aviation english - palestra fumec

AVIATION AVIATION ENGLISHENGLISH

BY PETTER ZUGAIB

Aviation English Teacher

FUMEC 02/03/2011

PETTER ZUGAIB

- Professor de Inglês - Cambridge Certificate - IELTS/TOEIC 2010. - Pós graduando em Ensino de Línguas Mediado por Computador – UFMG/ 2010/2011. - Especialista em Inglês para Aviação – Certificado Emery-Roberts (UK) - Log de Aulas: Mais de 6.500h de Ensino para Pilotos de linha aérea, executiva e privado. - Já tendo prestado consultoria para pilotos das seguintes empresas: Azul Linhas Aéras, Avianca, GOL, Webjet, TAM, VarigLog, TRIP, Abaeté TaxiAéreo, entre outras. - Diretor Executivo da Empresa PILOTS FLUENCY.- Proprietário do site: http://www.inglesparaaviacao.com.br- Filiado à ICAEA - INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ENGLISH ASSOCIATION - www.icaea.pansa.pl- Filiado ao Fórum Internacional de Professores de Inglês para Aviação – FLIGHT ENGLISH FORUM. - http://www.aviation-esl.com/- Moderador da comunidade de inglês para aviação para pilotos brasileiros: http://pilotsfluency.ning.com

“Spoken is not yet heard;

Heard is not yet understood;

Understood is not yet agreed;

Agreed is not yet applied;

And applied is not yet always applied.”

Konrad LorenzKonrad Lorenz (famous Austrian ethologist and Nobel Prize – winner.)


Qual a diferença entre essas frases?

a) Bring me the file.

b) Could you bring me the file?

c) Would you hand me that?

d) Pass that here.

e) Where is the file?

f) How about that file?

Lista de Acidentes Lista de Acidentes Envolvendo Língua InglesaEnvolvendo Língua Inglesa

1960, New York. 134 deaths. No actual 1960, New York. 134 deaths. No actual 'hand-off' from one control facility to the 'hand-off' from one control facility to the other.other.

1966, French Alps. 117 deaths. A 1966, French Alps. 117 deaths. A controller's collision warning was controller's collision warning was misunderstood as an acknowledgement of misunderstood as an acknowledgement of a previous transmission.a previous transmission.

1967, France. 88 deaths. 1967, France. 88 deaths. Misunderstandings between the crew and Misunderstandings between the crew and the controller, attributed to language the controller, attributed to language difficulties and, in particular, the lack of difficulties and, in particular, the lack of standard phraseology used.standard phraseology used.

1967, England. 72 deaths. An advisory 1967, England. 72 deaths. An advisory accepted as an instruction and referential accepted as an instruction and referential problems in an ensuing message.problems in an ensuing message.

1969, Vietnam. 75 deaths. Pilot 1969, Vietnam. 75 deaths. Pilot misconstrued or, on account of overlapping misconstrued or, on account of overlapping communications, did not completely hear communications, did not completely hear instructions.instructions.

1970, Canada. 109 deaths. Instruction manuals provided by the manufacturer contained information that was misleading.

1970, USA. 75 deaths. Copilot did not make required callouts and captain missed actual MDA.

1971, Alaska. 111 deaths. Misleading navigational information.

1972, Florida. 100 deaths. The ATC made a non-standard query. (cf. 2:38 to 2:55 in movie)

1973, France. 68 deaths. Controller used phrase 'stand by' wrongly.

1974, Virginia / USA . 92 deaths. Different understanding of what an approach clearance actually includes.

1976, Zagreb. 176 deaths. Yugoslav pilot and controller conversed in Serbo-Croat which prevented the British pilots from being aware of the danger.

1977, Tenerife. 583 deaths. Dutch pilot used English words with Dutch meaning.

1978, Rochester / USA . No deaths. Aircraft severely damaged/ destroyed. Reason: copilot did ask his captain to make a go-around too hesitatingly.

1978, Portland / USA . Copilot failed to convey lack of fuel to the captain with resolution.

1979, Mexico. 72 deaths. Required callouts were not made during descent.

1980, Tenerife. 146 deaths. Confusion between turns left and turn left .

1981, California. 34 injuries. Confusion over the meaning of the term hold .

1981, Corsica. 180 deaths. Ambiguous language. Hit high ground.

1983, Madrid. 181 deaths. Wrong communication procedure.


1985, Japan. 520 deaths. Sticking to culturally induced register impaired information flow from copilot to captain.

1986, East Berlin. 72 deaths. Confusion between right and left runway.

1989, Azores. 144 deaths. Communication error with tower. No use of standard phraseology, informal cockpit conversations.

1989, Surinam. 176 deaths. Pilot ignored GPWS instructions, possibly because of language mismatch.

1990, New York. 73 deaths. Failure of the crew to communicate the shortage of fuel to ATC (copilot did not use the word “emergency”). Lack of resolution. (cf. 4:35 to 4:55 in movie )

1992, Nepal. 113 deaths. Non-standard phraseology. Not proficient enough in English.

1993, China. 16 deaths. Pilot did not understand English warning of ground proximity.

1994, Japan. 264 deaths. Chinese pilot ; autopilot with English instructions.

1995, Colombia. 159 deaths. Confusion between charts and flight management system, similarity of beacon names Roso and Romeo; controller's inability to speak conversational English. (cf. 1:35to 3:50 in movie)

1996, India. 349 deaths. Midair collision. Three native languages involved: Hindi, Arabic, Kazakh. Important factor: Lack of English language proficiency.

1997, Seattle. No deaths. Russian pilot could not talk to the controller in English, began to land on a city street. (cf. 0:45to 2:35 in movie; a similar event also occurred in 1999 in Israel)


1997, Indonesia. 234 deaths. Confusion about whether being instructed to turn right or left.

1998, Taiwan. 196 deaths. Blame placed on communication, coordination, cooperation.

1999, Chicago. No deaths. Chinese Boeing 747 misunderstood taxi directions, got in front of another 747 taking off. The latter alertly lifted his wing and averted a collision.

1999, Shanghai. 8 deaths. Korean pilot, Chinese controller. 1999, New York. No deaths. Near collision. Three languages: Icelandic, French, English.

1999, England. No deaths. Near collision, Korean and British 747's.

1999, Kosovo. 24 deaths. Italian pilot of this UN flight told controller he could not understand computer-generated English, presumably a ground proximity alarm.

2000, Paris. 1 death. Collision on the ground. One plane was controlled in English, one in French.

2000, Taiwan. 83 deaths. Singapore Airlines 747 misunderstood, used runway 6Right instead of 6 Left, and collided with construction site.

2001, Japan. No deaths. Two Japan Airliners at 36,000 feet missed each other by only 33 feet, due to a confusing exchange of instructions from controllers . 700 might have died.

2001, Peru. 2 deaths. Missionary plane shot down in Spanish-English confusion.


2001, Milan. 118 deaths. German pilot, Italian controller. Took wrong runway into path of an SAS plane taking off.

2001, Seattle. No deaths. A TWA MD-80 flew over an American Airlines MD-80, missing it by an estimated 60 feet. The tower local controller had cleared TWA for takeoff from runway 16L and instructed American Airlines to hold short of the runway. However, the flight crew misunderstood the controller and crossed 16L.

2002, Alaska. No deaths. China Air took off from taxiway instead of runway, in downwind direction. Barely cleared airfield. The pilot could not have understood the clearance instructions.

2002, Korea. 118 deaths. Chinese pilot, Korean ATC .

2005, Greece. 121 deaths. German captain and Cypriot copilot were unable to talk adequately about technical problems concerning a pressure relief valve in English language. (cf. article)

2006, Poland. No deaths. Seemingly because of a poor command of English a Turkish charter plane landed at a Polish airbase instead of a civilian airport. (cf. article)

2007, New York. No deaths. Chinese pilots were not able to understand taxi instructions given by the ground controller. (cf. movie)

2008, London. No deaths. Polish pilots were not able to understand instructions given by the controller. (cf. article)

FONTE: http://www.aero-lingo.com/index.htm


INGLÊS x ACIDENTESINGLÊS x ACIDENTES

Voo Gol 1907Boeing 737-80029 de setembro de 2006mORTOS: 154

Avianca Flight 52Boeing 707-321B 25 de Janeiro de 1990MORTOS:65 dos 149

Acidente de Teneriffe

PAN AM Boeing 747-121KLM Boeing 747-206B27 de março de 1977MORTOS:583 FERIDOS: 61

O que é Inglês para Aviação?

ICAO - Doc 9835ICAO - Doc 9835

Requisitos de Proficiência Linguística

Em Vigor desde 2003.

Prazo Inicial – Março de 2008.

Prazo Prorrogado – Março de 2011.

O Inglês no Mercado

de Trabalho da Aviação.

ANAC / SDEAANAC / SDEA

O SDEA - Santos Dumont English Assessment - Teste de Proficiência Linguística Brasileiro.É temporariamente composto de apenas uma etapa: o Proficiency Test, constituído de uma entrevista oral composta de quatro partes: Warm-Up, Problem-Solving, Emergency Situations e Aviation Topics.

Parte 1: Warm-Up – Duração aproximada: 5 minutos

Na primeira parte, Warm-Up, os candidatos devem responder questões gerais relativas à sua experiência profissional e a atividades cotidianas no desempenho de suas funções. O objetivo de tais questões é fazer os candidatos se sentirem confortáveis durante a entrevista e assim criar uma atmosfera favorável para que possam demonstrar seu conhecimento do idioma.



Parte 2: Problem-Solving – Duração aproximada: 10 minutos

Na segunda parte, Problem-Solving, os candidatos escutam elocuções gravadas relativas a situações inesperadas ou emergências e devem relatar o que ouviram. Depois, terão que interagir com as gravações no intuito de confirmar informações e solucionar mal-entendidos. Nesta parte, o candidato pode ouvir a cada situação duas vezes. O candidato que optar por escutar a gravação duas vezes não será penalizado por tal decisão, entretanto será sempre solicitado ao mesmo que dê suas primeiras impressões do que ouviu. O objetivo desta parte é analisar a capacidade de parafrasear, dar instruções ou sugestões, identificar e solucionar mal-entendidos.

Parte 3: Emergency Situations – Duração aproximada: 10 minutos

Na terceira parte, Emergency Situations, o candidato escuta duas situações de emergência diferentes, devendo relatar o que ouviu ao examinador e responder a questões propostas. Após responder as questões propostas, o candidato deve comparar as emergências identificadas em relação ao grau de seriedade, soluções possíveis e formas de prevenção. O objetivo desta parte é não apenas avaliar a capacidade de identificação e compreensão de situações reais de emergência através de gravações, como também comparar e opinar sobre elas.


Parte 4: Aviation Topics – Duração aproximada: 10 minutos

Na quarta parte, Aviation Topics, o candidato deve descrever uma ou mais fotos ou figuras. Examinador e candidato devem discutir sobre a situação em si, inferindo, avaliando, usando argumentos e comparando as consequências ocorridas em eventos passados, atuais e passíveis de ocorrer no futuro. O objetivo desta parte é avaliar o desempenho do candidato ao relatar suas opiniões e explicações. A habilidade do candidato em desenvolver satisfatoriamente diálogos de alto grau de complexidade no trabalho é o ponto crucial desta parte.

O piloto poderá ser avaliado por mais de um(a) examinador(a). A interação entre o mesmo e o examinador é gravada para posterior avaliação da produção oral.


As habilidades passíveis de avaliação são: pronúncia, estrutura gramatical, vocabulário, fluência, compreensão e interação. A avaliação é feita com base nos descritores holísticos e na escala de níveis de proficiência linguística determinada pela OACI. O candidato pode apresentar 6 níveis de proficiência linguística em cada habilidade: expert

(6), avançado (5), operacional (4), pré-operacional (3), elementar (2) e pré-elementar (1), sendo que a menor nota que atingir em qualquer das habilidades supramencionadas corresponderá à nota final. Para que o piloto seja autorizado a viajar internacionalmente, deverá atingir ao menos o nível operacional (4) como nota final.

Os pilotos que atingirem o nível operacional (4) deverão se submeter a um novo teste após um período de três anos. Aqueles que atingirem o nível avançado (5), deverão se submeter a um novo teste após um período de seis anos. Aqueles que atingirem o nível expert (6) não mais precisarão se submeter ao teste.

Seis Habilidades em InglêsSeis Habilidades em Inglês

Routine SituationsRoutine Situations

PIL - SF153, request pushback from stand B5.

CTL - SF153, Roger , pushback approved.

PIL – Pushing back, SF153.

PIL - SF153, holding point 28R

CTL - SF153, line up and wait.

PIL – Lining up, SF153.

Non - Routine SituationsNon - Routine Situations

SITUATION 01

SITUATION 02

Non - Routine SituationsNon - Routine Situations

SITUATION 03 – JET BLUE

SITUATION 04

- SunAir 662

AVIATION AVIATION ENGLISHENGLISHCheck-List de Proficiência LinguísticaCheck-List de Proficiência Linguística

Falantes Proficientes em Inglês devem:

1_____Comunicar-se eficazmente em situações de voz apenas (telefone / radiotelefone) e em situações face a face;

2_____Comunicar em temas concretos, comuns e relacionados com o ambiente de trabalho com precisão e clareza;

3_____Utilizar estratégias de comunicação apropriadas para trocar mensagens e para reconhecer e resolver mal-entendidos (por exemplo: verificar, confirmar ou esclarecer informações) de um modo geral ou relacionada ao contexto de trabalho;

4______ Resolver e responder com relativa facilidade aos desafios linguísticos apresentados por uma complicação ou mudança inesperada dos acontecimentos que ocorram no contexto de uma situação de trabalho de rotina ou de tarefa de comunicação e que são normalmente familiar e

5_____Utilizar um dialeto ou sotaque inteligível para a comunidade aeronáutica.


ACTIVITY 01: CLEAR PRONUNCIATION (round table)

WA

RM

-UP

WA

RM

-UP What’s the difference in PRONUNCIATION

on the chart below?


ACTIVITY 04: INTONATION

WA

RM

-UP

WA

RM

-UP Practising placement of stress within sentences is essential

if learners are to become good listeners and communicators, since the same sentence can take on different meanings depending on where the speaker chooses to place the primary stress:

EXAMPLE SENTENCE [A]: "I'm not going".

"I'm not going": meaning [1] = Not "ME", but perhaps "YOU", "SHE" or "HE".

"I'm not going": meaning [2] = I reFUSE to go.

"I'm not going": meaning [3] = I'm not GOing... I'm COMing BACK!

AVIATION ENGLISHAVIATION ENGLISH WORKSHOPWORKSHOP

What’s the mistake on STRUCTURE in each sentence below?

WA

RM

-UP

WA

RM

-UP

1) In the last situation that I have was happened in Santa Catarina…. Florianópolis.. Do you know Florianópolis there?

2) After I take off rapidly I put the landing gear up and I fighted the turbulence, ok?

3) I am married, I am from Porto Alegre.. South of Brazil.. Nowdays I am live in Brasilia.. Alright? I have two kids.. One is 18 .. Another 16 years old..

3.1) …Indaiatuba is near to there….about 12 kilometers..

that I had.. It happened in..

After that.. I quickly took off …and fought the turbulence..

I am currently living in Brasilia

Is very near…


PR

OB

LE

M S

.P

RO

BL

EM

S.

PROBLEMS ONBOARD• Turbulence

• Medical urgency – Captain Faints

• Mechanical Problems

• Take – off delay

• Departure Delay

• Holding due to bad weather / lightning

• Pregnant passenger

• Heart Attack

• Disruptive pax

10. Missing Pax11. Return to the Departure

Airport12. Bomb threat13. Cabin Depressurization

Disruptive pax


PR

OB

LE

M S

.P

RO

BL

EM

S.

Situation 01 – in-flight emergency

Situation 02 – hijacker


AV

IAT

ION

T.

AV

IAT

ION

T.


AV

IAT

ION

T.

AV

IAT

ION

T.

1) How do you think this situation occurred?2) Is this an emergency situation?3) Do you think this acft is damaged beyond repair?4) How?5) When?6) What about the pax?7) What about the pilot?8) Do you see any injured pax?9) What about the rescue?10) Do you think that this situation could have been avoided?11) What happened after the picture was taken?12) What happened before the picture was taken?13) Are there any missing parts?14) What do you see at the forefront?15) What do you see at the background?16) What about the weather conditions?18) What precautionary measures do you think could have been taken in order to avoid that accident?19) Have you heard of anything similar in your profession as a pilot?20) What if it was….. different?

In this picture I can see an aircraft from American Airlines, that had an accident.The weather was good, it was a sunny day.It’s possible to observe the rear of the aircraft. On the right side of the fuselage, there is the right engine, near to the tail fin. I supposed that the right engine dropped down from the wing during the crash. The nacelle and label of this engine were totally damaged . The service door 2R was opened. There are two men near the rear of the aircraft. One of them is a policeman and the other is a firefighter.I can notice that there are mountains that surround this area.I think that an overrun situation occurred.

In this picture, I can see an aircraft, a kind of / it seems like a Fokker 100.

There was quite of snow on the pavement. It was a cloudy day.

I suppose that an overrun occurred and the aircraft crossed a fence and stopped over the service way, used by vehicles.

The fuselage of the aircraft was not broken. The right reverser was activated, remaining not stowed.

The escape slide from the 1R door was activated to proceed to a passenger evacuation. The emergency exits over the wing were not activated.

The radome had some damage.

This is the End!This is the End!

Site: http://www.inglesparaaviacao.com.brSite: http://www.inglesparaaviacao.com.br

Comunidade: Comunidade: http://pilotsfluency.ning.comhttp://pilotsfluency.ning.com

Thank You!

aviation english - palestra fumec

Technology

devero se

emergency

aviation topics

solucionar

standard phraseology

questes propostas

chinese pilot

nvel operacional