STUDIES IN LOGIC, GRAMMAR

AND RHETORIC 45 (58) 2016

DOI: 10.1515/slgr-2016-0019

Izabela Kraśnicka
University of Białystok
Poland

ENGLISH WITH FLYING COLORS:

THE AVIATION ENGLISH AND THE INTERNATIONAL
CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION

Abstract. There are several reasons for the English language to become lingua
franca of aviation including some historical turning points for the world aviation
and some specific linguistic features of the language itself. This paper aims to
firstly present a short, yet interesting history of implementation of English as
standardized language for aviation. It will provide introductory historical back-
ground, establishment of arguments necessary for standardization and leading
to the implementation of the Language Proficiency Requirements (LPRs) within
the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). It will then provide an
overview of the ICAO’s actions to support its members states in implemen-
tation of the English language standards for aviation and try to evaluate the
effects based on the powers granted to the Organization. Such evaluation will
be presented in the comparative perspective with the powers and instruments
used within the European Union to achieve the same goal – standardization of
the aviation English.
Keywords: International Civil Aviation Organization, Aviation English, ATC
English, Language Proficiency Requirements

1. Introduction and Historical Perspective

Despite earlier attempts to use the airspace as a travelling space, it

was the 1903 “Flyer I” seconds-long flights performed by the American
brothers – Wilbur and Orville Wright in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina which
marked the very beginning of the history of aviation and changed the world
(Wagner, 1970:2, Dempsey, 1992: 1). The development of air industry was
powered by the military engagement in both world wars. By the end of
the World War II, it was clear that the post-war transportation era will be
dominated by the use of aircraft.
In 1944, the President of the United States of America invited represen-
tatives of over 50 states to gather in Chicago and discuss the future of legal

ISBN 978-83-7431-487-9 ISSN 0860-150X 111

Izabela Kraśnicka

regulations for the international civil aviation. The conference was clearly
dominated by the American and British delegations and their actions (as
both countries at the time had the best negotiating position in terms of the
aircraft operations in the world) with strong involvement of Canadians and
Australians. The four nations’ native language is English.
During the 1944 conference the Convention on International Civil Avi-
ation (the Chicago Convention or the Convention) was signed and, among
other regulations, it established the International Civil Aviation Organiza-
tion (ICAO, with presently 191 member states) to maintain safe and secure
use of civil aircrafts around the globe (art. 43–44 of the Chicago Conven-
tion). It is worth to note that the original text of the Chicago Convention
was prepared and accepted in the English language only, which was unusual
for international documents of such importance (Fitzgerald, 1970: 364–371).
The above presented circumstances might be considered the first, his-
torical arguments for the use of English language as language of aviation.
For decades to follow however, it was only the practice of the states involved
and internal regulations recommending the airport staff, the members of the
crew in cockpit and especially the pilots and air traffic controllers (ATCs)
to use English for communication purposes. The debate concerning the suit-
ability of the English language for the air communication could justifiably
continue due to the specifics of the language (given the phraseology prob-
lems for example). Nevertheless, the worldwide acceptance of this language
for flying has become a fact (Seiler, 2009: 44). Under the auspices of ICAO,
English eventually became standardized language to be used “in the skies”
as one of the necessary tools for safe flights.
In the presented article the problems leading to such standardization
are introduced followed by the attempts of the ICAO to solve them and
to provide member states with effective tools supporting implementation
of the established standards. An attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of
the ICAO’s work is then followed by the example of the European Union
and comparative analysis of the possibilities for language standards im-
plementation deriving from the Union’s powers and laws binding upon its
member states.

2. ATC-English Problems Identified

Series of fatal air accidents in which the lack of proficiency in English
had been identified as a contributing factor, led to series of ICAO decisions
concerning the improvement of English for pilots and air traffic controllers
involved in international operations.

112
 English with Flying Colors...

The most known are the accidents in the 1970s, opening with the Tener-
ife Airport disaster in 1977, the deadliest aircraft crash in the history of
civil aviation with total of 583 victims. Miscommunication between the pi-
lots of two planes and the traffic control was one of the investigated reasons
for the tragedy. The PSA Flight 182 accident in the air followed in 1978
with 144 victims. However, the series that directly led to the international
recognition of the need for standardized airspeak occurred in the 1990s.
The Avianca Flight 52 crashed in 1990 with 73 killed, the American Air-
lines Flight 965 hit a mountain killing 159 people, the most tragic Charkhi
Dadri mid-air collision in 1996 left 351 dead and finally the 1997 accident
of Garuda Indonesia Airlines Flight 152 added 234 victims. In all cases
language miscommunication played an important role and was confirmed
as one of the reasons or even the main reason causing tragedy. Extensive
research has been carried dedicated to the above and many other air ac-
cidents, with special emphasis on the language miscommunication between
the pilot and air traffic controllers as one of the factors leading to the crash
(Cookson, 2009: 22.1–22.14; Garzone et al. 2010: 217–219; Tajima, 2004:
451–470; Jones, 2003: 233–48; Breul 2013: 71–84).
The language used between the pilot and the air traffic controller is
known as ATC-English, which on every linguistic level differs from natu-
ral English and falls under the ESP (English for Specific Purposes) cat-
egory in linguistics (Breul, 2013: 74). As Moder and Halleck summarize,
the ATC-English “is used for a very restricted set of functions and has
a prescribed phraseology with reduced syntax and vocabulary for routine
actions. The communication involves extensive shared information concern-
ing the aircraft in the area, the parameters of the airport or airspace, and
the expected actions at particular points in the flight” (Moder and Hal-
leck, 2009: 25.2). The most popular examples of the air speak are popu-
larized even by film productions. “Affirm” for “yes”, “Negative” for “No”,
“Cleared” for “Authorized, Go ahead” symbolize the uniqueness of the lan-
guage used in the air.
It should be noted here, that English used in the cockpit communication
between the crew members, also known as Cockpit English has its own
specifics and will be left outside the scope of the paper (for analysis of the
Cockpit English issues see: Nevile, 2004).
The research carried out by the official government agencies seems to
bring similar results. In 1998 the United States’ Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration prepared the report on pilot-controller communication errors based
on the reports submitted by the pilots, controllers and others to the Avia-
tion Safety Reporting System (ASRS) on events possibly affecting air safety.

113
Izabela Kraśnicka

As a result, communication errors were divided into three categories: 1. ab-

sence of pilot readback (most of the times pilot merely acknowledged the
clearance that she/he misunderstood) accounting for 47% of the analyzed
errors, 2. readback/hearback error (where pilot reads back a clearance in-
correctly and the controller fails to catch the readback error) accounting
for 25% of analyzed errors, 3. hearback type II errors (where pilot correctly
repeats the clearance that was issued, but the controller fails to notice that
this clearance was not the intended one) accounting for 18% of the analyzed
errors. The remaining 10% were errors of other nature such as pilot misun-
derstanding the clearance (Pilot-Controller Communication Errors 1998: 4).
To no surprise, the more air transportation is performed, the statistics
and variety of air accidents grow. Safety of air travels depends, among other
factors, on clear and errorless communication between the pilot of the air-
craft and air traffic controller, occurring entirely over radio frequencies with
not face-to-face interaction (Moder, 2014: 228).

3. The ICAO Standards and Language Proficiency Requirements

One of the powers vested to the Council of the International Civil Avi-
ation Organization (a permanent organ composed of 36 member states and
functioning as an executive governing body of the ICAO) is to adopt inter-
national standards and recommended practices (SARPs) in form of Annexes
to the Chicago Convention (art. 54(l) of the Convention).
The adoption and required amendment of already existing standards
and practices aim to achieve highest possible degree of uniformity in regula-
tions, procedures and organization relating to the use of air and concerning
the safety, regularity and efficiency of air navigation (art. 37 of the Conven-
tion). The Convention provides an open catalog of fields in which SARPs
should be adopted and the top of the list belongs to the “communications
systems and air navigation aids” (art. 37 (a) of the Convention).
In other words, the ICAO issues standards and practices addressed to
all member states of the organization. These states are encouraged to im-
plement them in their laws and procedures so the air carriers around the
world use uniform procedures and systems. However, the implementation of
SARPs is not mandatory under the Chicago Convention. Member states are
only obliged to notify the ICAO about the departures from adaptation of
the SARPs (art. 38 of the Convention). This rule is regarded a legally bind-
ing obligation of the contracting states to the Chicago Convention (Weber
2007: 34). Effectiveness of the uniformity of air navigation depends on the

114
 English with Flying Colors...

will of sovereign states based on the perception of mechanisms leading to

safe and secure air travels.
Since 1944, total of 19 Annexes have been adopted by the ICAO cov-
ering a wide range of airspace issues including: personnel licensing, rules
of the air, meteorological service, operation of aircraft, aeronautical com-
munications, aeronautical information services, security, safety management
and other. The Air Navigation Commission established by the Council as
the main technical organ of the ICAO is responsible for the preparation of
amendments and modifications to the Annexes and their recommendation
to the Council (art. 57 of the Convention). The ICAO runs audit programs
of the safety oversight systems and monitoring of the aviation security per-
formance in all its member states (Weber, 2007: 23).
The tragic air accidents of 1990s motivated the ICAO to specifically ad-
dress the language issues. During the 32nd Session of the ICAO Assembly
in September 1998 the decision was made to address the problem of lan-
guage requirements for pilots and air traffic controllers based on the facts
established in the major recent air accident investigations indicating lack
of proficiency and comprehension of the English language by flight crews
and air traffic controllers as a contributing factor. Relevant provisions of
the selected Annexes to the Chicago Convention, with special emphasis on
two of them – Annex 1 (Personnel Licensing) and Annex 10 (Aeronautical
Telecommunications) were to be strengthened “with a view to obligating
Contracting States to take steps to ensure that air traffic control personnel
and flight crews involved in flight operations in airspace where the use of
the English language is required, are proficient in conducting and compre-
hending radiotelephony communications in the English language” (Assem-
bly Resolution A32–16).
It took another five years before the necessary amendments to the
Annexes were prepared by the Air Navigation Commission. As a result,
in March 2003, the Council adopted proper amendments with set of SARPs
addressing language requirements for pilots and air traffic controllers. Two
most important amendments included: Amendment 164 to Annex 1 stip-
ulating that they should speak and understand the language used on ra-
diotelephony communications to the level specified, which is Level 4 – the
operational level considered the safety threshold (Annex 1: Rec 1.2.9), as
well as Amendment 78 to Annex 10 stating that “if a pilot and an air traffic
controller do not speak a common language, the default language is English
and that the English language is shall be available, on request from any
aircraft station, at all stations on the ground serving designated airports
and routes used by international air services (Annex 10: Rec 5.2).

115
Izabela Kraśnicka

As a result then, all pilots and controllers involved in international

operations who do not share a common language must communicate in
English and thus their level of English language proficiency has to be stated
on their licenses.
The set of holistic descriptors (included in Appendix to Annex 1) to-
gether with the ICAO Rating Scale (included in Attachment to Annex 1)
constitute the ICAO Language Proficiency Requirements (LPRs).
The LPR Manual underlined that “while the ICAO Language Profi-
ciency Requirements were developed for use in assessing language profi-
ciency in all languages used for radiotelephony communications, not just in
the English language, much of the focus of this manual is on English lan-
guage training issues, as this is the area in which most States and aircraft
operators require specific guidance” (Manual 2004: vii).
As Moder and Halleck note, the tension between the use of standard
phraseology and plain language is an ongoing issue in the aviation com-
munity. Operational training facilities and international policies emphasize
that standard phraseology should be used in all cases, and that the use
of plain language should be restricted only to those situations in which
there is no standard phraseology (Moder and Halleck, 2009: 25.3). In the
real life situations, there are plenty of moments (such as system failures,
passenger illness, deviated flights, bad weather conditions, etc.) where stan-
dardized phraseology simply cannot describe the reality and its urgent needs
(Shawcross, 2015).
The ICAO Language Proficiency Requirements aimed to establish two
major rules concerning the problem. First, a greater emphasis is placed on
the importance of the use of ICAO phraseologies. Member states were to
make sure that their aviation phraseology conforms to the one provided
by the ICAO. Elimination of different types and versions of specific aviation
phraseologies used in different regions of the world would certainly help
to eliminate the danger of misunderstanding in communication. Secondly,
even though the ICAO phraseology should always be used in the first place,
the fluent communication in plain English is underlined as necessary and
important part of air communication and “when plain language is required,
it should be delivered in the same clear, concise, and unambiguous manner
as phraseologies” (Manual: 2–3). The language proficiency requirements are
applicable to the use of both phraseologies and plain language (Appendix
to Annex 1 APP 1–1).
According to the ICAO standards, to meet the required LPRs, an ap-
plicant for a license or a license holder must demonstrate, “in a manner
acceptable to the licensing authority, compliance with the holistic descrip-

116
 English with Flying Colors...

tors and with the ICAO Operational Level (Level 4) of the ICAO Language
Proficiency Rating Scale” (Appendix to Annex 1 APP 1–1). “The holistic
descriptors provide all-embracing characteristics of proficient speakers and
establish some context for communications where the Rating Scale describes
the discrete features of language use” (Manual: 2–6).
Proficient speakers prove the following characteristics: “a) communi-
cate effectively in voice-only (telephone/radiotelephone) and in face-to-face
situations; b) communicate on common, concrete and work-related top-
ics with accuracy and clarity; c) use appropriate communicative strate-
gies to exchange messages and to recognize and resolve misunderstand-
ings (e.g. to check, confirm, or clarify information) in a general or work-
related context; d) handle successfully and with relative ease the linguis-
tic challenges presented by a complication or unexpected turn of events
that occurs within the context of a routine work situation or communica-
tive task with which they are otherwise familiar; and e) use a dialect or
accent which is intelligible to the aeronautical community” (Appendix to
Annex 1 APP 1–1).
The ICAO Language Proficiency Rating Scale provides for 6 levels of the
language proficiency (with level 1 being pre-elementary and level 6 being ex-
pert based on the description of each level in six fields: pronunciation, struc-
ture, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, interactions). The future pilots
and air traffic controllers are to be tested and confirmed with the proficiency
on minimum level 4 – operational. In this level the “pronunciation, stress,
rhythm, and intonation are influenced by the first language or regional vari-
ation but only sometimes interfere with ease of understanding (pronunci-
ation). The basic grammatical structures and sentence patterns are used
creatively and are usually well controlled. Errors may occur, particularly
in unusual or unexpected circumstances, but rarely interfere with meaning
(structure). Vocabulary range and accuracy are usually sufficient to com-
municate effectively on common, concrete, and work-related topics”. The
candidate can “often paraphrase successfully when lacking vocabulary in
unusual or unexpected circumstances (vocabulary)”. Further, the candidate
“produces stretches of language at an appropriate tempo. There may be
occasional loss of fluency on transition from rehearsed or formulaic speech
to spontaneous interaction, but this does not prevent effective communi-
cation”. He/she can make “limited use of discourse markers or connectors.
Fillers are not distracting (fluency). Comprehension is consistently accurate
in nearly all contexts and includes comprehension of linguistic and cultural
subtleties (comprehension)”. Finally, the future pilot of air traffic controller
“interacts with ease in nearly all situations and is sensitive to verbal and

117
Izabela Kraśnicka

non-verbal cues and responds to them appropriately (interactions)” (At-

tachment A to Annex 1 ATT A–1). The ICAO Rating Scale is provided
in a table and widely used in training, testing and informative materials
worldwide. It has been prepared by the group of experts in linguistics and
specialists in the industry (so called PRICE Study Group) but there has
been some disappointment voiced by the ESP experts regarding the limited
information on the precise methodology used for the development of the
scale (Knoch, 2014: 77).

4. Implementation of the Language Proficiency Requirements

by the ICAO member states on global and regional levels

The original date for the implementation of LPRs in the ICAO member
states was set for 1 January 2008. The deadline was eventually extended
to March 2011 (by the Assembly Resolution A36–11 passed in 2007) as it
turned out to be a very challenging task for many ICAO member states
despite publishing of the ICAO’s Manual on the Implementation of ICAO
Language Proficiency Requirements (Abeyratne, 2012: 121). According to
the ICAO, member states had troubles implementing the LPRs due to the
lack of qualified personnel to evaluate the language skills and to the scarcity
of dependable language testing expertise and lack of the universal system
of aviation language test endorsement. The training and testing industry in
aviation English remained unregulated (ICAO Journal 2013: 64–65).
There are also other problems occurring with the application of the
LPRs in the member states and the case of Poland may serve as an example.
The obligation to prove the required level 4 of the English language (as
requested by the Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention) has been implemented
into the Polish law through the amendment of the Ministry of Infrastructure
Regulation on the aviation personnel licensing of 2009 and then included
into the new Regulation on the aviation personnel licensing of 2013 (Official
Journal 2013, item 1077). The Australian RELTA system was used for test-
ing and evaluation of the English language skills for pilots. The exam was
free of charge for the candidates. There were however series of situations
where the candidates who had failed the RELTA test would go to a specific
examination place in Germany, pass the exam there (a different one – for
which they had to pay but which also confirmed the level 4 requirement)
and then ask the Polish Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) for the recognition
of the language certificate. Such recognition is naturally allowed under Pol-
ish law (the 2008 Decree 5 of the President of the Civil Aviation Authority,

118
 English with Flying Colors...

§ 3 p. 4). It turned out, however, that the testing person in Germany did not
have the required qualification and was forging the documents. The problem
was quickly spotted and resolved by proper administrative actions toward
the pilots who had been tested by the unauthorized German instructor but
such situations only prove that even the candidates for pilots themselves do
not pay proper attention to the fact that fluent communication in English
is essential for the safety of the use of air (Kralewski, 2010).
In the 2010 Resolution the ICAO once again urged the states strug-
gling with the implementation to provide updated implementation plans
and directed the Council to monitor the status of implementation of LPRs
(Assembly Resolution A37–10).
To support member states in their work on the adoption of the language
standards in aviation, the ICAO has established and operates couple of
projects dedicated to the assistance.
In 2006, the first Rated Speech Sample Training Aid (RSSTA) was is-
sued under the auspices of the ICAO to provide real-life samples of the
communication between pilots and ATCs to improve the training programs.
The ICAO cooperates closely with the International Civil Aviation English
Association (ICAEA) and, as a result, the second edition of the speech sam-
ple project was issued in 2010 (samples and detailed description is available
on-line: http://cfapp.icao.int/rssta/).
In response to one of the fundamental problems in the implementation
of the LPRs, that is the problem of how to evaluate the skills and how
to make sure the proper rating systems are adopted (Seiler 2009: 45), the
ICAO decided to establish a mechanism to provide states with impartial
recommendations in the selection or development of aviation English lan-
guage licensing tests that meet ICAO criteria. As a result, in October 2011,
ICAO announced the introduction of the Aviation English Language Test
Service (AELTS) to assess language tests in order to help its member states
assess more accurately the speaking and listening ability in English of pilots
and air traffic controllers (ICAO Journal 2013: 56).
The latest attempt addressing the language issues was undertaken dur-
ing the 38th Session of the ICAO Assembly (in October 2013) and resulted
in adoption of another Resolution – A38/8 which superseded the previous
one. The Assembly repeated the urge to use the ICAO standardized phrase-
ology in all situations for which it has been specified, provided for further
support to members states which still encounter considerable difficulties in
implementing the language proficiency requirements including the establish-
ment of language training and testing capabilities. In addition, it encouraged
member states to make use of the ICAO Aviation English Language Test

119
Izabela Kraśnicka

Service (AELTS) to verify language testing instruments and to make use

of the ICAO Language Proficiency Requirements – Rated Speech Samples
training aid.
The ICAO developed a special Flight Safety Information Exchange web-
site “to provide the aviation community with access to safety related infor-
mation” (http://cfapp.icao.int/fsix/index.cfm). It provides information on
the compliance with the SARPs, including the information on the imple-
mentation of the Language Proficiency Requirements. The available map
with status of compliance with LPRs (based on the information voluntar-
ily submitted by the member states) currently shows that the full process
of implementation has been notified to the ICAO by the United States
and Canada in North America, by Brazil and Argentina in South America,
twelve countries from Africa, most of the European states and only a few
in Asia.
The ICAO’s attempt to standardize the use of English in air communi-
cation is not an easy task and it would be hard to call it a very successful
attempt so far. Worldwide acceptance and implementation of any standards
brings variety of challenges and obstacles, especially that failure to imple-
ment the proposed standards is not sanctioned in any way.
The situation looks very different under circumstances of other organi-
zations aiming at strengthening the civil safety and security on a narrower
geographical level and with use of stronger legal instruments. The Euro-
pean Union (EU) may serve as an excellent example. Based on the Rome
Treaty provisions, the rules concerning transport within the EU may be
extended to the air transport based on the legislative acts of the European
Parliament and the Council (art. 100 of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union). As further provided in the Treaty, the secondary laws
passed by the European institutions in forms of inter alia regulations and
directives provide binding, direct and automatically applicable sources of
law for all the twenty eight member states of the European Union (art. 288
of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). The Union is
then empowered with much stronger instruments necessary to provide for
uniform implementation of any standards which becomes part of the EU law
provisions.
In 2002 the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) was established
as the European Union Authority for aviation safety (currently Regula-
tion (EU) 216/2008). Based on the 2008 Regulation, the EASA is responsi-
ble for the preparation of technical opinions forming basis for the legislative
proposals by the Commission, as well as for carrying out standardization
inspections to monitor the application of relevant aviation legislation in the

120
 English with Flying Colors...

EU member states. EASA is also fully responsible for all types of certifica-
tions necessary for the air transportation within the EU.
While dealing with the discussed English language problems, not only
has the EU adopted the ICAO standards for civil aviation but it went fur-
ther. Based on the 2006 Directive on a Community air traffic controller
licence (Directive 2006/23/EC), by 2010 all ATCs within the EU had to
confirm their English language proficiency on the ICAO lever 4. Language
proficiency on “at least an operational level of language proficiency both
in the use of phraseologies and plain language” for all pilots is required
by the 2011 Regulation on laying down technical requirements and admin-
istrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew (Commission Regula-
tion (EU) 1178/2011).
The implementation of the directives within the twenty eight member
states of the EU has proved to be more effective, but it also faces some prac-
tical problems resulting in dynamic amendments of the original laws regulat-
ing the licensing (the 2011 Commission Regulation has been amended four
times, with latest amendment in 2015 by Regulation (EU) 2015/445). Still,
because of the specificity of the relations between the EU and its member
states and the binding force of the EU laws, the implementation of the ICAO
language standards within the EU has been achieved much more success-
fully and uniformly throughout the Union. The European Commission has
dedicated generous funds to the development of aviation English projects
that would help strengthening of the civil aviation within the European
Union, including, for example, designing a multimedia course for those who
plan to work in European airports as the ground staff (Cutting, 2011: 3–4).

5. Conclusions

Despite undeniable arguments that high proficiency of standardized En-

glish is necessary for the safety of aviation, the competences of the Interna-
tional Civil Aviation Organization are not powerful enough to provide for
the uniform use of the proposed language standards. Since the ICAO may
only encourage its member states to adopt the LPRs, with no binding force
of its resolutions, the process is long and not satisfying enough. Much more
effective implementation has been achieved within the European Union,
due to the powers of the Union’s institution to pass law binding its member
states. Member states of the ICAO may ignore or partly respect the stan-
dards issued by the Organization with no negative consequences involved,
while member states of the Union in such situations are faced with regular

121
Izabela Kraśnicka

responsibility including the action against them in the Court of Justice and
possible penalty and lump sum payments as a sanction for the failure to
fulfill the obligations included in the Treaty (art. 259 and 260 of the Treaty
on the Functioning of the European Union).

REFERENCES

Abeyratne R.I.R. (2012). Air Navigation Law. Heidelberg Dordrecht London New
York: Springer.
Breul C. (2013). Language in aviation: The relevance of linguistics and relevance
theory, LSP Journal, 4, 1, 71–86.
Cookson S. (2009). Zagreb and Tenerife: Airline Accidents Involving Linguistic
Factors, Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 3, 22.1–22.14.
Cutting J. (2012). English for airport ground staff, English for Specific Pur-
poses, 31, 3–13.
Dempsey P.S. (1992). The State of the Airline, Airport and Aviation Industries,
Transportation Law Journal, 21, 1,129–214.
Fitzgerald G.F. (1970). The Development of the Authentic Trilingual Text of the
Convention on International Civil Aviation, The American Journal of Inter-
national Law, 64, 2, 364–371.
Garzone G., Catino M., Gobo G., Bait M., Catenaccio P., Degano Ch., Rozzi S.
(2010). Towards and Integrated Model for Understanding of Communica-
tion Failures in Aviation Accidents: Tenuous Identities under Pressure. In
G. Garzone, J. Archibald (Eds.), Discourse, Identities and Roles in Special-
ized Communication (pp. 209–244). Bern: Peter Lang.
Jones R.K. (2003). Miscommunication between pilots and air traffic control, Lan-
guage Problems & Language Planning, 27, 3, 233–248.
Knoch U. (2014). Using subject specialists to validate an ESP rating scale: The
case of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) rating scale,
English for Specific Purposes, 33, 77–86.
Kralewski P. (2010). ICAO Level 4 – prawdy i mity o egzaminach z języka ang-
ielskiego w ULC. Wywiad z Katarzyną Krasnodębską – Rzecznikiem Pol-
skiego Urzędu Lotnictwa Cywilnego (ICAO Level 4 – truths and myths about
the English exam at PCAA. Interview with Katarzyna Krasnodębska – the
Spokeswoman for the Polish Civil Aviation Authority) 18.11.2010, Retrieved
August 28, 2015 from: http://dlapilota.pl/wiadomosci/dlapilota/icao-level-
4-prawdy-i-mity-o-egzaminach-z-jezyka-angielskiego-w-ulc.
Moder C.L. (2014). Aviation English. In B. Paltridge, S. Starfield, The handbook
of English for Specific Purposes (pp. 227–242). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Moder C.L and Halleck G.B. (2009). Planes, politics and oral proficiency. Testing
international air traffic controllers. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics,
32, 3, 25.1–25.16.

122
 English with Flying Colors...

Nevile M. (2004). Beyond the Black Box: Talk-In-Interaction in the Airline Cock-
pit (Directions in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis). Aldershot:
Ashgate Pub Ltd.
Seiler W. (2009). English as a lingua franca in aviation, English Today, 25, 2, 43–48.
Shawcross P. Social, safety and economic impacts of global language testing in avi-
ation, Aviation English Academy. Retrived September 1, 2015 from https://
aviationenglishacademy.com.au/resources/social-safety-and-economic-impa
cts-of-global-language-testing-in-aviation/
Tajima A. (2004). Fatal miscommunication: English in aviation safety, World En-
glishes, 23, 3, 451–470.
Wagner W. J. (1970). International Air Transportation as Affected by State
Sovereignty. Bruxelles: Etablissements Emile Bruylant.
Weber L. (2007). International Civil Aviation Organization. Introduction, Alphen
aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.

Legal sources:

The ICAO legal sources (available through the ICAO website: www.icao.int):
Convention on International Civil Aviation, ICAO Doc 7300
ICAO Assembly Resolution A32–16, Proficiency in the English language for ra-
diotelephony communications (2003)
ICAO Assembly Resolution A36–11, Proficiency in the English language used for
radiotelephony communications (2007)
ICAO Assembly Resolution A37–10, Proficiency in the English language used for
radiotelephony communications (2010)
ICAO Assembly Resolution A38/8 – Proficiency in the English language used for
radiotelephony communications (2013)
Annex 1 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Personnel Licensing,
Eleventh Edition, ICAO, July 2011
Annex 10 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Aeronautical Telecom-
munications, Vol. 2. Communication Procedures including those with PANS
status
Manual on the Implementation of ICAO Language Proficiency Requirements, ICAO
Doc 9835 AN/453 2004
ICAO Journal, Issue 5 (2013)

The EU legal sources:

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012
Directive 2006/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April
2006 on a Community air traffic controller licence, OJ L 114, 27.4.2006

123
Izabela Kraśnicka

Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of

20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and estab-
lishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive
91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC,
OJ L 79, 19.3.2008
Commission Regulation (EU) 1178/2011 laying down technical requirements and
administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Reg-
ulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council,
OJ L 311, 25.11.2011
Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/445 of 17 March 2015 amending Regulation
(EU) No 1178/2011 as regards technical requirements and administrative
procedures related to civil aviation aircrew, OJ L 74, 18.3.2015

The Polish legal sources:

Rozporządzenie Ministra Transportu, Budownictwa i Gospodarki Morskiej z dnia
2 września 2013 r. w sprawie licencjonowania personelu lotniczego (Dz. U.
2013 poz. 1077) [Regulation of the Minister of Transportation, Construction
and Maritime Economy on the aviation personnel licensing of 2013 (Official
Journal of the Republic of Poland 2013, item 1077)]
Zarządzenie nr 5 Prezesa Urzędu Lotnictwa Cywilnego z dnia 21 stycznia 2008 roku
w sprawie wprowadzenia do stosowania Procedury obiegu dokumentów przy
wydawaniu lub odmowie wydania licencji z uprawnieniem do przeprowadza-
nia korespondencji radiotelefonicznej w języku angielskim, wpisania lub
odmowy wpisania uprawnienia do przeprowadzania korespondencji radiotele-
fonicznej w języku angielskim albo potwierdzenia lub odmowy potwierdzenia
biegłości języka angielskiego na poziomie wymaganym przez Załącznik nr 1
do Konwencji o międzynarodowym lotnictwie cywilnym (Dziennik Urzędowy
Urzędu Lotnictwa Cywilnego z dnia 16 maja 2008 r., nr 5, poz. 45) [Decree
nr 5 of the President of the Civil Aviation Authority of January 21, 2008 on
the application of the Procedure for documents’ circulation for the issuing or
rejection of issuing of the license with entitlement to carry out radiophonic
communication in English, on noting or rejection of noting the entitlement to
carry radiophonic communication in English or on confirmation or rejection
of confirmation of the English language fluency on the level required by the
Annex 1 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Official Journal
of the Civil Aviation Authority, May 16 2008, no 5, item 45)]

The U.S. legal sources:

Pilot-Controller Communication Errors: An Analysis of Aviation Safety Reporting
System (ASRS) Reports, US Department of Transportation, Federal Avia-
tion Administration, Final Report, August 1998

124