night flying, including takeoffs, landings, and VFR navigation

10 Emergency operations, including simulated aircraft and equipment malfunctions

Note. The data in the above table are in modified format from the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (FAR). Washington DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, in FAR paragraph 61.107 which states that the applicant for a private pilot certificate in airplanes must have logged instruction from an authorized flight instructor in at least the above [sic] pilot operations. In addition, his or her pilot logbook must contain an endorsement by an authorized flight instructor who has found him or her competent to perform each of those operations safely as a private pilot.

1 A total of 40 hours of flight instruction and solo flight time

2 Twenty hours of flight instruction from an authorized flight instructor

3 Three hours of cross-country with an authorized flight instructor

4 Three hours at night, including 10 takeoffs and landings with an authorized flight instructor

5 Three hours in airplanes in preparation for the private pilot flight test within 60 days prior to that test with an authorized flight instructor.

6 At least twenty total hours of solo flight time

7 At least ten hours of solo flight time in airplanes

8 At least ten hours of solo cross-country flights, each flight with a landing at a point more than 50 nautical miles from the original departure point. One flight must be of at least 300 nautical miles with landings at a minimum of three points, one of which is at least 100 nautical miles from the original departure point

9 At least three solo takeoffs and landings to a full stop at an airport with an operating control tower

10 An applicant who does not meet the night flying requirement in no. 4 is issued a private pilot certificate bearing the limitation "Night flying prohibited."

Note. The data in the above table are in modified format from the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (FAR). Washington DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, in accordance with FAR paragraph 61.109.

1 Because of specific operating conditions, pilot certificates may bear certain limitations. The airman may not perform the operation being limited until satisfactorily demonstrating the ability to do so.

2 The certificates of airmen who do not read, speak, or understand English must bear this limitation: "NOT VALID FOR FLIGHTS REQUIRING THE USE OF ENGLISH." This limitation can be removed when the airman demonstrates he or she can read, speak, and understand English. An inspector is the only person who can remove an English language limitation.

3 A flight test is not normally required for removal of an English language limitation unless the inspector feels it is necessary for the airman to demonstrate the ability to communicate with and understand the instructions of air traffic control in an actual flight situation.

4 If the inspector chooses not to conduct a flight test, the inspector should take the applicant to as private an area as possible, away from an instructor or friends, who may have accompanied the applicant, to prevent "coaching."

5 Through directed conversation the inspector should be able to determine how well the applicant understands and speaks English. Answers to questions about the applicant's place of birth, length of stay in the U.S., or aeronautical experience should be logical and related. Presence of a pronounced accent, as long as the person can be understood, is not sufficient reason for denial of removing the limitation.

6 To determine the airman's ability to read and understand English, the inspector should provide the airman with a random selection from a book, magazine, or newspaper, not necessarily aviation oriented. Usually, if the person can read aloud without significant hesitation or slowness, the person is comprehending what is read, but the inspector may want to ask questions about what has been read to determine comprehension.

7 When the airman successfully demonstrates the ability to read, speak, and understand English, the inspector shall issue the airman a temporary airman certificate with appropriate category and class ratings but without the previous limitation. Additional information is found in Section 10, Miscellaneous Certification Information, of this chapter.

Note. The data in the above table are in modified format from the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 8700.1 Washington DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, in FAR paragraph 61.107

1 June 29, 1983. A glider pilot misread his home-built glider instructions and killed himself after his glider's wing skin fell off in flight because he did not glue it to the top and bottom of the spar (NTSB File No. 1043, page 9, Albany, Or; N83GL, 7:35 PM PDT).

2 February 19, 1983. A C-130 cargo aircraft misunderstood verbal communications from the tower and "revved up" its engines and blew over a small Cessna 150. (NTSB File No. 309, page 3,Wilmington, Delaware. Aircraft registration number N5898G, 2:30 PM EST).

3 May 26, 1983. A student in a single engine Cessna 150 misunderstood the instructor's instruction to fly 70 MPH on final approach to the runway. The student flew at 60 MPH and stalled the aircraft in a high flair and crashed (NTSB File No. 2689, page 7, Oklahoma City, OK; aircraft registration number N66245, 5:00 PM CDT).

4 July 5, 1984. Pilot bounced and porpoised on first solo landing collapsing the nose gear. English language problem student and CFI. Cessna 152. Hayward, California. Event #67819.

5 July 10, 1990. An inexperienced pilot had an autopilot failure. English is second language. Was confused working approach and landing. Piper PA23250. Dulles Intl. Event #62683.

6 August 18, 1984. A P-63 single engine aircraft misunderstood an air show controller's instructions not to turn right at the end of the runway. The P-63 pilot turned right and his rudder was struck by an aircraft that had just landed on a parallel runway (NTSB File No. 1179, page 33.; aircraft registration number N62822, 1:40 PM, PDT).

7 August 23, 1984. Five people were killed when the pilot of a twin engine Cessna turned right when the air traffic controller told him to turn left. He impacted a hill (NTSB File No. 2230, page 39, Monterey, CA; aircraft registration number N7AE, 8:57 PM PDT).

8 July 19, 1985. The pilot of a twin engine Smith Aerostar 601 aircraft did not understand verbal instructions because he had apparently fallen to sleep while he was flying. He crashed over lake Erie killing himself and one passenger (NTSB File No. 1600, page 59; aircraft registration number N71MA, 3:43 AM EDT).

9 May 24, 1989. English Language Problem. Became lost on local flight in smoke and haze. Found airport but stalled on approach. Cessna 152. St. Lucie County Intl, Fla. Event#714UQ.

10 Sept 13, 1985 10:20 AM CDT A single engine 152 pilot misunderstood the tower to tell him he was number 2 to land, when in fact, they were telling him he had two other aircraft in front of him on final approach to the runway. He then turned right to line himself up with the runway and cut off two airplane's approaches and bumped the top of the plane beneath him (NTSB File No. 2084, page 65, Panama City, Florida; aircraft registration number N757HM

Note: Portions prepared for Clifford E. Noble II by the Federal Aviation Administration Operational Systems Branch/AFS 620. Run Date: 27 March 1995. Freedom of Information Act Control Number F600950092. Accident/Incident Data: Language Problem Identified.

Pilot: Well, a little side wind.

Connect it.

Push it. Yes, connect it.

It's too high, too high.

You're in the go-around mode.

It's all right. Slowly. Start slowly.

Support it with your hand tightly.

Push it. Push it.

Now it's engaged in go-around mode.

Copilot: I can't push it.

Pilot: It's all right. Do it slowly. OK. I'll do it.

Copilot: Connect it. Connect it.

Pilot: What the hell?

Copilot: Connect it.

Pilot. Shit. What the hell is going on?

Pilot: Nagoya Tower, CAL going around.

Tower: Roger. Stand by for further instructions.

Pilot: We will loose speed if we continue like this. Over, over.

Pilot: Set set. Set it. It's all right. It's all right. Don't be flustered.

(Warning chimes)

Copilot: Power! Power! Power!

Pilot: Ahh ... It's over. It's over. Ahh...

Copilot: Power! Power!

NOTE: This is a Japanese to English translation from the April 26, 1994 edition of Japan's The Mainichi Shinbun , and which is translated by Fumiko Maeda, scholar of Japan's Bukyo University and English specialist for Nagasaki Prefecture's renowned Sohseikan Group, which is owned and operated by Kazumasa Okuda--entitled "Vivid Confusion in the Cockpit."

Cliff's Programming Schematic for a real-time based flight simulator test of Aviation English

© Clifford E. Noble II 1997 All Rights Reserved