The previous lesson called communication the glue of the crew; this one takes the glue apart. Communication is the effective transmission of a message — and Watzlawick's first axiom sets the stakes: one cannot not communicate. Words, silence, activity and inactivity all carry message value; the passenger sitting with closed eyes is transmitting as surely as the talkative one.
Three questions from this lesson — one straightforward, one that applies it, one that pushes a little further. Nothing is recorded, and you can draw a new set as often as you like.
How is 'communication' defined?
How does human conflict typically escalate?
Why should negotiation rarely be used in flight, and what replaces it?
Ready to put this into practice?
Create an account to play the real assessment exercises and track your progress through this course.
The model's requirements are practical: transmitter and receiver must share a language (a common tongue is not enough between an expert and a novice), sentences must be well formed and unambiguous, gestures and tone should duplicate and reinforce the words, and interference must be low enough for the message to survive. Context does the rest: the same three words ('landing gear down') can be an order, a question or a statement depending on tone and situation, and the message actually decoded is the sum of all verbal and non-verbal expression — which is why radio, which strips the non-verbal layer away, demands its own discipline.
One-way communication is a broadcast: fast, and unverified. Two-way communication adds the return path (confirmation, question, read-back), and the simulator research is blunt about its value: the crews who handled events best were those who communicated among themselves and systematically confirmed reception of messages from ATC and each other, while the crews with the most problems failed to confirm and let themselves be interrupted without precautions. The finding deserves its bold: non-confirmation of received messages can be a major cause of gradual deterioration in situation awareness. Two-way communication catches the misunderstanding while it is still small, lets the transmitter check what actually arrived, and keeps both mental models synchronised, the in-person version adding the whole non-verbal layer that tells each party how the message landed.
The importance of non-verbal communication is best stated numerically: over 80 percent of communication is achieved by factors other than the words spoken: the tone, pitch and pacing of the voice, and the body language beneath it. The general aspects the syllabus wants: eye contact (brief by custom; prolonged staring reads as threat), facial expression (the whole emotional palette, and the live feedback on whether your listener is still with you), posture and body orientation (leaning toward agreement, away from dislike), gesture, touch (a brief handshake aside, generally unwelcome in Western custom), physical separation and personal space — jealously guarded, which the side-by-side cockpit both respects (the console as a border) and strains. Two cautions ride with it: culture changes the meaning of signals entirely (the head-shake that affirms in one culture bewilders in another, and verbal-versus-body-language conflict is a recognised obstacle), and the cockpit's forward-facing geometry curtails body language, so verbal technique must compensate: short simple unambiguous phrases, one subject at a time, clear annunciation, slightly slowed speech, and an expected response to confirm reception.
Questions and statements come in two working shapes. Implicit (open) communication leaves the receiver to deduce: 'In view of the weather, what is the best course of action?' Its advantages are real: a second opinion improves the conclusion, more factors get examined, the questioner's deductions are checked, and the responder's knowledge is revealed (the reason instructors love it). Its disadvantages mirror them: the responder may misread the implications, discussion takes time and can drift, and cross-purpose misunderstandings can pass undetected. Explicit (closed) communication states or asks precisely: 'Are we maintaining the correct track?' It is faster, clearer, keeps both parties on the same wavelength and exposes misunderstanding immediately — at the price that factors outside the question never get discussed, and the question may wrongly assume it contains all the information needed. (The third shape, the leading question with its built-in answer, is a warning sign: it usually signals a loss of situation awareness looking for reassurance.)
Crews carry two languages. Professional language is engineered: a small vocabulary (ATC runs on fewer than 500 words), meanings made unambiguous by context, grammar simplified to a core: economical, precise, and the only safe currency in high workload. Social language is the human channel: in low workload it keeps the channel open, maintains crew solidarity and supports the relaxed alertness a long cruise needs — but let it run in high workload and it distracts, blurs precision, and slides the cockpit toward the laissez-faire atmosphere of the previous lesson. The miscommunication classics show what imprecision costs: 'Take-off power' heard as 'take off power', 'Feather four' as 'feather all four'.
The major obstacles to effective communication, each with its mechanism:
Workload — communication absorbs the same limited resources as flying: high workload shortens exchanges and raises the error rate, and an ill-timed message can wipe a routine action from working memory (the interrupter owes the pilot a reminder of what they were doing).
Expectation — the crew expecting 'approved' hears it in a clipped, unclear reply; most such cases happen under time pressure, and this mechanism ran through the Tenerife disaster.
Interpersonal differences and conflict — personality, an autocratic captain, a large age gap, or tone itself can make the atmosphere error-prone; noise and interference, ambiguity, and the transmitter's misjudged image of the receiver's competence complete the list, with culture and contradictory body language as the cross-cultural traps.
The syllabus distinguishes two arenas. Intrapersonal conflict is internal: the new co-pilot's private quandary over whether to tell an irascible senior captain about a flying error. Interpersonal conflict is between people, and its natural history is escalation: a small difference of opinion builds into personal confrontation, can in extreme cases harden into enmity, and spreads to the rest of the crew. The consequences land exactly where a flight can least afford them: communications and the quality of work suffer first, followed by distraction, lost situation awareness and a tense, guarded cockpit — which is why conflict is knocked on the head early and turned back toward contribution, collaboration and cooperation.
The communication practices that prevent or resolve conflict, as the syllabus lists them:
Inquiry — tactful questions, favouring the open form, to clarify and clear misunderstandings quickly.
Active listening — concentrate on what is said rather than rehearsing your reply, signal the listening (eye contact, nodding, a verbal acknowledgement), stay willing to change your view, and summarise long inputs ('in summary, are you saying that...?') to hold attention, verify understanding and reassure the speaker at once.
Advocacy — arguing for a position, used sparingly in flight and with tact, mostly to support another crew member's view toward a group decision.
Feedback — actively obtained to confirm your message was understood, and volunteered wherever misunderstanding is possible.
Metacommunication — the tone and body language wrapped around the words: a forceful point delivered with non-aggressive tone and posture stays receivable.
Negotiation — trading gains for concessions: a ground tool, rarely used in flight, because the commander's role in airborne conflict is arbitrator, not negotiator — decide, then communicate the reasons (in the air if time allows, in the post-flight brief if not).
High workload attacks every layer at once. Listening degrades first: a crew member absorbed in a difficult task has little chance of taking in what is said, so the message waits or is lost. Verbal output shortens and coarsens, exchanges become fewer, and the error rate climbs. The non-verbal layer, already curtailed by the seating geometry, disappears into the task. And the visual channel is spoken for: eyes on instruments cannot also read a colleague's face or gesture. The defences are the lesson in summary — professional language only, one subject at a time, expect and give confirmation, time your interruptions, and remind the interrupted pilot where they were.
Berlo's six components (and the basic four), the over-80-percent non-verbal figure, the implicit-versus-explicit trade-offs, and the six conflict practices are the bank's staples; the expectation obstacle with its Tenerife pedigree is the standing scenario item. The overview, following the learning objectives:
Define communication and list its basic components
Explain the advantages of two-way over one-way communication
Name the importance and describe the general aspects of non-verbal communication
Describe the advantages and disadvantages of implicit and explicit communication
Describe social and professional language in high and low workload
Name and explain the major obstacles to effective communication
Distinguish intrapersonal from interpersonal conflict and describe escalation and its consequences
Explain inquiry, active listening, advocacy, feedback, metacommunication and negotiation
Describe communication's limitations under high workload: listening, verbal, non-verbal, visual