uno SUIpOD LVS.LY
HOE [4
z
[4 Ov
az
oat
az
WVLON| ed4y | wopisog famnpredaq] paeds | epnyury | Suipeayq Jaompy | oyuy | Supyaig | some [SWVLON| SLLV
anoy jaddy Tessar | syjery | [erousy
JUsTIS po] Mou VW PoEqpEeY - sanbay Q,u09) uomS3pejmowyoy qoEqpeay - syeMEy/LI0STApy

Sa

249po

sAmoeT

Oo

1

A



aL0g Sapo LVSLV
2
Gonisod jeinjredoq| pads | youysay | epmnty | pow Supeoy | jaouxsy | apop aynow | Suypjon | ‘beay  panjaedaq
aynoy jAddy apnury Surprayy jerame5) |puodsue., Addy
JUIMIZpa|MouyIV/IEqpETY - syiemay/A10sIApy (a,m09) JUIUIS pz} MOUyI WV PPPEqpEAY - aoU8189[/MOHINAySuy

249por

SAMPIe



Appendix C

i, ATIS: Relay of Automatic Terminal Informa-
tion Service (ATIS) by a controller. A pilot report of
having ATIS or his/her readback of a controller relay.

j. Weather: The relay/readback of weather in-
formation including, but not limited to, altimeter,
wind, cloud cover, sigmets or other atmospheric con-
ditions, by either a controller or pilot.

k. General Sighting: Information issued by a
controller on the location of an airport in relation to
an aircraft's position or his/her acknowledgment of a
pilot report of an airport sighting. A pilot report of
sighting of airport, runway, etc.

1. Traffic: Traffic information issued by a con-
troller in accordance with Order FAA Order
7110.65G, March 1992, or his/her acknowledgment
of a pilot report of traffic. A pilot report of traffic or
acknowledgment of a traffic advisory.

m.General Acknowledgment: Word(s) used by
a pilot as general acknowledgment of an advisory/
remark. Note: “Roger,” “ok,” “alright,” may be used
in addition to aircraft identification and/or readback
of all or portions of an advisory/remark. The words
“roger” or “ok” used by acontroller to acknowledge an
entire transmission.

5. Request—Readback/Acknowledgment.

a. Heading: Heading information requested by
a controller or his/her readback of heading informa-
tion given by a pilot. Heading requested by a pilot.

b. Altitude: Altitude information requested by a
controller or his/her readback of altitude information
given by a pilot. Altitude requested by a pilot. Note:
An assignment of an altitude by a controller is not a
readback and would be entered as a topic in the
Instruction/Clearance speech category.

C2

c. Speed: Speed information requested by acon-
troller or his/her readback of speed information given
by a pilot. Speed requested by a pilot.

d. Approach/Departure: Runway approach/de-
parture requested by a pilot or acontroller readback of
a pilot request.

e. Route/Position: A route/position requested
by either a controller or pilot, or read back by either.

f. Type: A controller request for make, model,
or designator of an aircraft or report/readback by
either a controller or pilot.

g- NOTAM/Advisory: Notice to Airmen
(NOTAM) and aviation advisories requested by a
piloc.

h, Traffic: A request by a controller or pilot for
information/sighting of other aircraft.

i, Weather: A report or request by a controller
or pilot for weather information.

j. General Acknowledgment: Word(s) used by
a pilot as general acknowledgment of a request. Note:
“Roger,” “ok,” “alright,” may be used in addition to
aircraft identification and/or readback of all or por-
tions of a request. The words roger” or “ok” used by
a controller to acknowledge an entire transmission.
Acknowledgments that are identified within other
speech act categories are entered in the appropriate
categories.

6.. Non-Codable.

a. Equipment: Not codable due to equipment
malfunction.

b. Delivery: Not codable due to simultaneous
reception of UHF/VHF or multiple frequencies.

c. Other: Communication that does not fall
into defined topics.


subject matter expert (SME) during the refinement of
the ATSAT. FAA Order 7110.65G Air Traffic Con-
trol (1992), Airman’s Information Manual (1992),
and the FAA Order 7340.1M Contractions (1992)
also were used as resources.

2.2 Identification of Problematic Verbal
Communications

The Prinzo and Britton literature review aided in
identifying message content errors and delivery tech-
nique errors as two major groups of communications-
based problems. Although other types of communication
problems have been identified (Morrison & Wright,
1989), many are equipment related problems (e.g., equip-
ment outages, obsolete equipment). The ATSAT ad-
dresses only controller/pilot-centered verbal
communication problems. Verbal communications,
which deviated from standatd phraseology specified in
FAA Order 7110,65G or suggested pilot phraseology in
the Airman’s Information Manual, were grouped into
those stemming from message content and delivery
technique.

2.2.1 Message Content Errors

There are 7 different types of message content errors
that are included on the ATSAT. These types of errors
are listed in Table 1. Although grouped and segential
refer directly to numerical information, omission, sub-
stitution, and transposition, errors could also occur for
other types of information, such as failing to include an
aircraft callsign in a transmission where the callsign
would be required. Substitution errors would include
replacing the numbers in an assigned airspeed with the
numbers assigned for a heading, or an altitude in a
transmission that contained at least 2 aviation topics in
a speech act instruction. Excessive verbiage errors in-
clude any words or phrases in addition to standard
phraseology. Partial readbacks are similar to omission
errors; however, partial readbacks occur when a pilot fails
to include a piece of information in a readback. The two
different codes are used because pilots and controllers are
judged by thesame phraseology standards forthe ATSAT.
According to FAA Order 7110.65G or the Airman’s
Information Manual, however, ATC phraseology ismore
tigidly prescribed for a controller than it is for a pilot.

Coding Form for Approach Control

2.2.2 Delivery Technique Errors

The analysis of the recorded voice-radio transmis-
sions made by. the master of the oil tanker Exxon
Valdez served as a basis for defining delivery tech-
nique errors (Brenner & Cash, 1991). As displayed in
Table 1, misarticulations (c.g., slurring of speech) and
dysfluencies (e.g., hesitations) are the 2 major types of
delivery technique errors included in the ATSAT.
Misarticulations and dysfluencies have the potential
for decreasing effective information transfer due to
excessive pauses or the need to repeat a transmission.

3.0 PROCEDURE

3.1 Instructions

Table 2 lists the steps for transcribing, encoding,
and entering the message content of audio transmis-
sions onto the ATSAT Coding Form. Appendices A
through D are provided to assist in the encoding
process. Appendix A contains a copy of the coding
form, a sample page of ATC/pilot transcribed com-
munications, the same transcript page divided into
aviation topics and coded with identified phraseology
errors, and a completed copy of the coding form.
Appendix B lists and defines each of the identified
speech act categories according to their placement on
the ATSAT Coding Form. Appendix C lists the avia-
tion topics, along with their corresponding definition
for each of the speech act categories, in the order of
their occurrence on the ATSAT Coding Form. Ap-
pendices B and C should assist in the placement of
message segments into their appropriate aviation top-
ics and speech act categories on the ATSAT Coding
Form. The definitions should not be confused with the
more formal definitions of message content terms found
in the glossary (Appendix E). Although there should be
a close correspondence between how a message segment
is defined and the category types presented on the
ATSAT, the user occasionally may have to rely on
personal experience when a message is slightly ambigu-
ous. Appendix D lists some typical phraseology and
delivery technique error types found in each aviation
topic, along with their letter code; however, this is not an
exhaustive list. It should also be noted that an aviation
topic may contain more than one type of error.



wi0g Supe) LVSLV

poxoojq Alrenred uorssruisues], L
4
syW9UIOIO RByYO | AATEC yusuidmb ay jmouyoy | rompeayy | oUFBIL
Terowes)
91qepod - WON, G,u09) yoeqpeoy - ysonboy
12pod SAO

All



G

Word(s) in liew of “expedite” or “immediately”...
Failure to identify runway or NAVAID

by the controller
by the pilot
Errors may include those listed in E. Altitude.

Speed: Reference par 2-851, 5-101 of FAA Order 7110.65G and 4-41, 86, 91 of AIM

Example:

eenNe

Controller: “...maintain present speed”
Pilot: “...(aumber of knots) knots” ,

Cope
Omission of “knots,” except when assigning a speed in conjunction with an altitude
Omission of “knots” or “speed” by pilo
Grouping of speed numbers
Additional and unnecessary words ..

ie
.P
.G
E

Note: One method of speed control not obvious, but used at least twice, was the assignment of altitude to allow

H.

higher speed or force a lower speed.

Approach/Departure: Reference par 2-85j, 4-60, 80, Chapter 5 sections 9-10, par 7-2, 10, par 7-2, 10, 31,
32, 33, 111 of FAA Order 7110.65G and par 4-86 of AIM.

Example:

aye ym

Exai

. Grouping of frequency numbers .....

Controller: “...cleared ILS runway three five left”
Pilot: “...ILS runway three five left approach”

Grouping of runway numbets ........c.csssssssssssssssssnsetecseesssseceescessenseseees
Incomplete description of approach by controllers ..
Incomplete description of approach by pilot
Use of “join” for “intercept” and vice versa..

Frequency: Reference par 2-85k, 86 of FAA Order 7110.65G and 4-33d of AIM
mple:

Controller: “...contact (Facility) tower one one eight point five”

Pilot: “...(Facility) tower one one eight point five”

Cope

Addition of “on,” “now,” “the,” etc...

Om

Omission of “point”
by the controller
by the pilot

Omission of the facility name or function by the controller .

D3


APPENDIX C:
AVIATION TOPICS WITHIN THE SPEECH ACT CATEGORIES

1. Address/Addressee.
a. Speaker: Identification of the speaker.
b. Receiver: Identification of the receiver.
2. Courtesy.

a. Thanks: “Thanks,” “thank you,” or words of
appreciation.

b. Greetings: “Good day,” “so long,” “hello”.

c. Apology: Any apology, example: “I’m sorry,”
“I owe you,” etc.

3. — Instruction/Clearance—Readback/Acknowledg-
ment.

a. Heading: An assigned vector or readback by a
pilot.

b. Heading Modifier: A word or phrase indicat-
ing an increased/decreased rate of turn.

c. Altitude: Altitude assigned by a controller or
readback by a pilot.

d. Altitude Restriction: Any restriction to alti-
tude assignment by a controller or readback by a pilot.
Note: Includes “no delay in descent”.

¢, Speed: Speed assigned by a controller or
readback by a pilot. Note: “Present speed,” “reduce
now,” are speed assignments.

f. Approach/Departure: A clearance given by a
controller to make an approach to an airport, or
runway assignment (either IFR or VFR) or readback
by a pilot.

g- Frequency: A radio frequency used for com-
munications or navigation aid assignment by a con-
troller or readback by a pilot. Note: May or may not
inglude megahertz frequency.

h. Holding: Holding instruction issued by a
controller or readback by a pilot.

i, Route: Any instruction issued by a controller
that pertains to the course an aircraft is assigned or
readback by a pilot. Note: Includes headings, vectors,
airways, J routes, ILS, approaches, departure and
arrival routes (SID, STAR, PDR).

Cl

j- Transponder: A beacon code and/or ident
instructions issued by a controller or readback by a
pilot.

k, General Acknowledgment: Word(s) used by
a pilot as general acknowledgment of a clearance/
instruction. Note: “Roger,” “ok,” “alright,” may be
used in addition to aircraft identification and/or
readback of all or portions of a clearance/instruction.

4. Advisory/Remark—Readback/Acknowledg-
ment,

a. Heading: An expected vector/heading given
by acontroller or his/her readback of a pilot report. A
pilot report of a vector/heading.

b. Heading Modifier: Word(s) orphrase(s) used
by either a controller or pilot indicating an increased/
decreased rate of turn.

c. Altitude: An expected altitude assignment
issued by a controller or his/her acknowledgment of
an altitude reported by a pilot. An altitude reported by
a pilot.

d. Altitude Restriction: An expected altitude
restriction issued by a controller or his/her readback
of a report by a pilot. A pilot report of an altitude
restriction.

¢. Speed: An expected speed assignment issued
by a controller or his/her readback of a pilot speed
report. A speed reported by a pilot.

f, Approach/Departure: An expected approach/
departure instruction issued by a controller or his/her
readback of a pilot report. A pilot report of assigned
approach/departure.

g- Route/Position: A route or position issued by
a controller or his/her readback of a route or position
reported by a pilot. A pilot report of a route or
position.

h. NOTAM/Advisory: A Notice to Airmen
(NOTAM) or aviation advisories issued by a control-
ler or his/her readback of a pilot report. A pilot report
of aviation advisories or his/her readback of a
NOTAM/advisory (e.g., runway construction, status
of navigation equipment, bird traffic.).


m104 durpod LVSLV

DLV lossolVId| v1
I TIV OLY. £1
£ DIV [o6z OLVId] ZT
I 067 OLVTd| DLV. U
dl DIV [067 OLV Td] __OT
I 7 joszorvid) OLY 6
£ dl z DLV [067 OLV Td 8
ad OLv___|sz OLVId L
dOS1 Ol PSLOLVId| OLY 9
Of dZ Ooty |pse olWid}

I PSLOLVTd| OLY. rp
i OLV__| SEOLVTd £
z EG I YSLOLVId| OLY. z
£ : NZ OLv__|rsz oLW Td) I

dl al Gi ‘| searsey | sayqueds | ‘on ourT

paedg | »rysoy | oprury | “pow | Supeay | Bojody [ssuyeuD| syuegh Teara2ay | Jaywodg
ePMBIV Supeor -
998S01pPV/SS21PPV
JUSUIZ pa] MOUND V/VQpeoY - euv19][D/MOHINYSUy Asa3.1n0,)
ST

t9pod



Coding Form for Approach Control

from differences in ATSAT coding instructions. In-
structors were not provided with the 2 hours of
additional instruction pertaining to ATC terminol-
ogy as were the novices. Novices could have ap-
proached the task from a similar perspective and
purpose. The lack of formal instruction may have
increased the variability among the instructors since
they were forced to rely on their'more subjective and
individualized schemes for data classification. Also,
they may have relied more on their prior knowledge
and experience than on the materials provided to
them; the former requiring less effort than the later.

5.0 DISCUSSION

The Aviation Topics-Speech Acts Taxonomy and
coding form were developed for studying ATC/pilot
voice communications. The ATSAT may be of use by
other researchers in its present form. or it may be
modified to suit particular needs. If a researcher elects
to use the ATSAT, several words of caution are in
order that are not unique to the ATSAT. First, all
coders should receive the same orientation and in-
struction sessions prior to using the ATSAT, regard-
less of their domain specific background knowledge
or experience with ATC voice communications, Pro-
viding only the novices with the instructional session
resulted in their being more in agreement with the
Facilitator than were the instructors in labeling and
placing the coded segments onto the coding form and
identifying errors. Providing uniform orientation and
instruction sessions to all coders should increase inter-
coder agreement, since they would tend to approach
the task from the same perspective and purpose.

Second, whereas the novices in the study were more
dependent on the surface characteristics of the verba-
tim transcripts, the instructors may have relied more
on experiential and domain specific knowledge to
assist them in placing segments into their proper
aviation topics and speech acts categories on the
ATSAT coding form. Providing experts with instruc-
tions on the importance and use of objective measures
over their subjective judgments when coding trans-
missions should improve inter-coder agreement.

Lastly, provisions for practice trials with direct
feedback during training should increase inter-coder
percentage agreement. The Facilitator was available
while novices completed the ATSAT and provided
further instruction upon request. Thus, immediacy of
instruction, a common understanding of the concepts
and procedures, and monitoring of performance may
improve inter-coder percentage agreement.

6.0 REFERENCES

Airman’s Information Manual, Official Guide to Basic
Flight Information and ATC Procedures. (June,
1992), Washington DC: U.S. Government Print-
ing Office.

FAA Order 7110.65G Air Traffic Control. (March,
1992). Washington DC: Air Traffic Rules and
Procedures Service.

7340.1M Contractions (June, 1992), Washington DC:
Air Traffic Rules and Procedures Service.

Brenner, M., & Cash, J. R. (1991). Speech analysis as an
index of alcohol intoxication - The Exxon Valdez
accident. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medi-
cine, 62, pp. 893-898.

Cardosi, K., M. (1993). An Analysis of En Route Con-
troller-Pilot Voice Communications. Springfield,
VA: National Technical Information Service.

Golaszewski, R. (1989). An analysis of pilot-controller-
read-back errors. Journal of ATC, (October-De-
cember), 53-56.

Human Technology, Inc. (1991). Analysis of controller
communication in en-route air traffic control.
Report to the Federal Aviation Administration.
McLean, VA,

Kanki, B.G., & Foushee, H.C. (1989). Communica-
tion as group process mediator of aircrew perfor-
mance. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medi-
cine, 60, pp. 402-410.

Morrison, R. & Wright, R. H. (April, 1989). ATC
Control and communications problems: An over-
view of recent ASRS data. In (Ed: R. S. Jensen)
Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of
Aviation Psychology, Columbus, Ohio; Volume 2.



For example, on line 11 of the “Sample Transcript
Sheet” (cf. Appendix A, p. 6), air traffic control is
transmitting the following message to Plato* 290:

“Plato two-ninety roger clear visual three one left
other traffic landing three one right.”

The transcriptionist would spell out the numbers
in the aircraft callsign and for each of the runways.
Once transcribed, the message is segmented in each of
the speech act categories by placing a diagonal slash
between them (See Table 2, Part 2, Step 2): “/ Plato
two-ninety | roger | clear visual three one left! other
traffic landing three one right |.”

Next, each aviation topic in the transmission is
numbered in the order in which it was spoken by the
controller (See Table 2, Part 2, Step 3): “/ 1 Plato two-
ninety | 2. roger | 3 clear visual three one left! 4 other
traffic landing three one right |”

The final step in the encoding process is identifying
those aviation topics containing errors ( See Table 2,
Part 2, Step 4), In the present example, an omission
occurred in the third aviation topic, which should
have read: “clear visual approach runway three one
left,” according to FAA Order 7110.65G. The error
did not occur in the fourth aviation topic because that
specific phraseology is not stated in the manual for
issuing traffic advisories.

“/1 Plato two-ninety/2 roger /3 O clear visual three
one left /4 O; E other traffic landing three one right
should have been read as: “cleared visual approach
runway three one left; traffic at (clock code, position,
and aircraft type) landing runway three one right”.

Once complete, the encoded message is transferred
to the ATSAT Coding Form using the steps listed in
Part 3 of Table 2. This is a fairly straight-forward
process.

4.0 PRELIMINARY STUDY ON THE
RELIABILITY OF THE ATSAT

4.1 Introduction

The ATSAT was developed by the authors to ana-
lyze phraseology usage by controllers and pilots at a
micro level of analysis. It uses the terms and defini-
tions found in FAA Order 7110.65 as its basic struc-

Coding Form for Approach Control

ture. The ATSAT may be helpful to other researchers
in its current form or serve as a foundation or point of
deparcure for developing their own voice communica-
tions coding schemes. To determine how reliable
experts and novices were in coding ATC transmis-
sions according to the ATSAT Coding Form’s in-
structions and procedures, a preliminary study was

performed.

4.2 Subjects

Four novices and 4 ATC instructors volunteered to
code the same 25 transmissions from a transcript of
ATC/pilot communications. Novices were FAA tech-
nical support staff who lacked domain specific prior
knowledge of ATC terminology and phraseology us-
age. Experts were former ATCS employed as FAA
Academy ATC instructors. Each volunteer was given
a copy of the instructions from Tables 1 and 2 along
with Appendices A through D to help with the cod-
ing.

4.3 Procedure

A 30 - minute orientation session on how to code
the transmissions was given by one of the developers
of the taxonomy who, as Facilitator, explained the
coding process step by step with each group of novice
and. instructor coders. The novices were provided

with 2 hours of additional instruction pertaining to

ATC terminology and phraseology to ensure that they
had the minimum requisite aviation knowledge nec-
essary to complete the taxonomy. Since the Experts
were responsible for observing and instructing their
students on correct phraseology, they were not pro-
vided the additional instruction session.

4.4 Results and Discussion

The Facilitator also coded the same 25 transmis-
sions to compare with the novices’ and experts’ data,
and the percentage of items agreeing with the facilita-
tor was computed. The coded transmissions of each
group were compared to the coded transmissions of
the facilitator for: (1) segmenting the entire message
into speech acts and aviation topics, (2) correctly
placing the segments onto the coding form, both in

* Plato was chosen for illustrative purposes only; It is a fictitious air carrier.

5


f

Coding Form for Approach Consrol

Table 1

Communication Phraseology Errors in ATC/Pilot Transcripts.

Error Code

Definition

Message Content Errors

Grouped G

Sequential N
(Non-grouped)

Omission ce)
| Substitution s
Transposition T
Excessive Verbiage E
Partial Readback* P

Delivery Technique Errors

Dysfluency D

Misarticulation M

Grouping of numerical information contrary to paragraph
2-85, FAA Order 7110.65G, March 1992

Failure to group numbers in accordance with paragraphs

2-87, 2-88, 2-90, and non-use of the phonetic alphabet in
accordance with paragraph 2-84, FAA Order 7110.65G,

March 1992

Leaving out number(s), letter(s), word(s), prescribed in
phraseology requirements in FAA Order 7110.65G,
March 1992

Use of word(s) or phrases(s) in lieu of phraseology
outlined in FAA Order 7110.65G, March 1992 (e.g.,
"verify altitude" vs. “say altitude")

Number(s) or word(s) used in the improper order (e.g.,
“TWA six forty-five" instead of "TWA five forty-six")

Adding word(s) or phrase(s) to phraseology outlined in
FAA Order 7110.65G, March 1992, and the phraseology
suggested in the Airman's Information Manual.

{e.g., "TWA the number one airline six forty-five")

Pilot report or readback that does not include specific
reference to a topic subject (i.e., altitude topic “out of six
for four" would be recorded as a P.

*Note: A verbatim readback of a controller's instruction or
advisory would not be recorded as a P, nor would a
readback containing a general acknowledgment and the
aircraft identifier.

Pause(s), stammer(s), utterance(s), that add no meaning to
the message (e.g., "uh," "ah," or “ok” when not used as a
general acknowledgment

Improperly spoken words (i.e., slurs, stutters, mumbling,
etc.)



wiog 3u1p0D LVSLV

4 €
I
Of
dat
z
wourseg jinjredsq] peedg | s1ys0y | opmuty | ‘Pow | SuIpeay | tMouysy | apo aynoy | SuipjoH | “bea panjsedaq|
ano jddy apnuty Surpeoyy [e19ua5) {puodsue.s]| Addy

JUSUISpa|MOUYIV/IEqQpLoY - syreMay/AIOsSIApY

(Q, 009) uswSpaymouyoy/HIeqpLoy - 9dUe1E9,D/UOT}INAysUT

aapod

ANE



Coding Form for Approach Control

Table 3

Percentage Agreement by Novices and Experts with ATSAT Facilitator in Message
Encoding and Classification.

Message Encoding and Classification

Placement into

ATSAT Error

Coder N Segmentation Categories Code

Experts 4 78% 30% 58%

Novices 4 89% 70% 73%
Table 4

inter-rater Percentage Agreement in Placement of Message Segments into
Speech Act and Aviation Topic Categories by Novices and Experts.

ATSAT Category

Coder N Speech Act Aviation Topic
Experts 4 59% 56%
Novices 4 82% 78%

the proper speech act category and in the proper
aviation topic, and (3) recognizing that a speech error
occurred within an aviation topic. The coded trans-
missions of the novices then were compared to each
other and percentage agreement was computed on
properly placing the transmission segments into speech
act categories and into aviation topics. The same
comparison was performed for the experts.

As shown in Table 3, the novices and experts had
higher percentage agreement on segmenting messages
than they did on placing those segments into their
respective categories on the ATSAT Coding Form or
recognizing the presence of a speech error. Correct
placement into ATSAT categories required that each
segment be correctly labeled on the basis of speech act
category and aviation topic and the correct placement

of the coded information onto the coding form. It is
not surprising that overall percent agreement de-
creased since a much more granular level of analysis is
demanded here than on either segmentation or error
recognition. Correct recognition of a speech error
required the coders to simply compare the content of
an aviation topic to the error type definitions and
determine if a match occurred. On correctly recogniz-
ing a speech error within an aviation topic, the average
agreement with the facilitator was higher for novices
than for experts.

As shown in Table 4, novices had a higher percent
agreement among themselves than the experts in plac-
ing transmission segments into the proper speech act
and aviation topic categories. The differences be-
tween novices and instructors could have resulted


APPENDIX D:
SOME TYPICAL ERRORS WITHIN SPEECH ACT TOPICS

A. Speaker: Reference par 2-76, 77, 86, 87 of FAA Order 7110.65G and par 4-33 of AIM
Example - Initial contact:

Pilot: “Regional Approach Plato ten twenty-two...”
Controller: “Plato ten twenty-two Regional Approach...”

Example - After initial contact:

eR

Nae

B.

Pilot: “Plato ten twenty-two...”
Controller: “Plato ten twenty-two...”

Omission of facility name or functio sos
Omission of company name, general aviation designator, military service, etc.
Omission of any number in the identification or use of less than three numbers/letters in general
aviation or military identification .......sssssssssssssseesseses oossseavenviconenecseeransean
Failure to group air carrier callsigns or to use the phonetic alphabet in aircraft identifications
Grouping military or general aviation callsigns
Additions to callsigns
Substitution of company name, military service, or complete
numbers/letters, etc. ..

Transposed numbers/letters

Receiver: Reference par 2-76, 77, 86, 87 of 7110,65G and 4-33 of AIM

Example - Initial contact:

Pilot: “Regional Approach Plato ten twenty-two...”
Controller: “Plato ten twenty-two Regional Approach...”

Example - After initial contact:

1.
2.
3.

aviation or military identification...

PN AWE

Note: A pilot readback of controller's exact instructions is not recorded as an error.

Controller: “Plato ten twenty-two...”
Pilot: Ground station (control facility) may be omitted

Cope
Omission of facility name or function...
Omission of company name, general aviation designator, military service,
Omission of any number in identification or use of less than three numbers/letters in general

lee)

Failure to group air carrier callsigns or to use the phonetic alphabet in aircraft identification:
‘Grouping military or general aviation callsigns......
Additions to callsign save ses
Substitution of company name, m tary service, or complete numbers/letters,
Transposed numbers/letters ..

Homazo

D1




7.0 APPENDICES

ATSAT Coding Form sooommnA-2

Sample Transcript Sheet -----—------------------e----—--—- A-G
Sample Coded Transcript Sheet — —A-7
Completed ATSAT Coding Form —A-8
Definitions of Speech Act Categories Identified in 10 Hours of ATC/Pilot Transcripts --------- B-1

Aviation Topics within the Speech Act Categories

Some Typical Errors within Aviation Topics
Glossary of Terms Used for the TRACON ATSAT Coding Scheme —-

Al



Morrow, D., Clark, H., Lee, A., & Rodvold, M. (Dec.,
1990). Collaboration in Controller-Pilot Com-
munications. Presented at the 1990 Meeting of
the Psychonomics Society, New Orleans, LA.

Morrow, D., Lee, A., & Rodvold, M. (Dec., 1990).
Analysis of Routine Pilot-Controller Communi-
cations. In Managing the Modern Cockpit: Third
Human Error Avoidance Techniques Conference
Proceedings, Warrendale PA: Society of Automo-
tive Engineers, Inc.

Coding Form for Approach Control

Morrow, D., Lee, A., & Rodvold, M. (in press). Analysis
of problems in routine controller-pilot communi-

cations. International Journal of Aviation Psychology.

Prinzo, O. V. & Britton, T. W. (1993). ATC/Pilot Voice
Communications - A Survey of the Literature. Wash-
ington, DC: Office of Aviation Medicine Report
no. DOT/FAA/AM-93/20.


Coding Form for Approach Control

Table 2

Steps for Translating Audio-Taped Voice Communications to the ATSAT Coding Form.

1. Transcribe audio tapes to written verbatim copy.

Step 1. Identify and record the speaker identification.

Step 2. Copy message spelling out numbers.

Step 3. Enter time in minutes and seconds at the beginning of each transmission. (optional)

Step 4. Sequentially number transcript lines. (Each transmission should be numbered asa line.
See example Appendix A.)

2. Encode transcript.

Step 1. Using Appendix C, divide each line of the transcript into aviation topics by placing a
diagonal line at the beginning and end of each topic.

Step 2. Sequentially number the aviation topics, placing the number immediately after the
beginning diagonal line.

Step 3. Using the “Communication Errors in ATC/pilot Transcripts Table” (Table 1), identify each

error and place its letter code after its aviation topic number (Examples are provided in
Appendix A.)

3. Transfer data to the ATSAT Coding Form. See Appendix A.

Step 1.

Step 2.
Step 3.

Step 4.
Step 5.

Step 6.

Step 7.

Step 8.

Step 9.
Step 10.

Enter the facility name and the coder’s name or initials in the appropriate spaces at the
top of the ATSAT form.

Record the line number from the transcript into the “Line No.” column.

Identify the speaker by entering the aircraft callsign for aircraft or “ATC” for the controller
in the “Speaker” column of the ATSAT form.

Sequentially number the communication attempts to a specific receiver and place that
transmission number in the far right of the space in which the speaker is identified.
Identify the receiver by entering the aircraft callsign for aircraft or “ATC” for controller in
the “Receiver” column of the ATSAT form.

Record each identified topic by entering the placement number of the topic transcript
into the applicable topic column within the appropriate speech act category (Use the
“Speech Act Categories” (Appendix B) and “Aviation Topics” (Appendix C) to determine
the correct topics and categories.)

Indicate any errors within the topics in the same space in which the topic is recorded,
using the codes from the “Communication Errors in ATC/Pilot Transcripts” list (Appendix D).
Place any additional information or explanation in the “Comment” column using the
position number for reference.

Repeat steps 8 & 9 until the entire line has been completed.

Repeat steps 4 through 10 until each line from the transcript has been coded.



3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

APPENDIX B:
DEFINITION OF SPEECH ACT CATEGORIES IDENTIFIED
IN 10 HOURS OF ATC/PILOT TRANSCRIPTS
Address/Addressce.

The facility/ position or aircraft identified as speaker or receiver (e.g., (Facility Name) TRACON, (Facility
Name) departure, sector twenty-one, Plato two forty-one, November one two three alpha, Baron one two

three alpha).
Courtesy.
Word(s) or phrase(s) spoken as an act of courtesy.

Instruction/Clearance—Readback/Acknowledgment.
Instruction/Clearance: Phraseology used by a controller to issue instructions to an aircraft (e.g., climb and

maintain three thousand, turn left heading two two zero, cleared ILS runway three five right approach).

Readback/Acknowledgment: Words or phrases spoken by a pilot or controller i response to an instruc-
tion/clearance.

Advisory/Remark—Readback/Acknowledgment.

Advisory/Remark: Required communication based on the controller's responsibility for issuing advisories
(e.g, altimeter, traffic, expected approach or altitude, a request for information, etc.) and the pilot’s
responsibility for making certain reports (e.g., ATIS, position, altitude, speed, etc.).

Readback/Acknowledgment: Words or phrases spoken by a pilot or controller in response to an advisory/
remark.

Request—Readback/Acknowledgment.

Request: Speech act initiated by the pilot or controller for the purpose of acquiring information and/or
a service.

Readback/Acknowledgment: Words or phrases spoken by a pilot or controller in response to a request.

Non-Codable Remarks.

Remarks/comments that are not codable into a speech act of Address/Addressee, Courtesy, Instruction/
Clearance Readback/Acknowledgment, Advisory/Remark—Readback/ Acknowledgment, Request—
Readback/Acknowledgment. A speech act that is unintelligible due to equipment problems or speaker
delivery.

Comments.

Information entered by encoder to clarify a coding entry.

Bl


Appendix D

J. Holding: Reference par 2-85h, 90, 91, 5-126, 140, 141 of 7110.65G and par 4-38, 86 of AIM

K. Route: Reference par 2-90, 4-14, 5-41, 8-40 of 7110.65g and par 5-85 of AIM
Example:

Controller: “...fly heading two two zero join victor twelve”

“follow the MD Eighty...”

“,.proceed direct (Name) VORTAC...”

“,.join ILS localizer runway three five...”

Pilot must include enough information to identify the route he or she will fly.

Cope
1. Use of “join” for “intercept” and vice versa aS
2. Use of “when receiving (NAVAID)” or “when able’ .E
3. Failure of pilot to identify the route by NAVAID airway, etc .P

L. Transponder: Reference par 2-851, 5-20, 32, 40, 42 of FAA Order 7110.65G and par 4-18h, 38 of AIM
Example:

Controller: “...squawk three four zero five”

Pilot: “...squawk three four zero five”

1. Phrase “reset transponder”
2. Omission of “squawk”
by the controller ......cssssssssssecssssssssssssessssssesssvessesbecssssusesesssseessnsecegsneessssuneassuseessauseessuveccesseesseseessaseessseesessees
by the pilot
3. Grouping of code numbers
4. Pilot readback of three code numbers or less

M. Type: Reference par 2-88 of FAA Order 7110.65G. Errors may be N, O, S, T, E, or P.
N.

|. NOTAM/Advisory: Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) and aviation advisories requested by a pilot.

Grouping of numbers in reference to runway, altitude, heading, etc. .....ssssssssssssssseessssssssssessssesnsersessenane
Non-grouping of identification, airways, or not using the phonetic alphabet, et:
Incomplete readback by the pilot

eR

O. Traffic: Reference par 2-84, 2-85, 2-86, 2-88 pilot/controller glossary of FAA Order 7110.65G and AIM
Example:
Controller: “...traffic (number) o’clock, (number) miles, (other pertinent information if known)”
Cope
1. Pilot response other than “traffic/airport in sight” or “negative contact” S

2. Omission of word(s) required by standard phraseology



Coding Form for Approach Control

the assigned meanings to those words were not always
uniformly applied. For example, Golaszewski (1989)
defined readback error as a loss in separation minima
resulting from a controller’s failure to detect (or
correct) an incorrect readback by the pilot. Alterna-
tively, Morrow, Lee, and Rodvold (1990) defined
readback error as a failure to read back correctly the
information contained in the original transmission;
loss of separation was not considered. In some in-
stances, words referencing concepts were provided
without benefit of definition (e.g., frequency conges-
tion) (Morrison & Wright, 1989) and left to the
reader to interpret. It is uncertain whether experts and
novices in the field of aviation consistently apply the
same definitions to those words. Without benefit of
uniform definitions, the risk of misunderstanding or
misinterpretation increases.

1,2 Purpose

The purpose of the present research effort was to
develop a voice communication taxonomy and method
of data collection that could be used to analyze ATC/
pilot voice-radio communication in a systematic and
consistent fashion. That product is the Aviation Top-
ics/Speech Acts Taxonomy (ATSAT). This taxonomy
was developed as a tool for building acommon ground
of understanding of ATC communications through
the use and application of a standard or common
analytic procedure. The appropriateness of the ATSAT
to other applications depends on the user’s ultimate
goal. Thus, the user will need to define the problem
and determine the appropriate level of analysis. Within
the ATSAT, the aviation topic presents a micro level
of analysis and the speech act a macro level. In this
taxonomy, the speech act defines the purpose of the
utterance; that is, its intent.

The 5 speech act categories that make up the frame-
work for the ATSAT and its corresponding coding form
(See Appendix A) are: 1) Address, 2) Courtesy, 3)
Instruction/-Clearance/Readback, 4) Advisory/Remark/
Readback, and 5) Request/Readback. A sixth category,
Non-Codable, is included as a general category. (See
Appendix B.) Non-codable would include unintelligible
transmissions due to equipment-related problems, deliv-
ery technique, and communications that could not be
placed into any of the other major groupings.

The aviation topic is the basic unit of meaning
(subject) and it is found within the speech act. Avia-
tion topics place constraints on their associated speech
acts by limiting the type of action that can occur. For
example, headings, altitude restrictions, air speeds,
and routes are aviation topics which are frequently
included in transmissions containing instructions or
requests. A complete list of aviation topics included in
the ATSAT, along with their definitions, is included
in this report. (See Appendix C.)

2.0 APPROACH

2.1 Development of the Aviation Topic Speech
Act Taxonomy

A literature search was performed to acquire copies
of the existing research conducted on controller/ pilot
voice radio communications. The speech act (Kanki
& Foushee, 1989; Morrow, Clark, Lee, & Rodvold,
1990) was selected as the major type of communica-
tion element in a transmission under which the avia-
tion topics were grouped. A list of the aviation topics
was developed from the literature review for possible
inclusion in the Aviation Topic Speech Act Tax-
onomy, These aviation topics were placed into the
speech act category into which they were most likely
to be found in a transmission.

Similarly, a list of the various types of communica-
tion problems was constructed from the Prinzo and
Britton literature review and databases (e.g., ASRS).
The communication problems were restricted to in-
clude only voice-radio messages between the control-
ler and the pilot. Equipment related problems, such as
faulty equipment, improperly worn headsets and mi-
crophones, intra-facility communication, inter-facil-
ity communication, and inter-flight-deck verbal
communication were not included. Only controller/
pilot voice radio communications within the terminal
environment were addressed by this research.

Once the basic structure of the ATSAT was con-
structed, a sample of TRACON/pilot communica-
tions was obtained, transcribed, and coded using the
taxonomy. Based on the VHF/UHF audio tapes pro-
vided, some of the speech acts were combined into a
single category and several aviation topics were dis-
carded or replaced. A retired controller served as the



W101 SUIpOD LVSLV
WVLON| ed4_ | wonrsog faanjzedaq] peedg | apnynry | Smpeay | momyoy | oyay | Bupysis | someeM | SELLY |SIWV.LON|
anoy jddy [exauay | IygeAL, | [eledesy
JUSMISp2epMoUyY PpPVqpLey - jsonboy (3,409) suewSpajmouyoy /yVqpeay - SyseWIY/AL0SIAPY

19poD

Ae

AG


10

11

12

13

14

00:00

00:03

00:09

00:24
00:32

00:38

00:41

00:47

00:48

00:52

00:56

00:59

01:04

01:24

PLATO
754

ATC

PLATO 35

ATC

PLATO
754

ATC

PLATO
754

PLATO
290

ATC

PLATO
290

ATC

PLATO
290

ATC

PLATO
880

Sample Transcript Sheet

ZERO TWO ZERO PLATO SEVEN FIVE FOUR

PLATO THIRTY-FIVE HEAVY CONTACT (NAME) TOWER
ONE TWO THREE POINT FOUR GOOD DAY

PLATO THIRTY-FIVE GOOD DAY AND THANK YOU A
LOT

PLATO SEVEN FIFTY-FOUR SAY YOUR SPEED
AH WERE DOING ONE NINETY SEVEN FIFTY-FOUR

SEVEN FIFTY-FOUR ROGER INCREASE SPEED TO TWO
ONE ZERO

PICK IT UP TO TWO TEN SEVEN FIFTY-FOUR

APPROACH PLATO TWO-NINETY AT A FOUR POINT SIX
FOR TWO

PLATO TWO-NINETY (NAME) APPROACH TURN LEFT
HEADING ZERO TWO ZERO

ZERO TWO ZERO WE HAVE THE AIRPORT IN SIGHT
ALSO ‘

PLATO TWO-NINETY ROGER CLEAR VISUAL THREE ONE
LEFT OTHER TRAFFIC LANDING THREE ONE RIGHT

CLEAR TO VISUAL THREE ONE LEFT AND WE'LL WATCH
THE TRAFFIC ON THE RIGHT ONE PLATO TWO-NINETY

ATTENTION ALL AIRCRAFT LANDING (NAME)
INFORMATION PAPA NOW CURRENT THE WEATHER IS
STILL BETTER THAN FIVE THOUSAND FIVE ,

SEVEN HUNDRED FOR THREE THOUSAND HEADING
ZERO FOUR ZERO

AG6


DEVELOPMENT OF A CODING FORM
FOR APPROACH CONTROL/PILOT
VOICE COMMUNICATIONS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Voice-radio communication is central to air traffic
control (ATC). Air traffic controllers are taught a
standard phraseology! as part of their formal training,
and once they are assigned to an air traffic control
tower, terminal, or en route facility, their communi-
cation skills are reviewed periodically. Many govern-
ment agencies, aviation industries, and researchers
interested in controller/pilot communication often
rely on the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS)
and the Office of Safety Information and Promotion
(ASP) for aviation-related information. Verbal com-
munication often is represented as a major category
(with possibly several general types of communication
topics) in addition to other controller performance
measures on standardized FAA forms?. Voice-radio
communication is included as part of investigations
involving operational errors, system or pilot devia-
tions, or other events that may have the potential to
impact safety.

In aircraft-related accident investigations, a writ-
ten verbatim transcript of the actual voice-radio com-
munication is included as part of the official records
to aid in the identification of the factors surrounding
the incident. Written verbatim transcripts also are
included in operational error/system deviation inves-
tigations. Some researchers (e.g., Cardosi, 1993;
Morrow & Roldvold, 1994) have examined audio
taped recordings of controller/pilot voice-radio com-
munications provided by ATC. Transcribing and
identifying potentially critical verbal communications
can bean arduous and expensive task. A cost - effective
approach is needed that would allow controller/pilot
voice-radio communications to be coded and stored
in a database for use by researchers and investigators

"BAA Order 7110.65 Ait Traffic Control
2BAA Form 7210-3, Final Operational Error/Deviation Report
* Terminal Radar Approach Control

to answer communication-based safety questions. In
so doing, real progress could be achieved in under-
standing the dynamics of communication between
controllers and pilots during routine operations and
again when problems arise. A problem with existing
databases is the lack of a uniform coding scheme
which makes it difficult for users to gain a clear
perspective of the magnitude of actual safety-related
problems,

As part of a survey of the ATC/pilot voice commu-
nications literature, Prinzo and Britton (1993) in-
cluded samples of air traffic control verbal
communications taxonomies. Kanki and Foushee
(1989) described typical flight crew performance and
decision making (e.g., command, suggestion, inquiry,
acknowledgment) using the speech act as the underly-
ing unit of communication measure; whereas, Mor-
row, Lee, and Rodvold (in press) described TRACON?
controller/pilot communication using the speech act
and aviation topic (e.g., heading) in their analyses. A
speech act is a single utterance used to convey a single
action or intention for action (see glossary). In an-
other approach Human Technologies, Inc. (1991)
examined team co-ordination among en route con-
trollers and: pilots using the speech act to analyze
communication patterns. Cardosi (1993) examined
the complexity ofen route communications by count-
ing the number of elements (i.e., new pieces of infor-
mation within a communication that increased
memory load) in a transmission. Unfortunately, the
results of these various efforts cannot be integrated
and an overall conclusion reached since different
measures were used.

From the Prinzo and Britton survey, it became
apparent that different researchers used the same
words to describe some communications; however,


Appendix D

fon

Heading: Reference par 2-85h, 91 of FAA Order 7110.65G and 4-33, 40, 86 of AIM.

Note: No example of pilot phraseology, just the suggestion to readback the vectors. A readback of the vector

(heading) without the word “heading” or “degrees” is considered incomplete.
Example:

Controller: “Plato one twenty-five turn left heading two two zero”
Pilot: “Plato one twenty-five left heading two two zero”
Controller: “November three five papa fly heading two two zero”
Pilot: “November three five papa heading two two zero”
Controller: Navy five five five turn twenty degrees left”

Pilot: “Navy five five five twenty degrees left”

Cope
1, Failure to include the word “heading” or “degrees”
by the controller .. fe)
by the pilot P
2. Failure of the controller to include the phrase “turn left” or “turn right” when a turn is issued Oo
3. Grouping of heading numbers .... G
4. Additional and unnecessary words .. E
D. Heading modifier: A word or phrase indicating an increased/decreased rate of turn. There is no standard
phraseology listed. Since the rate of turn is included in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), the usage
of this phrase is confusing. There are no no-gyro vectors in these transcripts.
E. Altitude: reference par 2-85b, 4-45, 46, 47, 5-31b, 6-50 of FAA Order 7110.65G and par 4-33, 39, 86, and
5-31b of AIM
Example:
Controller: “Plato four maintain one one thousand”
Pilot: “Plato four maintain one one thousand”
Cope
1. Grouping of altitude mumbers......ssssssssscsssssssesessssssssssescessssssnveessessssanseesessnssnnesesessssnueecescassnvecessansessesessssses G
2, Omission of “thousand” or “hundred”
by the controller ..
by.the pilot
3. Word used in lieu of “climb” or “descend’

4. Additional and unnecessary words .E
F. Altitude restriction: Reference par 2-85b, 4-45, 46, 47, 5-31b, 6-50 of FAA Order 7110.65G and 4-33,
39, 86, and 5-31b of AIM ’

Example:

Controller: “Air force one cross (Fix Name) at eight thousand climb and maintain flight level three five
zero”

Pilot: “Air force one cross (Fix Name) at eight thousand climb and maintain flight level three five zero”

D2


SECTION

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0
6.0
7.0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pace

INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2 Purpose

_

APPROACH aa
2.1 Development of the ATSAT Taxonomy

2.2 Identification of Problematic Verbal Communications ----

2.2.1 Message Content Errors
2.2.2 Delivery Technique Errors

PROCEDURE

3.1 Instructions a

ww ww WN NHN WH

PRELIMINARY STUDY ON THE RELIABILITY OF THE ATSAT ----------e---—-----——-— 5
4.1 Introduction 5
4.2 — Subjects 5
4.3 Procedure 5
5
8
8

4.4 Results and Discussion - —

DISCUSSION ---

REFERENCES one

APPENDICES Al
Appendix A. ATSAT Coding Form A-2
Appendix B. Definition of Speech Act Categories B-1
Appendix C. Speech Topics C1
Appendix D. Some Typical Errors Within Speech Act Topics -----------------------on--0--+ -- D-1
Appendix E. Glossary of Terms ——- E-1

iii


Appendix D

P. Weather: Reference par 2-111, 2-85f, RVR 2-122.

Cope
1. Omission of “runway” when giving RVR re)
2. Grouping numbers contrary to standard phraseology G
3. Non-grouping of numbers contrary to standard phraseology N
4, Failure to include the station (altimeter or weather)......... fe)
Q. ATIS: The pilot should report his awareness of current airport information (ATIS) by stating the phonetic
letter of the ATIS information he has received. Controller communication reference to ATIS should be to
confirm pilot awareness. Specific phraseology is not provided in either AIM or FAA Order 7110.65G.
1. Addition to a single phonetic letter ............ E
2. Non-phonetic or incorrect phonetic letters... Ss
3. Words/phrases other than “confirm ATIS (letter) Ss

R. General Acknowledgment: Word(s) used by a pilot as a general acknowledgment of a clearance/

instruction.

Note: “Roger,” “ok,” “alright,” may be used in addition to aircraft identification and/or readback of all or
portions of a clearance/instruction.

Note: This appendix is added as a guide for coding communication errors onto the ATSAT Coding Form.
The lists of errors are not exhaustive, and it is possible to have more than one error per aviation topic. Controller
standard phraseology is taken from applicable parts of FAA Order 7110.65G, dated March 5, 1992. Pilot
phraseology is taken from applicable parts of AIM, dated March 5, 1992, and where no phraseology is listed,
a combination of FAA Order 7110.65G and par 4-86b1 and 4-86b2 of the AIM is used. The examples are

illustrations of correct phraseology, and the underlined portions refer to the aviation topics. Aviation topics
appear in bold type.

%,

DS ‘US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1995 - 660-067/00181


m0 SuIpod LVSLV

peedg | yuysey [ opmry | ‘pow | Surpeayy | ABojody |s3uyee1p] syueq a Qi__| aeatesay | toyeedg | ‘on cary

apnviy sSurpeoy, J9A1999y | Joyxvodg
JUSUISpo|MOUYIV/IVqpLIy - 2dUeIvI]D/MOyINAysUy Asay.inod dassoIppYy/sseippy
aapod ATV

eee


w04 Supod LVSLV

syusmImIOZ bPyO | Aaqeq pucmdinba jMouysy | s9qQ;8044 | eI
Jes20e5)
a1qepod - WON G09) yoeqproy - jsonboy

39poD

sxe