This paper aims to identify what aviation experts consider to be the key features of effective communication by examining in detail their commentary on a 17-minute segment of recorded radiotelephony discourse between a Russian pilot and a Korean air traffic controller. The segment was played to three practising pilots and three air traffic controllers. Their commentary on the qualities of communication displayed in the interaction was recorded and coded thematically, using a grounded ethnography approach. The analysis revealed that although the Russian pilot was viewed as having limited English proficiency, the strategies he used to make himself understood were evaluated positively as fulfilling the requirements of the professional role. By contrast, the Korean air traffic controller, although not evaluated as having limited proficiency, was criticized for his lack of professional knowledge. The discourse analysis and the feedback given by these expert informants highlight not only the nature of the miscommunication arising in unexpected situations, but also the multiple factors that may contribute to it. While language proficiency is clearly an issue, there are many other sources of miscommunication that emerge during the exchange. These findings are used to critique the narrow, language-focused oral proficiency construct as articulated in the holistic descriptors and the rating scale stipulated by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO, 2010) as the basis for tests of aviation English worldwide. Instead the paper proposes an expanded construct of oral communication incorporating elements of professional knowledge and behaviour with a focus on interactional competence specific to this context.

Highlights  We consider the scope of current conceptualizations of communicative competence in tests of spoken language.  We present studies illustrating aspects of performance underrepresented in traditional criteria for speaking tests.  We propose the greater use of non-language specialists' views to determine assessment criteria.

Researchers exploring the use of language use in radiotelephony communication have tended to focus on the limitations of the non-native English user and the threats which their limited control of English may pose for aviation safety (e.g. Atsushi, 2003, 2004). Hence the recent International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) policy places the onus on non-native users to bring their English to an appropriate standard. The present paper argues that there is a need for a broader perspective on this issue and supports this case with reference to two sources of data: a) episodes of radiotelephony discourse recorded in two air traffic control centres in Korea exemplifying non-routine, abnormal and emergency situations involving NS of English and NNS from different language backgrounds, b) focus group and individual interviews with selected Korean aviation personnel eliciting their interpretations of these episodes and of issues in aviation English more generally. Findings suggest that responsibilities for communication problems in aviation English are distributed across NS and NNS users, and may be partly due to the absence of shared assumptions about efficient and appropriate communication practices in an environment where English is a lingua franca (ELF). Implications are drawn for the communication training of all aviation personnel, regardless of language background.

This paper explores the underlying construct of both the English proficiency test for pilot and air traffic controller radiotelephony communication developed and administered in Korea and the ICAO language proficiency testing policy on which the test in Korea is based. It does so by canvassing the opinions of Korean airline pilots and air traffic controllers through 400 questionnaire and 22 interview sources. Results reveal a lack of fit between the policy construct and the reality through which the goals and objectives of the policy are accomplished and strong disapproval of the ICAO’s espoused construct and the associated Korean English test from language users in the target domain. This study confirms the importance of eliciting views from such stakeholders (i.e., domain experts) who are well-placed to determine what really matters for communicative success in the context of concern.

No abstract