Measuring the familiarity and understandability of airport technical terms as

used by airline staff members in Jordan.

Dinha T. Gorgis & George Hijazeen

The Hashemite University, Jordan
(1)
Abstract:

The language of aviation comprises lots of acronyms, blends, codes, compounds, etc., that are used
daily at work by airline staff members. This piece of research is an attempt to uncover facts and figures
about this jargon used at airports. For the purpose of this study, the two researchers have devised two
forms (see appendices 1 and 2) to measure the familiarity and understandability of airport technical
terms as used by airline staff members at work. The sample which was filled in by employees from six
departments showed that the employees of Flight Operations were the highest in terms of familiarity
(93.75%) of both acronyms and blends and compounds; and use (68.75%) of acronyms and (75%) of
blends and compounds. Employees of Administration Affairs were the least in familiarity (31.25%) of
acronyms and (25%) of blends and compounds; and use (12.50%) of both acronyms and blends and
compounds. The language used at the airport consists of different terms. Therefore, the register used at
work in one department is somehow different from that used in another. This is because the domain of
aviation is not a unified one. We divided it into sub-domains. The domain of language involves
interaction between participants in "typical" setting (Holmes 1992). The whole matter depends on how
employees (in all departments) are familiar with it and whether they use it at work

Introduction:

The language of aviation is one of the fields that has received less attention from
linguists in general and ESP practitioners in particular. The aircraft manufacturing
companies, outside the English-speaking world, print manuals or booklets in English
aimed at most consumers in the world. Unfortunately, one can hardly find studies
carried out on the language of aviation in Jordan. Perhaps elsewhere, contributions
made by writers in this field are not enough in comparison with other fields. However,
some contributions have been made in this regard such as the study of Robertson
(1988) on radiotelephony and of Beech (1990) on the language of in-flight cabin
attendants.

English is not completely standardized in the international world of the cabin

attendant; for instance, the terms cabin attendant, luggage, film, cot, are British,
whereas the American equivalents are flight attendant, baggage, movie, bassinet.
Although American English is more dominant, especially in passenger handling, both
British and American terms should be studied to determine the lingua franca of the
cabin crew (Beech 1990).

Besides, specialists in the field of aviation in Jordan say that while the facts of flying
and pertinent technical terms used for that matter are already known to them, but they
are not to non-specialists and hence the need to implement them in university
curricula as constituting an integral part of ESP. It is true that the majority of these
technical terms are known only to the specialist, yet a certain number of them in time
become familiar to the layman and pass into general use (cf. Baugh and Cable 1978).

The language of aviation comprises lots of new terms, word coinages, abbreviations,
codes and acronyms. Such kind of language is used daily by airline staff members in

1
their work at airports or in airline offices. Certainly, the study of language varieties is
a wide area of investigation. For the purpose of this study, our discussion will be
delimited to varieties according to subject matter, which linguists refer to as register.

This study is an attempt to introduce the language of aviation and uncover facts and
figures about it inside the airport. We hypothesize that this language is not uniquely
and systematically used or even understood by all employees. Therefore, the
researchers conducted a test to investigate the extent to which airline staff members
use these terms in their daily work and whether they understand what they mean. The
study has included a selective set of different coinages.

Pilots are excluded from the study because they are usually in the air or at home, in
addition to being well-aware of such kind of special vocabulary. Besides, pilots
receive enough training periodically at training centers or at simulators (devices to
simulate flights), not to mention the courses and regular training they receive at air
academies during their service.

The sample subjects are (96) airline staff members who represent (6) in-service
departments, of which (16) each were asked to fill in a form. This form (see appendix)
included different coinages comprising acronyms, blends, symbols, etc. used on daily
basis at work. The sample included ranks: (35) clerks, (25) officers, (16) supervisors,
(15) superintendents and (5) managers.

Results and Discussion:

The two researchers have devised a special form for the sample. It included rank,
experience, etc. for the purpose of this research, (see appendix 1).

Most young employees are usually available at first counters. That's why more than
half of the random sample represents clerks and officers. Their experience extends
from one to five or seven years.

Most managers are usually in their daily or monthly meetings. Their number is small
in comparison to other ranks. Supervisors and superintendents are the ones who really
control the details of work on behalf of managers. Ten of the superintendents were
acting managers at the time the questionnaire was filled.

Acronyms in the field of aviation can be classified into two parts. (i) “Simple
acronyms”, such as TWY (taxiway), RWY (runway), AWY (airway), etc. Acronyms
like these are easily accessed by all employees. (ii) “Complex acronyms”, such as
TORA (Take-off run available), IFR (Instrument Landing system), TCAS (traffic alert
and collision avoidance system), etc, are not. Here, the employee finds some difficulty
in recognizing what each letter of the acronym stands for. Even for the one who is
familiar with such kind of acronyms finds some difficulty in remembering the details
(ICAO 1983). (2)

To reiterate, this piece of research is only an attempt to test the familiarity and
understandability of airline terms used at work by airline staff members in Jordan.
Tables of results are classified into Familiar/ Unfamiliar and Using/Un-using.

2
DPT. No. of Familiar Unfamiliar Using Un-using
Staff % % % %
Operations 16 15 93.75 1 6.25 11 68.75 5 31.25

Maintenance 16 14 87.50 2 12.50 10 62.50 6 37.50

Cargo 16 10 62.50 6 37.50 7 43.75 9 56.25

In-flight 16 13 81.25 3 18.75 11 68.75 5 31.25

Reservation 16 11 68.75 5 31.25 6 37.50 10 62.50

Administration 16 5 31.25 11 68.75 2 12.50 14 87.50

Total: 96 68 70.9 28 29.1 47 49 49 51

(Table 1)
Frequency and distribution of acronyms

As illustrated in Table (1) above, many of the airline staff members were found to be
familiar with acronyms. The table shows that (70.9%) of the subjects understand these
acronyms. It also illustrates that (49%) of them use such terms regularly. The
important question here is: Are all departments supposed to know these terms and
even use them at work?

Those who showed more familiarity with many acronyms are the ones who regularly
use acronyms in their daily work at the airport. Specifically the Operations staff
members showed high familiarity with acronyms (93.75%) but only (68.75%) use
them. Why is there a significant difference between familiarity and use? Aren't
acronyms used at this department? If not, why should these employees bother
knowing them?

Most of the work at Operations is technical. Employees use a jargon while

performing their duty at the airport. This is, of course, due to the nature of their work
that depends on many terms, among which are acronyms, especially in the two
sections of Aircraft Dispatch and Route Planning. Their work requires familiarity
with navigation, radio aides, fuel calculations, weather forecast, etc. This is a must for
each computerized flight plan for each departing or arriving aircraft. All operations
employees are supposed to be familiar with this kind of jargon. In fact, they get used
to it by practice and through being given different extensive courses periodically, the
main course of which is the Aircraft Dispatcher. Sometimes, they call the employees
in this department “semi pilot or pilot-like on ground”.

However, some of the sections in this department are not so technical and are not in
direct contact with the core of the work. For example, at Roster section (where pilots'
names are organized in daily and monthly lists for duty), the employees don't use lots
of these acronyms, although they know most of them. That's of course due to
extensive courses they usually take with other employees at this department. Here,
you might ask: Why should they take such courses if much of their work does not

3
require the use of these terms? The answer is simple. Employees might exchange
sections at work for different reasons.

However, acronyms in this respect take different forms and are called “codes”. These
codes (three or four letter-codes) may represent airports, e.g.

Country Airport 3-letter codes 4-letter codes

FRANCE PARIS/INTL ORY LFPG
U.K LONDON/INTL LHR EGLL
GERMANY MUNICH/INTL MUC EDDM

Airlines use the three-letter codes internationally in their own network, Sita, for
messages such as passenger loads and departure times. These codes are very common
in everyday jargon at airports. They are coined to indicate the destination of each
departing and arriving flight. One can see them in passengers’ tickets or on airport
screens and boards.(3)

World ATC (Air Traffic Control) and weather agencies use a separate teleprinter
network, the Aeronautical Fixed Telecommunications Network (AFTN), which uses a
four-letter "location indicator." Going from large area to actual airport, the first letter
relates to the part of the world and the second letter the country. The third letter is a
group of airports within that country. Most countries which use this particular
convention use a letter to denote the FIR (Flight Information Region) in which the
airport is located. So (F) is Frankfurt FIR in Germany, (M) is Munich; (P) is Paris
FIR, (M) is Marseilles. Other ways to use the third letter include identifying a group
of airports within a common factor. For example, A was used in Germany for all
Canadian and American air force bases. The last letter positively identifies a specific
airport (Dave: 1994).

Thus Aberdeen, Scotland, has ICAO's location indicator of EGPD. E for Northern
Europe, G for United Kingdom, P for Scottish region, and D for Dyce field. In LFPG,
L is for southern Europe, F for France, P for Paris FIR, and G for Charles De Gaulle
airport. What about EDDM? Again, E for northern Europe, D for Deutchland
(Germany), M for Munchen (Munich) FIR, and M again for the Munich airport.
These codes are used in computerized flight plans daily for each departing or arriving
flight.

Maintenance employees also showed familiarity with many acronyms. Table (1)
illustrates that (87.50%) of them are familiar with them, but only (62.50) use them at
work. They use them in different aspects such as spare parts, engine overhauls,
aircraft logs, etc. For example, one of the tools that has been fixed on the aircraft body
since 1990s is TCAS (traffic alert and collision avoidance system). This acronym is
known by the Maintenance employees because most of them are engineers or
qualified technicians. Such an acronym, for instance, is not quite known or used at
other departments. Therefore, employees outside Maintenance department are not
necessarily supposed to know it.

Cargo and Reservation’s employees in Table (1) showed less use, although most of
them were familiar with acronyms. The employees of Administration were the least

4
familiar with or users of acronyms. This again has to do with the nature of their work.
In fact, it has not much to do with the airline tasks.

Due to the vast technological advances, the simplification of scientific terms and long
phrases in the field of aviation has become badly needed. Undoubtedly, the scientific
improvement on aircraft, for example, is something incredible in comparison with
past decades. New concepts, techniques, apparatuses, etc., have arisen with this
scientific revolution. Therefore, new different terms have been coined for this
purpose.

We can find so many blends in the field of aviation. For example, avigation is a blend
of “aviation and navigation”, smog is a blend of “smoke and fog” and avionics stands
for "aviation and electronics". Some blends are coined by inserting infixes such as a
or o etc., as in the following examples:
- Ailavator: aileron /a / elevator.
- Densitometer: density /o / meter.
Blends that end with the suffix –meter are very common in the current language of
aviation. Terms like variometer, velocimeter, electrometer, penetrometer, etc., are
examples. Other blends are coined by dropping letters from the first or second word
such as elerudder which is made of "elevator and rudder" or ruddevator but from
"rudder and elevator." The two blends alerfa and incerfa are coined respectively from
"alert phase" and "uncertainty phase".

DPT. No. of Familiar Unfamiliar Using Un-using

Staff % % % %
Operations 16 15 93.75 1 6.25 12 75 4 25

Maintenance 16 14 87.50 2 12.50 10 62.50 6 37.50

Cargo 16 9 56.25 7 43.75 6 37.50 10 62.50

In-flight 16 13 81.25 3 18.75 12 75 4 25

Reservation 16 9 56.25 7 43.75 8 50 8 50

Administration 16 4 25 12 75 2 12.50 14 87.50

Total: 96 64 66.7 32 33.3 50 52.1 46 47.9

(Table: 2)
Frequency and distribution of blends and compounds

The research has covered certain coinages (see appendix 2). As illustrated in Table
(2), (66.7%) of the subjects were familiar with such coinages, but those who used
them were only (52.1%). Why is that difference in figures? What is more important,
why is that difference between departments?

It is quite apparent that the Administration employees are the least in terms of
familiarity and use among their colleagues at the airport in this regard. The table

5
shows that (25%) of these subjects were familiar but only half of them use these
coinages. Although these employees work side by side with other employees at the
airport, the nature of their work is different. Their work cannot be compared with
Maintenance employees for example, whose work is full of technicalities .(4)

One can simply say that the work at Administration department is administrative and
not technical. This is true, but we cannot say that all non-administrative jobs are
purely technical. This, of course, depends not only on the department as a whole but
also on some sections inside each department, as we previously mentioned.

The explanation pertaining to administration department’s employees makes it clear

that the familiarity and use of terms are constrained by the nature of work at each
department. This doesn’t mean that each department’s work is separate. In fact, it is
complementary. Therefore, departments' employees (mainly Operations and
Maintenance) are supposed to know these terms because they use them at airports.

When a pilot gets to the airport, prior to each flight, he passes by the Operations
department to have a briefing on his flight (e.g. fuel calculations, number of
passengers, weather forecast, aircraft condition, etc.) and sign his papers. Then, he
gets on board where he meets, for example, some employees of In-flight,
Maintenance, Cargo, Operations, etc. Obviously, arranging for a flight is conducted
by different employees from different departments.

There are many different coinages, especially those associated with figures. One of
the necessary points about which pilots should be briefed before any flight is the
weather forecast. There are certain symbols in meteorology that need to be known
beforehand.

Meteorology provides the flight crew with en-route and terminal weather forecasts
such as wind and temperature. There are many abbreviations, symbols and the like.
The following are just examples:

a. Cloud Type:
CI: CIRRUS
CS: CIRROCUMULUS
ST: SRATUS

b. Weather Abbreviations:
HZ: DUST HAZE
FG: FOG
DZ: DRIZZLE
The important point here is that all forecasts are subject to
amendment.

OKBK: 0024 VRB08KT CAVOK GRADU 0608 26010/22kt TEMPO 1016

6000 07SA 2CUSC035 GRADU 2022 VRB08KTwhich can be read as follows:

Kuwait: At 0024 (time), variable wind by 8Knots; ceiling and visibility are OK;
gradually between 06:00 o’clock wind direction will divert to 260 degrees (i.e. south
west) by 10-Knot-speed that might reach 22Knots; temporarily at 10:16 (i.e. 16

6
minutes past 10) visibility will become 6,000 meters, sandstorm, 2 oktas cumulus and
stratocumulus (cumulus and stratocumulus are types of clouds) with an altitude of 350
feet (we add one zero to the number 35); gradually at 20: 22 (22 minutes past 20)
wind will be variable at a speed of 8 Knots once again (Dubai Forecast Folder 1989).

Such an example which represents a mixture of coined “words” and numbers

constitutes an important part of airline staff members at Flight Operations department
(mainly Flight Dispatch). That explains the high score of these employees (Table 2).

To ease off understandability and familiarity of the language of aviation while talking
on the phone or even conveying messages between employees and pilots on board,
letters are used as a register. For example, M (is read Mike), J (is read Juliet), N (is
read November), etc. (Jordan CAA-ATS 1990). We prefer to call them name initials.
All Reservation employees use these letters on daily basis. As a passenger, when you
call any employee to book a seat, he will type some coded letters mixed with
numbers. We call this according to this jargon, the “registration number”. When you
open your ticket, you’ll see many items such as timing, price, the destination of your
flight represented by 3- letter codes (discussed previously), etc. These initials can be
also seen clearly in other aspects of aviation such as the aircraft registration, e.g.

1. JY- AGC
2. JY- AEC

These registrations are read as follows:

1. JULIET YANKEE- ALFA GOLF CHARLIE.
2. JULIET YANKEE- ALFA ECHO CHARLIE.

To reiterate, the effect of the vast technological advances on aviation is enormous.

Therefore, any updated copy of aviation manuals will definitely include new
coinages. Although so many terms have been incorporated in aviation corpuses, only
a few of them have been incorporated in the general dictionary, (Hijazin 1995).

Compounding adds up to the vocabulary of aviation. When you come across words
like: weekend, railroad, downfall, short-cut, most probably you won’t find difficulty
to know that these are compounds. Bryant (1948) mentioned some coined compounds
relevant to aviation such as airliners, skycruisers, skyfreighters, etc. Today, one can
find a large number of such compounds in the field of aviation. For example, anti- ice,
anti- skid, go- around, take- off, Fly- by- wire, turbo- charger, etc., (usually
hyphenated), or airfield, hypersonics, radiotelephony, airline, checklist, stopway,
pulsejet, transponder, radiomutation, etc., (usually non- hyphenated).

When you come across words like insulin, cholesterol or aspirin, perhaps you won't
find difficulty to know that all these refer to the domain of medicine. In the field of
physics, again you might come across words like electron, ionization, relativity, etc.
But what about aviation domain? Can we say that it is a unified one?

Seemingly yes, but virtually no. The efforts exerted at airport both individually and
collectively by airline staff members for each departing or landing flight might appear
that the whole stuff represents just one domain. Well, that's according to the general
policy of the company which seeks better services among competing companies in the

7
world (Jordan CAA - PPM: 1995).But apart from the policy of work, this field has
divisions and subdivisions. These are represented in different departments at airports.
Terms are available in each of them. In Maintenance, there are certain terms that are
not understood by other departments' employees. For example, when an airline staff
member says "the aircraft is hushkitted" (i.e. a certain" tool or apparatus" fixed to the
engine to minimize noisiness), most probably, the underlined term won't be
understood by employees outside this department.

This fact is not confined to Maintenance. When a pilot responds to a certain message
on radio, he may say roger (meaning a message has been received and understood).
This term is directly understood by those at Operations (mainly OCC) and Air Traffic
Control (ATC) but not other departments' employees.

Here, one might ask to what extent is one department familiar with the vocabulary of
another? First of all, the field of aviation is not restricted to one division (as illustrated
above) such as Maintenance or Operations, etc. Although each department has its
own work, there is some overlap between them. For example, the jargon used on
phone (e.g. ALFA for A and BRAVO for B, etc) among the employees of Operations
is the same one used by the employees of In-flight, Maintenance, Reservation or
Cargo. If some coinages are too technical and are restricted to certain circles (e.g. 4-
letter codes used by pilots and Operations employees) other coinages such as 3-letter
codes are not. Therefore, they are known well by other departments' employees.

This domain (though un-unified) is overlapped and can also be seen in the details of
work itself. At Maintenance, when the engineer on duty reports, before the flight, a
technical problem of certain aircraft such as engine failure, what do you think will
happen? This message should go to Operation Control Center (OCC). At OCC, this
matter will be reported to pilots in Jordan and abroad (at outstations). Other
departments should be informed as well. Will this aircraft be repaired soon or
replaced by another aircraft? This matter is important for the employees of Cargo.
What about passengers? How long will they be seated? This question is very
important for the employees of In-flight. In brief, each department should observe its
role on this matter and act accordingly. Here we can say that a department's employee
is familiar with the vocabulary of other departments' to the extent that the work itself
goes far to.

It is possible to use the notion of domain to account for the way airline staff members
select different codes in different situations. The domain of language involves
interactions between participants and a setting. The function and topic of the
discussion are important in describing language choice in many different kinds of
speech situations (Holmes 1992).

The term "code" can be used to refer to any kind of system that two or more people
employ for communication. What is important is the factors that govern the choice of
a particular code on a particular occasion (Wardhaugh 1986). Domain is a very
general concept in code choice. It is useful for generalization about registers. The
headings employed in the following table are taken from Fishman (1972: 22). Table
(3) illustrates the aviation domain (airport) and its sub-domains.

8
Sub-Domain Addressee Setting Topic Variety / code
flight pilots operations flight operational
plans department briefing terms(e.g. codes)
flight passengers checking-in flight documents/ jargon of tickets,
services counters baggage bags, etc.
aircraft flight aircraft engine terms of snags,
maintenance technicians hungers overhauls, etc. spare parts, etc.
booking passengers reservation booking/ coded letters/
offices confirming numbers
air freight passengers cargo load sheet codes of weight/
department quality/quantity
administrative airport airline office office usual
affairs staff members offices hours jargon

(Table3)
Sub-domains

As illustrated in table (3) above, we have different sub-domains. Although there are
some common terms among employers at the airport, we can say that each sub-
domain has its own register. The jargon used at Operations, for instance, is full of
terms that are not often wholly understood by those who are at Cargo or
Administration. Even those who are at Maintenance or In-flight might not understand
fully everything said among pilots and employees at Operations. While briefing pilots
on flight plans at Operations, the employee uses a jargon full of terms and figures that
are difficult for anyone to analyze unless he practices this kind of work after certain
courses and extensive training. In fact, it is designed primarily to teach operational
fluency, so to speak, in the "phraseology" of work. The language of "non-routine
situations" is not highly predictable (Robertson: 1988). When a pilot says wilco,
which is an abbreviation for "will comply", he means "I understand your message and
will comply with it"; and when he says disregard, he means "consider that
transmission as not sent".

To reiterate, at Maintenance, the jargon of engine overhauls, spare parts, or even

newly added equipment such as TCAS, which means "traffic alert and collision
avoidance system", is usually not clear outside Maintenance. In short, the very
technical aspect is dominant in this department because, here, we talk about well-
trained engineers and technicians who get together at workshops to perform their
tasks in a limited time.

With regard to Cargo, employees take into consideration the load of aircraft, the
dangerous goods that should not be on board, etc. At Reservation, employees keep
updated records of bookings of departing and arriving flights. When a passenger goes
to the airport and gets to check-in-counters, he finds airline staff members ask them
about tickets and other documents. Do you think employees here have the same
jargon as those at Maintenance or at Administration? To conclude, the domain of
aviation is not a unified one, and its sub-domains are variant despite the common

9
complementary work among departments at the airport. We recommend further
investigation in this field.

Notes:

1. This paper was presented at the 1st International Symposium of WATA

held at the Hashemite University, Jordan, 9-10 July, 2005.

2. It is well known that linguists disagree on certain forms of

acronyms. While Marckwardt (1958) and Pyles Algeo (1970) treat a
form like AWOL (absent without leave) as a type of acronyms,
Robbins (1951) and Baum (1962) consider it just an abbreviation.

3. 3-letter codes such as AMM (Amman), CAI (Cairo), DAM

(Damascus), etc. are just abbreviations for cities or capitals. Others are
not exactly like that. For example (JFK) for John Kennedy, (LHR) for
London Heathrow.

4. Once a chief pilot at Amman airport who seemed in a hurry, asked one
of the employees who was passing by in the corridor to report the
following message immediately, without being aware that the
employee was from the Administration department. “I’m going to 261.
Send me with the bus driver the Jeppesons to GC”. The employee ran
fast and tried to repeat the entire message to the boss at Dispatch
section but he couldn’t. Most probably, he was unable to understand it
fully. Fortunately, the 2nd researcher heard the message because his
office was not far from them. Being an ex- employee at the airport, he
directly conveyed the pilot’s abbreviated message by phone which is
illustrated as follows”:

“I’m going to RJ 261(Royal Jordanian Flight Number 261, Amm-Ams / Ams-

NYC). Send me the Jeppesons Manuals to the aircraft whose registration is
JY-AGC (JULIET YANKI - ALFA GOLF CHARLIE). In fact, the employee
who was so embarrassed at that moment had almost nothing to do with that
work. His unfamiliarity with such kind of language was then justifiable.

References:

Airport ABC: AN Exposition of Airport Identifier Codes.

http://www.skygod.com/asstd/a bc.html

Baugh, A.C. and T. Cable (1978): A History of the English Language,

3rd ed., New Jersey, Prentice- Hall.

Baum, S. V. (1962): “The Acronym, Pure and Impure”, American

Speech, Vol. 37, No. 7, pp. 48-50.

Beech, J.G. (1990): Thank You for Flying With Us: English for In-flight
Cabin Attendants, New York, Prentice-Hall.

10
Bryant, M. M. (1948): Modern English and Its Heritage, 2nd ed., New York,
The Macmillan Company.

Dubai Civil Aviation Department, Forecast Folder, Dubai, 1989, pp. 1-2.

Fishman. J. (1972), Sociolinguistics: A Brief Introduction, New York, Rowley:

Newbury House.
Hijazeen, G. (1995): The Language of Aviation: A Historical Perspective
of English in the Twentieth Century, Unpublished MA Thesis, The
University of Jordan.

Holmes, J. (1992): An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, London and New York,

Longman.

International Civil Aviation Organization, Abbreviations- Decode, 1983,

Doc. No. 8400/3, Montreal.

Jordan Civil Aviation Authority, (1990), Air Traffic Services-ATS, Amman,

Jordan Civil Aviation Authority, (1995), Policy and Procedure Manual.

Marckwardt, H. (1958): American English, New York, Oxford University Press.

Pyles, T. and J. Algeo (1970): English: An Introduction to Language,

New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.

Robbins, R. H (1951) : “Acronyms and Abbreviations from Aviation”,

American Speech, Vol. 26, No. 10, pp.67-70.

Robertson, F.A. (1988) : Airspeak Radiotelephony Communication for

Pilots, New York, Prentice- Hall, pp. xii, xix,
xx.

Royal Jordanian-Flight Operations DPT. (1989), Flight Plan Data, Amman.

Wardhaugh, R. (2002) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. 4th edn. Oxford:

Blackwell.

Appendix (1)

To be filled in by airline staff members

1. Department: ------------------------------

2. Section: ------------------------------------

3. Years of experience: --------------------

a. 1-5 b. 5-10

11
 c. 10-15 d. over 15

4. Rank / title:
a. clerk b. officer
c. supervisor d. superintendent/manager

5. Your job has to do with:

a. Technicalities b. administrative affairs c. others (specify)

Appendix (2)

Questionnaire

1. The following organizations stand for:

 IATA: -------------------------------------------------
 ICAO: ------------------------------------------------

2. What do he following acronyms mean?

 TWY: --------------------------------------------------
 RWY: -------------------------------------------------
 AWY: --------------------------------------------------
 ATC: ---------------------------------------------------
 PAX: ---------------------------------------------------
 CAT: --------------------------------------------------
 DZ: -----------------------------------------------------
 FG: ----------------------------------------------------

3. Are you familiar with the following coinages?

 Avigation ----------------------------------------------
 Avionics -----------------------------------------------
 CAVOK ------------------------------------------------
 CAVU --------------------------------------------------
 NOTAM------------------------------------------------

4. To communicate well, letters like A, B are read

ALFA, BRAVO. How do you read the following letters?
 C: ------------------
 O: ------------------
 R: ------------------
 T: ------------------
 Z: -----------------

5. Do you know what the following compounds mean?

 Anti- skid: ----------------------------------------

 Touchdown: --------------------------------------

12
  Zero-fuel (weight): -------------------------------
 Autopilot: -----------------------------------------

6. The 4-letter code “OJAI” stands for Amman

International Airport. Do know what the
Following 4-letter codes stand for?
 OLBA: ----------------------------
 HECA: ----------------------------
 OSDI: -----------------------------

13