Flights Go On, Inquires Pass Through

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


The high-complexity environment of the flight deck follows the model spoken-heard-understood-applied in the interaction and action of ATC and pilots. Aviation systems require the maximum amount of information expressed with the minimum of effort and consuming the minimum of time. A successful flight is a systemic interactional accomplishment of human performance. This book follows a communication orientation to investigate the knowledge applied; every interaction is based on a first event, time is important, and communication process is a product of what actors have learned, inward, in ways that permit skill and event growth and discovery of knowledge from their awareness. Separation of situation awareness (SA) in types denotes that a practitioner could commit in awareness of any type. ATC needs to sustain GA, for the big picture ahead, while addressing/replying with LA to each flight; TA is necessary for the required separation in the limited airways.

The book has at least four streams of theoretical contribution with policy implications: (i) the deconstruction of silence phenomenon in multiple dimensions, as part of an interaction and accountability process; (ii) the synthetic proposition of voice, as consolidating paralanguage and hesitation and nonverbal and verbal attributes, in the aviation communication channel; (iii) situation awareness (LA, TA, GA), as a knowledge prerequisite; and (iv) the mother tongue as a non-conflictual tool of linguistic security, instead of competing with the lingua franca in aviation, the topical standardized English.

Partnerships with aviation authorities and professionals lead the way for further research and inquiry for the culture of immediacy, rule governance, and knowledge for expertise.


Systems analysis Human factors Situation awareness Briefing-debriefing Fault tolerance Flying instinct Macdonaldization 


  1. ASRS (Aviation Safety Reporting System). (2013). What would you have done? Callback 396 (situation #4). NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System, January 2013. Available at
  2. Babbie, E. (2009). The practice of social research (13th ed.). Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.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. Billings, C. E., & Cheaney, E. S. (1981). Information transfer problems in the aviation system (NASA TP 1875). Moffet Field: NASA- Ames Research Center.Google Scholar
  5. Braithwaite, G. R. (2001). Attitude or latitude? Australian aviation safety. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Carley, K., & Wendt, K. (1991). Electronic mail and scientific communication. Knowledge, 12(4), 406–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Checkland, P. (2006). Systems thinking, systems practice (9th ed.). London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Connell, L. (1995). Pilot and controller communications issues. In B. G. Kanki & O. V. Prinzo (Eds.), Proceedings of the methods & metrics of voice communication workshop. Washington, DC: FAA.Google Scholar
  9. Cooper, G. E., White, M. D., & Lauber, J. K. (Eds.). (1980). Resource management on the flightdeck: Proceedings of a NASA/industry workshop (NASA CP-2120). Moffett Field: NASA-Ames Research Center.Google Scholar
  10. Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed. 1st ed., 1997). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Cushing, S. (1994). Fatal words: Communication clashes and aircraft crashes. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Dance, F. E. X. (1967). A helical model of communication. In F. E. X. Dance, (ed.), Human Communication Theory. New York : Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  16. Dekker, S. W. A. (2002). Reconstructing human contributions to accidents: The new view on error and performance. Journal of Safety Research, 33, 371–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dekker, S. W. A. (2010). Pilots, controllers and mechanics on trial: Cases, concerns and countermeasures. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 10(1), 31–50.Google Scholar
  18. Dekker, S. W. A. (2011). Systems thinking 1.0 and systems thinking 2.0: Complexity science and a new conception of “cause”. Aviation in Focus: An international Aeronautical Journal, 2(2), 21–39.Google Scholar
  19. Dekker, S. W. A. (2012). Just culture: Balancing safety and accountability (2nd ed.). Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  20. DeMatteis, L. (2011). Site of teaching and linguistic investigation applied in aviation (Sitio de docencia e investigación lingüística aplicada a la aviación). Online Available HTTP: Accessed 3 Nov 2011.
  21. DeVito, J. A. (2011). Human communication the basic course (12th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Edwards, E. (1988). Introductory overview. In E. Wiener & D. Nagel (Eds.), Human Factors in Aviation (pp. 3–25). San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  24. Endsley, M. R. (1988). Design and evaluation for Situation Awareness enhancement. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting (Vol. 1, pp. 97–101). Santa Monica: Human Factors Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ericsson, K. A. (2002). Toward a procedure for eliciting verbal expression of nonverbal experience without reactivity: Interpreting the verbal overshadowing effect within the theoretical framework for protocol analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 981–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Garzone, G., Catino, M., Gobo, G., Bait, M., Catenaccio, P., Degano, C., & Rozzi, S. (2010). Towards an integrated model for the understanding of communication failures in aviation accidents: Tenuous identities under pressure. In G. Garzone, & A. James (Eds.), Discourse, identities and roles in specialized communication (pp. 208–244). Bern: Peter Lang International Academic Publishers. Online Available HTTP: Accessed 3 Nov 2011.
  27. Gasson, S. (1999). The reality of user-centered design. Journal of End User Computing, 11(4), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gasson, S. (2005). The Dynamics of Sense making, Knowledge and Expertise in Collaborative, Boundary-Spanning Design. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (JCMC), 10(4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hayward, B. (1997). Culture, CRM and aviation safety. ANZSASI, Asia Pacific Regional Air Safety Seminar, Brisbane.Google Scholar
  30. Helmreich, R. L., & Davies, J. M. (2004). Culture, threat, and error: Lessons from aviation. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, 51(Suppl 1), R1–R4. Online. Available HTTP: Accessed 3 Nov 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Helmreich, R. L., Merritt, A. C., & Wilhelm, J. A. (1999). The evolution of crew resource management training in commercial aviation. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9(1), 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Culture and organizations: Software of the mind (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  33. Iani, C., & Wickens, C. D. (2007). Factors affecting task management in aviation. Human Factors, 49(1), 16–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization). (2000). Manual of aircraft accident and incident investigation, 1st Edn/Doc 9756, AN/965. Montréal: ICAO. Online Available HTTP: 9756_p1_cons_en-4.pdf. Accessed 3 Nov 2011.
  35. ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization). (2001). Αircraft accident and incident investigation/Annex 13 to the convention on international civil Aviation (9th ed.). Montréal: ICAO (Annex 13/Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation. ICAO Accident/Incident Reporting Manual -Doc 9156). Online. Available HTTP: Accessed 3 Nov 2013.
  36. Katerinakis, T., Papadopoulos, N., & Zouroudi, D. (2013). Aviation terminology: Literal sense, safety and semantic-oriented Translatology in Greek aviation communication. In P. Kontos, A. Anastasiadi-Symeonidi, M. Katsogiannou, & K. Valeontis (Eds.), Proceedings of Hellenic language and terminology. Athens: Hellenic Society for Terminology.Google Scholar
  37. King, C. (1997). Policing language: Linguistic security and the sources of ethnic conflict. A rejoinder. Security Dialogue, 28(4), 493–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Koch, C. J. (1975). Small groups in the composition class: A case study of developing linguistic security and written fluency. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  39. Kochan, J. (2009). HCEP lecture: ‘In search of the expert pilot- A research odyssey in human factors’. Drexel Human Cognition Enhancement Program (HCEP). Dec 10, 2009. Online Video File at: Accessed 6 May 2010.
  40. Kvanvig, J. (2006). The knowability paradox. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Leveson, N. (2012). Engineering a safer world: Applying systems thinking to safety. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Leydesdorff, L. (2016). Information, meaning, and intellectual Organization in Networks of inter-human communication. In C. R. Sugimoto (Ed.), Theories of informetrics: A festschrift in honor of blaise cronin (pp. 280–303). Berlin/Boston, MA: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Loukopoulos, L. D., Dismukes, R. K., & Barshi, I. (2003). Concurrent task demands in the cockpit: Challenges and vulnerabilites in routine flight operations. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 737–742). Dayton: The Wright State University.Google Scholar
  45. Loukopoulos, L. D., Dismukes, R. K., & Barshi, I. (2009). The multitasking myth: Handling complexity in real-world operations. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  46. MacPherson, M. (1998). The black box: All new cockpit voice recorder accounts of in-flight accidents. New York: William Morrow & Company.Google Scholar
  47. Merrin, A. C. (1996). National culture and work attitudes in commercial aviation: A cross-cultural investigation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  48. Moran Thomas, P., & Anderson, R. J. (1990). The workaday world as a paradigm for CSCW design. In Proceedings of CSCW ‘90 Proceedings of the 1990 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Los Angeles, CA, October 07–10, 1990.Google Scholar
  49. 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, CA: NASA-Ames Research Centre.Google Scholar
  50. Nerrière, J.-P. (2004). Globish the world over – (with videoscript). Online Available HTTP: Accessed 3 Nov 2011.
  51. Norman, D. (1988). The design of every day things. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group (Reprint- Originally published: The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books Publishers).Google Scholar
  52. Norman, D. A., & Draper, S. W. (Eds.). (1986). User centered system design: New perspectives on human-computer interaction. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  53. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Papadimitropoulou, F. (2012). Establishment of working group on air traffic management (OMEODEK). Ministerial decision D4/38654/1084/HCAA.Google Scholar
  55. Person, R. F., Jr. (1999). Structure and meaning in conversation and literature. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  56. Ragan, P. H. (1994). Subject specialism and general English in aviation ESP. TESOL Matters, 4(4), 7.Google Scholar
  57. Roitsch, P. A., Babcock, G. L., & Edmunds, W. W. (1978). Human factors report on the Tenerife accident. Washington, DC: Air Line Pilots Association.Google Scholar
  58. Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). A mathematical model of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  59. Skybrary. (2010). Socio-culture (OGHFA BN). Eurocontrol electronic repository/Human factors/Flight safety. Online Available HTTP: Stored October 27, 2010, at 22:05. Accessed 3 Nov 2011.
  60. Tompkins, P. K. (1991). Organizational communication and technological risk. In L. Wilkins & P. Patterson (Eds.), Risky business: Communicating issues of science, risk, and public policy (pp. 113–129). New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  61. Ungerer, D. (2004). Simple speech: Improving communication in disaster relief operations. In D. Rainer & J. Kateri (Eds.), Teaming up: Components of safety under high risk (pp. 81–92). London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  62. Vasilescu, I., & Adda-Decker, M. (2007). A cross-language study of acoustic and prosodic characteristics of vocalic hesitation. In A. Esposito, M. Bratanić, E. Keller, & M. Marinaro (Eds.), Fundamentals of verbal and nonverbal communication and the biometric issue, NATO security through science series E: Human and societal dynamics (Vol. 18). Washington, DC: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  63. Wegner, D. M. (2002). The illusion of conscious will. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  64. Wegner, P. E., Stanley, F., & Jameson, F. (2009). Life between two deaths, 1989–2001: U.S. culture in the long nineties (post-contemporary interventions). Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  66. Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1987). Understanding computers and cognition. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  67. Zexian, Y., & Xuhui, Y. (2010). A revolution in the field of systems thinking – A review of Checkland’s system thinking. Systems Research and Behavioral Science System Research, 27, 140–155.CrossRefGoogle 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