Communication and Human Factors Phenomena in Aviation Transmit Knowledge

  • Theodoros Katerinakis
Part of the Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management book series (ITKM)


Human communication use of silence and voice in flights and the input both provide in knowledge construction especially in unusual or emergency situations are the core of this book. In addition to voice, the book explores silence (personal, operational, institutional, and regulatory) and its impact towards accomplishing awareness for effective flight communication. Aviation interaction is purposeful, since pilots and controllers develop consciousness of where is the one and where is the other and in what status only when they exchange messages and describe their actions. The voice channel between pilot and controller may contain periods of operating in silence, but voice should restart to have a meaningful exchange of information (with no uncertainty) between their physically distant spaces. Empirical data from this book’s aviation informants include a whole range of instances: from verbal phraseology to truncated messages of hesitation, interrupted messages, and dialogic marking of checklists. So, communication constructs even explicit factual knowledge that must be applied (first perceived) by all participants following SOPs. Human factors analysis is focusing more on conditions and evaluations, whereas in cockpit operation environment, the issue seems to be more on how pilot, crew, and ATC expertise are to be exercised and thus implemented in a dynamic decision-making process.

Furthermore, it covers tacit knowledge that is not codified but in participant’s brains sometimes intuitive, sometimes judgmental, and context-sensitive. In any case, the only way to articulate the application of both knowledge types is by recruiting aviation informants, here anonymized using airport names as aliases explained in this chapter.


Cockpit ATC Situation awareness Human factors Grounded theory SOPs Unit of information 


  1. Atzori, L., Iera, A., & Morabito, G. (2010). The internet of things: A survey. Computer Networks, 54(15), 2787–2805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barshi, I. (1997). The effects of linguistic properties and message length on misunderstandings in aviation communication. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation in Linguistics, University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
  3. Barshi, I. (1998). The effects of mental representation on performance in a navigation task. Ph.D. dissertation in Cognitive Psychology, University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
  4. Bonini, D. (2005). A Model of Trust in the work of Air Traffic Controller. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre (EEC), EU, Brussels.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, S. C., Stevens, R. A., Troiano, P. F., & Schneider, M. K. (2002). Exploring complex phenomena: Grounded theory in student affairs research. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 173–183.Google Scholar
  6. Cookson, S. (2009). Zagreb and Tenerife: Airline accidents involving linguistic factors. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 32(3), 22.1–22.14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cushing, S. (1988). Language and communication-related problems of aviation safety. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 296595, FL 017 504.).Google Scholar
  8. Cushing, S. (1994). Fatal words: communication clashes and aircraft crashes. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cushing, S. (1995). Pilot-air traffic control communications: It’s not (only) what you say, it’s how you say it. Flight Safety Digest, 14(7), 1–10.Google Scholar
  10. Cushing, S. (1997). Language differences in aviation communication: Problems and solutions. In P. Quigley & P. McElwain (Eds.), Proceedings of the Aviation Communication: A Multi-Cultural Forum.Google Scholar
  11. Dismukes, R. K., Berman, B. A., & Loukopoulos, L. D. (2007). The limits of expertise: Rethinking pilot error and the causes of airline accidents. London: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. EATM (European Air Traffic Management). (2007). The human factors case: Guidance for human factors integration. Eurocontrol Paper Online. Available Accessed 3 Nov 2011.
  13. Ericsson, K. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, R. R. Hoffman, & R. R. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 685–706). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. FBEA (Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses pour la sécurité de l’aviation civile 2012). (2012). Final Report on the accident on 1st June 2009 to the Airbus A330-203 registered F-GZCP operated by Air France flight AF 447 Rio de Janeiro - Paris. BEA (French Civil Aviation Safety Investigation Authority). Paris, France.Google Scholar
  15. Garton, L., Haythornthwaite, C., & Wellman, B. (1997, June). Studying online social networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(1). [Reprinted in S. Jones (Ed.) (1999). Doing Internet Research (pp. 75–105). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.].
  16. Heath, C., & Paul, L. (1991). Work, interaction and technology: Empirical studies of social ergonomics (Technical Report EPC-1991-108). Taylor & Francis Group Ltd. Reprinted with kind permission, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Ergonomics, July 1991, Paris, France, Taylor & Francis Group Ltd., London.Google Scholar
  17. Helmreich, R. L. (1997). Managing human error in aviation. Scientific American, 276, 62–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Helmreich, R. L., & Foushee, H. C. (1993). Why crew resource management? Empirical and theoretical bases of human factors training in aviation. In E. Wiener, B. Kanki, & R. Helmreich (Eds.), Cockpit Resource Management (pp. 3–45). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. Helmreich, R. L., Merritt, A. C., & Wilhelm, J. A. (1999). The evolution of crew resource management training in commercial aviation. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9(1), 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hopkin, V. D. (1995). Human factor in air traffic control. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  21. Howard, J. W., III. (2008). ‘Tower, am I cleared to land?’: Problematic communication in aviation discourse. Human Communication Research, 34(3), 370–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. International Ergonomics Society. (2000). What is ergonomics the definitions ‘The discipline of ergnomics’. Online HTTP: Available at Accessed 6 Oct 2011.
  23. Jones, R. K. (2003). Miscommunication between pilots and air traffic control, 2003. Language Problems and Language Planning, 27(3), 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kanki, B. G., & Palmer, M. T. (1993). Communication and crew, resource management. In E. Wiener, B. Kanki, & R. Helmreich (Eds.), Cockpit resource management (pp. 99–136). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Krifka, M., Martens, S., & Schwarz, F. (2003). Group interaction in the cockpit: Some linguistic factors. In R. Dietrich (Ed.), Communication in high risk environments (pp. 75–101). Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
  26. Krivonos, P. D. (2007). Communication in aviation safety: Lessons learned and lessons required, regional seminar of the Australia and New Zealand Societies of Air Safety Investigators 9–10 June 2007.Google Scholar
  27. Lee, J. D. & See, K. A. (2004, Spring). Trust in Automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leveson, N., de Villepin, M., Srinivasan, J., Daouk Neogi, N., Bachelder, E., Bellingham, J., Pilon, N., & Flynn, G. (2002). A safety and human-centered approach to developing new air traffic management tools. In Proceedings of the 4th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management Seminar, 3–7th December 2001, Santa Fe, USA.Google Scholar
  29. Lewicka, M. (1998). Confirmation Bias: Cognitive error or adaptive strategy of action control? In M. Kofta, G. Weary, & G. Sedek (Eds.), Personal control in action: Cognitive and motivational mechanisms (pp. 233–255). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lorenz, K. (1973). ‘Nobel lecture video: Analogy as a source of knowledge’. December 12, 1973. Online. Available : (Accessed November 3, 2011).
  31. Loukopoulos, L. D., Dismukes, R. K., & Barshi, I. (2001). Cockpit interruptions and distractions: A line observation study. In R. Jensen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Loukopoulos, L. D., Dismukes, R. K., & Barshi, I. (2003). Concurrent task demands in the cockpit: Challenges and vulnerabilities in routine flight operations. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 737–742). Dayton: The Wright State University.Google Scholar
  33. Loukopoulos, L. D., Dismukes, R. K., & Barshi, I. (2009). The multitasking myth: Handling complexity in real-world operations. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  34. Lundin, R. (1997). Human factors and interactive communication technologies. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 26(2), 61–74.Google Scholar
  35. MacPherson, M. (1998). The black box: All new cockpit voice recorder accounts of in-flight accidents. New York: William Morrow & Company.Google Scholar
  36. Martin, J. R. (1984). Language Register and Genre. In F. Christie (Ed.), Language studies: Children’s writing: Reader (pp. 21–29). Geelong: Vic Deakin University press Reprinted with revisions in A. Burns and C. Coffin (eds), (2001). Analyzing english in a global context. London: Routledge, pp. 149–66.Google Scholar
  37. Meister, D. (1982, June). The role of human factors in system development. Applied Ergonomics, 13(2), 119–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meister, D. (2003). Conceptual foundations of human factors measurement. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  40. Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. (2003). Speaking up, remaining silent: The dynamics of voice and silence in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1353–1358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Murphy, M. (1980). Review of aircraft accidents. In G. E. Cooper, M. D. White, & J. K. Lauber (Eds.), Resource Management on the Flight deck: Proceedings of a NASA/Industry Workshop (NASA CP-2120). Moffett Field: NASA-Ames Research Centre.Google Scholar
  43. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). (1994). Safety study. A review of flight crew-involved major accidents of U.S. air carriers, 1878 through 1990. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service.Google Scholar
  44. Nevile, M., & Rendle-Short, J. (2007). Language as action. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics (special thematic issue Language as Action: Australian Studies in Conversation Analysis, edited by Rendle-Short, Johanna; Nevile, Maurice), 30(3), 30.1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board). (1997). Marine accident report – Grounding of the Panamanian passenger ship Royal Majesty on Rose and Crown Shoal near Nantucket, Massachusetts, June 10, 1995 (NTSB/MAR97/01). Washington, DC: NTSB.Google Scholar
  46. Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Popper, S., Bankes, S., Callaway, R., & De Laurentis, D. (2004, July 21–22). System-of-Systems Symposium: Report on a Summer Conversation. Arlington: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.Google Scholar
  48. Rubenbauer, F. (2009). Linguistics and flight safety: Aspects of oral English communication in aviation. Aachen, Germany: Shaker.Google Scholar
  49. Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 71–93). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Seidlhofer, B. (2005). English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal, 59(4), 339–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Skybrary. (2013). Sterile Flight Deck (HF- AO). Eurocontrol Electronic Repository/Human Factors/Flight Safety. Online. Available HTTP, Stored June 17, 2013. Accessed 11 June 2014.
  52. Sparaco, P. (1995). Airbus seeks to keep pilot, new technology in harmony. Aviation Week and Space Technology, 142, 62–63.Google Scholar
  53. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  54. Suchman, E. (1961, August). A conceptual analysis of the accident phenomenon. Social Problems, 8, 241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vigilant, L., & Williamson, J. (2003). To die, by mistake: Accidental deaths. In Handbook of death & dying (pp. 211–223). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vincenti, W. G. (1993). What engineers know and how they know it: Analytical studies from aeronautical history. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Walters, J., & Sumwalt, R. (2000). Aircraft accident analysis: Final reports. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.Google Scholar
  58. Watzlawick, P., & Beavin, J. (1967). Some formal aspects of communication. American Behavioral Scientist, 10, 4–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wellman, B. (1983). Network analysis: Some basic principles. Sociological Theory, 1, 155–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wellman, B. (Ed.). (1999). Networks in the Global Village: Life in contemporary communities networks in the Global Village. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  61. Wellman B. S., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., & Garton, L. (1994). The virtual reality of virtual organizations. Presented at American Sociological Association, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Theodoros Katerinakis
    • 1
  1. 1.Drexel On-Line CouncilDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations