By Stephen Pradarelli

Opinions on the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into everything from ballistic missiles to laundry-folding machines are mixed, to say the least. 

Some are convinced AI is the next best thing to sliced bread and will revolutionize the world. Others think of it as just a fancier version of Mr. Clippy, the famously annoying paperclip character Microsoft Office Assistant built into Office 97 to offer unsolicited advice for improving productivity on the computer. Still others see AI as a harbinger of the End Times (maybe those Terminator movies were, in fact, documentaries).

In airspace with lots of traffic, where misunderstanding can put pilots in serious jeopardy, “close enough” communication can break down quickly, creating confusion and unnecessary risks.

Wherever you land on the topic, AI is here to stay, and it’s popping up in aviation in interesting ways: optimizing flight paths, enabling predictive maintenance, enhancing safety, and improving customer service. Next-generation Aircraft Collision Avoidance System (ACAS) standards, for instance, now use AI-driven algorithms instead of traditional, pre-programmed scenarios to detect potential conflicts.

Put to thoughtful use by experts in their fields with proven track records in a particular area, AI has the potential to lead to important, even game-changing, advances across every industry and discipline. 

No Props for Slop

But as AI tools become cheaper and easier to use, they’re also enticing anyone interested in making a quick buck to create “AI slop.” This is typically AI-produced, low-quality, mass-produced text, images, and videos to feed social media’s voracious appetite for endless “content.” 

AI slop prioritizes speed and quantity over substance and quality. Now, a similar approach is creeping into mobile app development, leading to a proliferation of new apps promising to train pilots how to communicate more confidently with Air Traffic Control.

The problem with some of these apps--in addition to their lack of a history of proven high-quality training--is that they focus more on speaking confidently on the radio without stressing the importance of standardized phraseology. 

Well-established apps, on the other hand, like PlaneEnglish’s ARSim, build not only confidence and competence by teaching users in strict adherence to standardized phraseology, but mastery so pilots know what to say, when to say it, and exactly how to phrase what they transmit over the airwaves. 

Why Saying it Right Matters

Standard phraseology exists for many reasons: safety, clarity, efficiency, and predictability. It’s also a great way to free up more of your brain to focus on the task of flying. Under stress, the brain processes standard, familiar phrases faster than conversational language, according to this ICAO article. 

In airspace with lots of traffic, where misunderstanding can put pilots in serious jeopardy, “close enough” communication can break down quickly, creating confusion and unnecessary risks. (Listen to an example of this in this surprisingly courteous exchange between a controller and a pilot.)

Standardized phraseology, on the other hand, reduces the risk of confusion, prevents misinterpretation that can be caused by accents or poor radio connections, and allows for faster comprehension in high-workload situations. 

An Ounce of Prevention

Studies indicate that communication failures are a factor in more than 70 percent of aviation incidents. Radio calls involving numbers (tail numbers, clearances, etc.) can be especially vexing for pilots, particularly homophones (words that sound the same as other words), such as “two” (“to”) and “four” (“for”). 

In fact, a 2011/2012 Phraseology Study conducted by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) found that ambiguous usage and interpretation of those four words alone was the second biggest communication problem for the pilots surveyed. That kind of confusion was believed to have caused a fatal CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain) accident in February 1989. 

A Boeing 747 originating from Singapore was nearing its destination of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, when it was cleared by a controller direct to the Kayell (KL) beacon for a runway 33, non-precision instrument approach. The controller told the crew it was cleared to "...descend two four zero zero..." But the crew heard the clearance as “...to 400.”

Far below the minimum altitude, the aircraft impacted a hillside at about 481 MSL,  killing all four people on board. 

Even non-homophonic numbers can be confusing if a pilot isn’t paying full attention and reading back instructions fully. After clearing a Learjet to “climb and maintain 14,000 feet,” in another incident, the controller issued instructions to “fly heading two zero zero” to avoid conflict with other aircraft in the vicinity. The pilot read back the “two zero zero” part but didn’t read back the instructions. He then began a climb to 20,000 feet, confusing a heading assignment with altitude (which, in any case, would have been called out as “climb to flight level two-zero-zero”). 

Fortunately, the pilot was able to correct the error without incident. 

As should be clear, standardized language isn’t just about “sounding legit” on the radio. It’s a way to minimize missed, mixed, or misunderstood calls that can lead to runway incursions, altitude deviations, and mid-air collisions. 

Say ‘Nein’ to Non-Standard Communications

As a native English speaker who’s attempted, with mixed success, to learn German, Spanish, and French, I can tell you that proper pronunciation is one of the most challenging aspects of the task.

While living in Brussels, Belgium, one summer, and shopping for household items at a quaint corner store, I came embarrassingly close to needing to pantomime the act of using the commode for the merchant. I couldn’t find the Charmin anywhere and tried, in my lousy French, to sound out the words for toilet paper. After two or three attempts, the woman behind the counter either decided to stop punking me or (more likely) saw my look of distress and suddenly understood.

(Apparently, I’m not the only person in aviation who struggles with accents, as this amusing exchange between a Portuguese pilot and French controller illustrates.)

It’s no surprise that pilots whose native tongue is something other than English--the international standard language in aviation--sometimes misunderstand, or are misunderstood, when they speak on the radio. 

And it’s why standard phraseology established by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and adopted in 1956 insists that pilots say “tree” for the number three, “fife” for the number five, and “niner” for the number nine--a word that sounds exactly like nein, the German word for “no.” 

Standard phraseology provides a consistent, predictable, and specialized vocabulary that avoids regional slang and complex sentence structures.

No Speeches, Please

Proper phraseology shouldn’t just be accurate; it should be brief and to the point, saving time and allowing more aircraft to operate safely. Especially in busy environments, when ATC has its hands full with congested skies and busy frequencies.

An article from a Monterey Bay, California, helicopter pilot training and charter service, puts it well in a training blog on its website: “Eliminate all unnecessary words; get to the point. Say what needs to be said--no more, no less--and then unkey the mic to let other people talk. Use only the essential words, eliminating extraneous verbiage. And use only the right words; remember that words have very specific legal meanings in the world of aviation radio.”

It gives two examples, one showing how not to make a call, the other a vast improvement:

"Uh, Salinas Tower, this is, urn, 727KP and we are, er, at the Aviation ramp, we have ATIS information Juliet and we are ready to go. We want to stay in the traffic pattern."

Versus

“Salinas Tower, helicopter 727KP, Aviation Ramp with Juliet, request close traffic."

While brevity is important, and appreciated by ATC and other pilots waiting to get on the frequency, the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) reminds aviators that “concise phraseology may not always be adequate.” For instance, in emergencies or complex situations. In those cases, the AIM advises, “use whatever words are necessary to get your message across.”

What you should probably not do, whatever your situation, is resort to animal sounds on ATC-monitored frequencies, as two pilots did earlier this year over the 121.5. The so-called Guard Channel is meant to be used for distress, urgency, and safety communications, such as declaring an emergency, not for mimicking Fido. 

The Debrief: Precise phraseology and related practices in aviation communications isn’t just about choosing the right words or sounding “professional.” It’s about providing all of the information ATC and other pilots need in order to maintain situational awareness and safety, in a way that everyone expects to hear it. 

Have an idea for a Left Seat? Email Stephen at spradarelli@gmail.com.