Cognitive and Linguistic Challenges in Controller–Pilot Communication

Abstract

Controller–pilot communication is a key safety barrier in flight operations, yet miscommunication can still occur in some cases. The aim of the study was to examine how a miscommunication can emerge across interactional turns and persist despite repeated attempts at clarification, showing how language-related factors and human factors operate together under operational constraints. An instrumental case study design was adopted using a publicly available air–ground communication recording. The analysis indicates that the breakdown was shaped by interacting mechanisms. Phonological interference supported lexical misidentification, and a low-frequency word was mapped onto a more frequent operational item, illustrating how speech intelligibility, lexical expectations, and attention interact in communication. Schema-driven perception then guided subsequent listening and sustained an elevated risk interpretation through expectation and confirmation bias. At the same time, mitigation in plain language produced mixed pragmatic signals because expedited handling was requested while emergency status was avoided, complicating risk calibration and repair. Narrative explanations and idiomatic wording further reduced conciseness and limited repair efficiency. The case shows how shared situational awareness can drift when language choices and cognitive processes do not align.

Keywords

• Air traffic controller
• aviation english
• controller--pilot communication
• human factors
• pilot

Kontrolör–Pilot İletişiminde Bilişsel ve Dilsel Zorluklar

Abstract

Kontrolör-pilot iletişimi uçuş operasyonlarında temel bir emniyet bariyeri oluşturmasına rağmen bazı durumlarda iletişim kopuklukları yine de ortaya çıkabilmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı dilsel unsurların ve insan faktörlerinin operasyonel kısıtlamalar altında nasıl etkileşime girdiğini ortaya koyarak bir iletişim kopukluğunun karşılıklı konuşma boyunca nasıl geliştiğini ve düzeltme girişimlerine rağmen varlığını nasıl sürdürdüğünü incelemektir. Çalışmada açık erişimli bir hava-yer iletişim kaydının kullanıldığı araçsal bir örnek olay incelemesi tasarımı benimsenmiştir. Analizler yaşanan kopukluğun birbiriyle etkileşen mekanizmalarca şekillendirildiğini göstermektedir. Fonolojik girişimin sözcüksel yanlış tanımlamayı desteklediği ve kullanım sıklığı düşük bir kelimenin daha sık kullanılan operasyonel bir terimle eşleştirildiği görülmüştür. Bu durum konuşma anlaşılırlığı, sözcük beklentileri ve dikkatin iletişim sırasında nasıl bir etkileşim içinde olduğunu örneklemektedir. Şema temelli algı müteakip dinleme sürecini yönlendirmiş, beklenti ve doğrulama yanlılığı yoluyla algılanan risk düzeyinin yüksek kalmasına neden olmuştur. Aynı zamanda kullanılan dildeki dolaylı ifadeler karmaşık pragmatik mesajlar üretmiştir. Acil durum statüsünden kaçınılırken işlemlerin hızlandırılması talep edilmiş, bu da risk kalibrasyonunu ve iletişim onarımını zorlaştırmıştır. Anlatısal açıklamalar ve deyimsel ifadeler anlatımın özlüğünü daha da azaltmış ve düzeltme sürecinin etkinliğini sınırlamıştır. Bu vaka dilsel seçimler ile bilişsel süreçlerin örtüşmediği durumlarda paylaşılan durumsal farkındalığın nasıl sapmaya uğrayabileceğini göstermektedir.

Keywords

• Hava trafik kontrolörü
• havacılık ingilizcesi
• kontrolör-pilot iletişimi
• insan faktörleri
• pilot

References

1. Aiguo, W. (2008). Reassessing the position of Aviation English: From a special language to English for Specific Purposes. Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para–Fines Específicos (AELFE), 15, 151-164. google scholar
2. Airlive. (2025). TAP Pilots requested quick landing amid misunderstanding with French Air Traffic Control about ‘toilets not operational’. https://airlive.net/aeronautics/2025/07/11/when-french-atc-issues-an-alert-after-mistaking-lavatory-problem-for-pilot-emergency/?srsltid=AfmBOoo3CKfCFondWEvhSNr-RIg9g7GtVqpBoSjdSyRkQ_yfRQXrzkeH (Accessed on 01 Jan 2026). google scholar
3. Alderson, J. C. (2009). Air safety, language assessment policy, and policy implementation: The case of aviation English. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 168-187. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190509090138 google scholar
4. ANSV. (2004). Final report. Accident involved aircraft Boeing MD-87, registration SE-DMA and Cessna 525-A, registration D-IEVX Milano Linate airport October 8, 2001. Agenzia nazionale per la sicurezza del volo. Rome, Italy. https://ansv.it/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/SE-DMA-D-IEVX-en.pdf (Accessed on 01 Jan 2026). google scholar
5. Barbieri, B. (2014). Aviation English: History and pedagogy. The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 2(4), 615–623. google scholar
6. Barshi, I. (1997). Effects of linguistic properties and message length on misunderstanding in aviation communication (Doctoral dissertation). University of Colorado. google scholar
7. Barshi, I., & Farris, C. (2016). Misunderstandings in ATC communication: Language, cognition, and experimental methodology. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315595641 google scholar
8. Baugh, B. S., & Stolzer, A. J. (2018). Language-Related Communications Challenges in General Aviation Operations and Pilot Training. International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace, 5(4), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2018.1271 google scholar

9. Besnard, D., Greathead, D., & Baxter, G. (2004). When mental models go wrong: co-occurrences in dynamic, critical systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 60(1), 117-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2003.09.001 google scholar
10. Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS quarterly, 25(3). 351-370. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250921 google scholar
11. Bluewin. (2025). Serious misunderstanding- Toilets? Pilots? Radio chaos triggers emergency alarm at the airport https://www.bluewin.ch/en/entertainment/toilets-pilots-radio-chaos-triggers-emergency-alarm-at-the-airport-2811535.html#:~:text=None%20of%20the%20on%2Dboard,the%20radio%20traffic%20went%20viral (Accessed on 01 Jan 2026). google scholar
12. Boschen, A. C., & Jones, R. K. (2004). Aviation language problem: Improving pilot-controller communication. In International Professional Communication Conference, 2004. IPCC 2004. Proceedings. (pp. 291-299). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2004.1375313 google scholar
13. Cardosi, K. M., Falzarano, P., & Han, S. (1998). Pilot–controller communication errors: An analysis of Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA356655.pdf (Accessed on 01 Jan 2026). google scholar
14. Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1987). Collaborating on contributions to conversations. Language and cognitive processes, 2(1), 19-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690968708406350 google scholar
15. Cookson, S. (2009). Zagreb and Tenerife: Airline accidents involving linguistic factors. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 32(3), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.32.3.02coo google scholar
16. Corradini, P., & Cacciari, C. (2002). The effect of workload and workshift on air traffic control: A taxonomy of communicative problems. Cognition, Technology & Work, 4 (4), 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s101110200021 google scholar
17. Cushing, S. (1994). Fatal Words: Communication Clashes and Aircraft Crashes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. google scholar
18. Estival, D., & Farris, C. (2016). Aviation English as a lingua franca. In D. Estival, C. Farris, & B. Molesworth (Eds.), Aviation English: A lingua franca for pilots and air traffic controllers (pp. 1–21). Routledge. google scholar
19. European Union Aviation Safety Agency. (2023). Aviation language – A shared responsibility. EASA Community Network. https://www.easa.europa.eu/community/topics/aviation-language-shared-responsibility (Accessed on 01 Jan 2026). google scholar
20. Flach, J. M. (1995). Situation awareness: Proceed with caution. Human factors, 37(1), 149-157. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049480 google scholar
21. Geacăr, C. M. (2010). Reducing pilot/ATC communication errors using voice recognition. In Proceedings of the 27th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS) (pp. 1–7). https://www.icas.org/icas_archive/ICAS2010/PAPERS/441.PDF (Accessed on 01 Jan 2026). google scholar
22. Gibson, W. H., Megaw, E. D., Young, M. S., & Lowe, E. (2006). A taxonomy of human communication errors and application to railway track maintenance. Cognition, Technology & Work, 8(1), 57-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-005-0020-x google scholar
23. Graddol, D. (2006). Why Global English may Mean the End of “English as a Foreign Language”. United Kingdom: British Council. google scholar
24. Grayson, R. L., & Billings, C. E. (1981). Information transfer between air traffic control and aircraft: Communication problems in flight operations. In C. E. Billings & E. S. Cheaney (Eds.), Information transfer problems in the aviation system (NASA Technical Paper 1875, pp. 47–61). NASA Ames Research Center. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19810022620/downloads/19810022620.pdf (Accessed on 01 Jan 2026). google scholar
25. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. google scholar
26. Grosz, B. J., & Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational linguistics, 12(3), 175-204. google scholar
27. Hazrati, A. (2015). Intercultural communication and discourse analysis: The case of Aviation English. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 244–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.035 google scholar
28. Helmreich, R. L. (1994). Anatomy of a system accident: The crash of Avianca Flight 052. The international journal of aviation psychology, 4(3), 265-284. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0403_4 google scholar
29. Helmreich, R. L. (2000). Culture and error in space: Implications from analog environments. Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine, 71(9 Suppl), A133-A139. google scholar
30. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. google scholar
31. Howard, J. W. (2008). “Tower, am I cleared to land?”: Problematic communication in aviation discourse. Human Communication Research, 34(3), 370–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00325.x google scholar
32. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). (2010). Doc 9835- AN/453- Manual on the Implementation of ICAO Language Proficiency Requirements, Second Edition. google scholar
33. Kanki, B. G., & Palmer, M. T. (1993). Communication and crew resource management. In E. L. Wiener, B. G. Kanki, & R. L. Helmreich (Eds.), Cockpit Resource Management (pp. 99–136). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. google scholar
34. Kharoufah, H., Murray, J., Baxter, G., & Wild, G. (2018). A review of human factors causations in commercial air transport accidents and incidents: From to 2000–2016. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 99, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2018.03.002 google scholar
35. Kim, H., & Billington, R. (2016). Pronunciation and comprehension in English as a lingua franca communication: Effect of L1 influence in international aviation communication. Applied Linguistics, 39(2), 135–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv075 google scholar
36. Kraśnicka, I. (2016). English with flying colors: The aviation English and the International Civil Aviation Organization. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 45(58), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1515/slgr-2016-0019 google scholar
37. Lin, C. J., Lin, P. H., Chen, H. J., Hsieh, M. C., Yu, H. C., Wang, E. M. Y., & Ho, H. L. (2012). Effects of controller-pilot communication medium, flight phase and the role in the cockpit on pilots’ workload and situation awareness. Safety science, 50(9), 1722-1731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.04.007 google scholar
38. Mathews, E., Carson, J., Brickhouse, A., & Valdes, E. (2023). Language as a factor in aviation accidents and serious incidents: A handbook for accident investigators (3rd ed.). Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. google scholar
39. Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (2010). Instrumental case study. Encyclopedia of case study research, 1, 474-475. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412957397.n175 google scholar
40. Molesworth, B. R. C., & Estival, D. (2015). Miscommunication in general aviation: The influence of external factors on communication errors. Safety Science, 73, 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.11.004 google scholar
41. Morrow, D., Lee, A., & Rodvold, M. (1993). Analysis of problems in routine controller-pilot communication. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(4), 285-302. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0304_3 google scholar
42. Morrow, D., Rodvold, M., & Lee, A. (1994). Nonroutine transactions in controller‐pilot communication. Discourse processes, 17(2), 235-258. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539409544868 google scholar
43. Munir, A., Aved, A., & Blasch, E. (2022). Situational awareness: techniques, challenges, and prospects. AI, 3(1), 55-77. https://doi.org/10.3390/ai3010005 google scholar
44. Nadri, C., Regalado, J., Ferris, T., & Zahabi, M. (2024). Cognitive biases in commercial aviation: Empirical review of accident reports. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 68(1), 56–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/10711813241262980 google scholar
45. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). (1973). Aircraft Accident Report: Eastern Air Lines, Inc., L-1011, N310EA, Miami, Florida, December 29, 1972 (NTSB-AAR-73–14). Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR7314.pdf (Accessed on 01 Jan 2026). google scholar
46. Orasanu, J., Fischer, U., & Davison, J. (1997). Cross-cultural barriers to effective communication in aviation. Cross-cultural work groups, 134-160. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20020041004 (Accessed on 01 Jan 2026). google scholar
47. Pinet, M. (2012). Accent effects on the recognition of speech in noise: Second-language proficiency, accent similarity and adaptation (Doctoral dissertation), UCL (University College London). https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1370645/1/Thesis_MPinet_C.pdf (Accessed on 01 Jan 2026). google scholar
48. Prinzo, O. V., Hendrix, A. M., & Hendrix, R. (2008). Pilot English language proficiency and the prevalence of communication problems at five US air route traffic control centers (No. DOT/FAA/AM-08/21). United States. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration. Office of Aviation. Civil Aerospace Medical Institute. https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oamtechreports/200821.pdf (Accessed on 01 Jan 2026). google scholar
49. Rakas, J., & Yin, H. (2005). Analysis and modeling of controller-pilot miscommunication messages. In AIAA 5th ATIO and16th Lighter-Than-Air Sys Tech. and Balloon Systems Conferences (p. 7430). https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2005-7430 google scholar
50. Ripley, R. F., & Finch, J. L. (2004). The efficacy of standard aviation English. In M. A. Turney (Ed.), Tapping diverse talent in aviation: Culture, gender, and diversity (pp. 99-103). Routledge. google scholar
51. Skaltsas, G., Rakas, J., & Karlaftis, M. G. (2013). An analysis of air traffic controller-pilot miscommunication in the NextGen environment. Journal of Air Transport Management, 27, 46-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2012.11.010 google scholar
52. Strauch, B. (1997). Automation and decision making—Lessons from the Cali accident. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 195-199). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications. google scholar
53. Sullivan, P., & Girginer, H. (2002). The use of discourse analysis to enhance ESP teacher knowledge: An example using aviation English. English for specific purposes, 21(4), 397-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00042-4 google scholar
54. Tajima, A. (2004). Fatal miscommunication: English in aviation safety. World Englishes, 23(3), 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0883-2919.2004.00368.x google scholar
55. Tiewtrakul, T., & Fletcher, S. R. (2010). The challenge of regional accents for aviation English language proficiency standards: A study of difficulties in understanding in air traffic control–pilot communications. Ergonomics, 53(2), 229-239. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130903470033 google scholar
56. Tuncal, A. (2025). Investigating the aviation English needs of ab-initio air traffic controllers. Havacılık Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(2), 195–215.https://doi.org/10.51785/jar.1690610 google scholar
57. Watson, A. R., Ntuen, C., & Park, E. (1996). Effects of task difficulty on pilot workload. Computers & industrial engineering, 31(1-2), 487-490. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-8352(96)00181-7 google scholar
58. Williams, J. B., Popp, D., Kobak, K. A., & Detke, M. J. (2012). P-640-The power of expectation bias. European Psychiatry, 27(S1), 1-1. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-9338(12)74807-1 google scholar
59. Woods, S. (2020). FAA safety briefing—July August 2020: Just a bit biased. FAA.gov. https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-01/JulAug2020.pdf (Accessed on 01 Jan 2026). google scholar
60. Yan, R. (2013). Assessing the English Language Proficiency of International Aviation Staff. In A.J. Kunnan (Ed.), The Companion to Language Assessment (pp. 484-496). American Cancer Society, New York. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118411360.wbcla050 google scholar
61. Yang, H. H., Chang, Y. H., & Chou, Y. H. (2023). Subjective measures of communication errors between pilots and air traffic controllers. Journal of Air Transport Management, 112, 102461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2023.102461 google scholar