THE UNDERSTANDING OF AVIATION TERMINOLOGY FOR THAI FLIGHT ATTENDANTS

BY

MRS. YANISA CHENYAWANICH CHOO

AN INDEPENDENT STUDY PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL

FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS IN CAREER ENGLISH FOR

INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION

LANGUAGE INSTITUTE

THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

ACADEMIC YEAR 2017

COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

THE UNDERSTANDING OF AVIATION

TERMINOLOGY FOR THAI FLIGHT ATTENDANTS

BY

MRS. YANISA CHENYAWANICH CHOO

AN INDEPENDENT STUDY PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL

FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS IN CAREER ENGLISH FOR

INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION

LANGUAGE INSTITUTE

THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

ACADEMIC YEAR 2017

COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

i

Independent study Title THE UNDERSTANDING OF AVIATION

TERMINOLOGY FOR THAI FLIGHT

ATTENDANTS

Author Mrs. Yanisa Chenyawanich Choo

Degree Master of Arts

Major Field/Faculty/University Career English for International Communication

Language Institute

Thammasat University

Independent study Advisor Asst. Prof. Vimolchaya Yanasugonhda, Ph.D.

Academic Years 2017

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to measure the understanding level of THAI

flight attendants towards aviation terminology in order to determine the overall level

of work proficiency. A total of 112 questionnaires were distributed using convenience

sampling. The questionnaire was comprised of 80 questions requiring written answers

based on IATA three-letter airport codes and aviation terminology. Data generated

from the questionnaire were both qualitative and quantitative in nature. The results

revealed that THAI flight attendants did not feel confident in their ability to explain

safety and security terminology. In addition, it is suggested that the established

interval of annual recurrent training should be reviewed. This is due to the fact that

knowledge can deteriorate over times as shown in this study.

Keywords: aviation terminology, THAI flight attendants, understanding

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The completion of this study would not have been possible without the expertise of

Assistant Professor Vimolchaya Yanasugonhda, Ph.D. She walked me through the

bittersweet process of conducting the research. In fact, without her trust, this

independent study would not have become a reality.

I would like to extend my gratitude towards my parents and my brother for their

endless encouragement as well as my dearest husband for his kind support on

sleepless nights.

Special thanks go to LITU friends: my academic life would not have been fun without

all of you.

Also, my deepest appreciations goes to the THAI flight attendants from the year 2011

who directly and indirectly helped me out by completing the never-ending

questionnaire without hesitation.

Mrs. Yanisa Chenyawanich Choo

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page

4.1 Age of the respondents 21

4.2 Gender of the respondents 21

4.3 Marital status of the respondents 21

4.4 Educational level of the respondents 22

4.5 Previous airline experience of the respondents 22

4.6 Years of previous flying experience of the respondents 23

4.7 TOEIC score of the respondents 23

4.8 Total scores of the five terminology sections of the respondents 25

4.9 The statistics of IATA, Safety and Emergency, Onboard Services

Emergency and Services equipment, Check-in,

Medical Treatments’ scores 26

4.10 Scores of IATA three-letter airport codes for the respondents 26

4.12 Score of safety and emergency terminology of the respondents 28

4.14 Scores of onboard service terminology of the respondents 30

4.16 Score of service and emergency equipment terminology

of the respondents 32

4.18 Score of check-in and reservations terminology of the respondent 34

4.19 Score of first aids, medication, symptoms, and medical treatments of

the respondents 35

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page

4.11 The results of IATA three-letter airport codes for the respondents 27

4.13 The respondents’ results of flight safety and emergency terminology 29

4.15 The respondents’ results of onboard service terminology 31

4.17 The respondents’ results of service and emergency equipment

terminology 33

4.20 Score of fist aids, medication, symptoms, and medical treatments of the

respondents 35

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

LIST OF TABLES iii

LIST OF FIGURES iv

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Research questions 2

1.3 Research objectives 3

1.4 Definition of terms 3

1.5 Scope of the study 4

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 5

2.1 Aviation Terminology 5

2.1.1 IATA three-letter airport codes 8

2.2 Aviation English 9

2.3 Related studies 10

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 14

3.1 Research procedure 14

3.2 The instruments 15

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 14

3.3 Scoring method 17

3.3.1 IATA three-letter airport codes 17

3.3.2 Aviation terminology 18

3.4 Data collection 19

3.5 Data analysis 19

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 20

4.1 General background information 21

4.2 Knowledge of IATA three-letter airport codes 26

4.2.1 Frequency table of IATA three-letter airport codes 28

4.3 Knowledge of onboard terminology for THAI flight attendants 28

4.3.1 Terminology related to flight safety and emergency 28

4.3.1.1 Frequency table of flight safety and emergency

terminology 30

4.3.2 Terminology related to onboard services 30

4.3.2.1 Frequency table of onboard service terminology 32

4.3.3 Terminology related to service and emergency equipment 32

4.3.3.1 Frequency table of service and emergency

equipment 34

4.3.4 Terminology related to check-in reservations 34

4.3.5 Terminology related to first aids, medication, symptoms,

and medical treatments 34

4.3.5.1 Frequency table of first aids, medication, symptoms,

and medical treatments terminology 36

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 37

5.1 Summary of the study 37

5.1.1 Objective of the study 37

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMEMDATIONS 37

5.1.2 Subjects 37

5.1.3 Instruments 37

5.1.4 Procedures 37

5.2 Summary of the findings 38

5.2.1 Demographic results of the respondents 38

5.2.2 To what extent do THAI flight attendants have terminology

knowledge of the IATA three-letter airport codes for THAI’s

destination? 38

5.2.3 To what extent do THAI flight attendants understand the use

of onboard terminology required in THAI Cabin Crew

Manual? 40

5.2.3.1 Terminology related to flight safety and emergency 40

5.2.3.2 Terminology related to onboard services 41

5.2.3.3 Terminologies related to service and emergency

equipment 42

5.2.3.4 Terminology related to check-in and reservations 43

5.2.3.5 Terminology related to first aids, medication,

symptoms, and medical treatments 43

5.3 Discussion 44

5.4 Conclusion 46

5.5 Recommendations 47

REFERENCES 48

APPENDICES 51

APPENDIX A 52

APPENDIX B 60

BIOGRAPHY 71

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The English language has become the international language of

communication. The Chicago Convention in 1944 established the International Civil

Aviation Organization (ICAO) with the aim to develop international air transport in

order to properly standardize flight safety. Furthermore, ICAO chose English to be

the international language in the aviation industry. English in aviation or ‘Airspeak’ is

an important key for communication because we might encounter aircrew personnel

that have a different mother tongue (Crystal, 2012:107). According to the ICAO,

Manual on the Implementation of ICAO Language Proficiency Requirements 2nd

Edition 2010, all crew operating international flights must be proficient in the English

language in order to properly conduct safety and security procedures related to the

aviation industry.

Aviation English usually focuses on specific terminology used in the aviation

industry or it can be called as technical terms. For example, the meaning of the word

“taxi” used in the aviation has a totally different meaning from a lexical dictionary.

Thai Airways International Public Company Limited (THAI) has set an

objective to deliver more than just service onboard. In addition, THAI strives to

provide the best level of security and safety for its passengers. Today, THAI covers

67 destinations in 37 countries around the world. As stated by International Air

Transport Association (IATA), Airline Coding Directory 82nd Edition, all airports

worldwide are assigned a three-letter code as their identifications. The main

responsibility for IATA is to facilitate commercial aspects of airline operations such

as baggage limitations and liability, baggage transfer and ticketing reservation. The

three-letter code for airports are normally shown on baggage tags and on boarding

passes to display the destination where a person is heading. Occasionally, a few

numbers of three-letter airport codes can be dissimilar to three-letter code for cities.

For instance, BKK can be referred to as Bangkok, the capital of Thailand and

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

2

Suvarnabhumi Airport: meanwhile, LON is recognized as London, the capital city,

and London Heathrow Airport is identified as LHR.

Aviation English consists of implemented airline terminology as a medium of

communication to regulate THAI’s flight attendants’ understanding of how to

communicate effectively with one another on every flight. Terminology is the key for

communication in aviation because it directly deals with the safety and security of

people onboard an aircraft, particularly, for unexpected accidents. Thus, having

terminology knowledge can prevent accidents in the aviation industry.

Therefore, to understand the role of flight attendants and to maintain the

standards and procedures practiced, we have to understand how familiar THAI flight

attendants are with their job’s responsibilities. This study investigated to what extent

THAI flight attendants understand terminology, and technical terms used in aviation.

This study will clarify the knowledge, and at the same time, raise an awareness of

becoming a professional flight attendant.

There has been no previous investigation of to what extent THAI flight

attendants understand of aviation terminology; nevertheless, this could be an

opportunity to identify terms as a step to ensure that THAI flight attendants definitely

maintain their knowledge, encouraging them to make the right decisions when it

comes to an emergency.

The ultimate goal of this study is to examine the understanding and highlight

the quality of the safety and emergency procedures of THAI flight attendants, as well

to explore the level of knowledge that THAI flight attendants are expected to

maintain.

1.2 Research questions

1.2.1 To what extent do THAI flight attendants have terminology knowledge of the

IATA three-letter airport codes for THAI’s destination?

1.2.2 To what extent do THAI flight attendants understand the use of onboard

terminology required in the THAI Cabin Crew Manual?

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

3

1.3 Research objectives

1.3.1 To explore the degree of terminology knowledge of the IATA three-letter

airport codes for THAI’s destinations.

1.3.2 To determine the degree of understanding of the onboard terminology required

by the THAI Cabin Crew Manual for THAI flight attendants.

1.4 Definition of terms

The definition of terms of this study is described as follows:

AVIATION TERMINOLOGY

This refers to technical terms or jargon used as a communication language for

aviation. Jargon or technical terms are largely definitions or abbreviations of words

referring to communicative language in the aviation field. In this case, aviation

terminology is focused on the THAI Cabin Crew Manual.

AVIATION ENGLISH

It can be stated as English for a specific purpose. It is specifically categorized

as a tool of communication among THAI flight attendants. It can be in a form of

sentences, words, and abbreviations. The meaning of words and abbreviations differ

and may not be translated the same as what appears in lexical dictionaries.

IATA

IATA is the abbreviation for the International Air Transport Association. It is

a trade association of all airlines in the world. The principle mission of the IATA is to

direct, act for, and uphold airline’ industry around the world. The IATA’s

headquarters are in Montreal, Canada.

ICAO

ICAO is the abbreviation for The International Civil Aviation Organization.

The ICAO has set up all aviation practices and standards to ensure security and safety

of air transportation worldwide. The ICAO was established in 1944 to develop

international air transportation and navigation as a specialized agency of the United

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

4

Nations. The ICAO aims to promote the safety and security in aviation. The mission

of ICAO is to arrange regulations necessary, international standards, regularity of air

transport, services, and safety in preventing possible risks happening in air

transportation (Mackenzie, 2010).

THAI

THAI is a brief name, conveniently referred to as Thai Airways International

Public Company Limited.

THAI FLIGHT ATTENDANTS

Cambridge Advanced, Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus defines “flight

attendant”, as someone who serves passengers on an aircraft. Moreover, ICAO Annex

1 Personnel Licensing, ICAO’s accident/Incident Data Reporting (ADREP) 2000

Taxonomy replaced the word “flight attendant” with “cabin attendant”, which is

defined as a “crew member” who performs duties related to ensuring the safety of

passengers and may be assigned duties by either the pilot in command or a supervisor

of the aircraft excluding the responsibilities of controlling the aircraft. In this paper,

THAI flight attendants are male and female flight attendants who were recruited in

the year 2011 and currently employed by THAI.

1.5 Scope of study

The investigation will be divided into two aspects: the understanding of the

terminology used among THAI flight attendants including all the IATA three-letter

airport codes for THAI’s destinations as well as to what extent THAI flight attendants

understand the use of terminology required by the THAI Cabin Crew Manual.

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

5

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This literature review seeks to establish an understanding of the terminology

used in aviation and focuses on aviation terminology, aviation English, and the

importance of understanding terminology. To begin with, we have to understand why

English was selected as the international language in aviation. Crystal (2003) explains

that English is a global language is not only because the number of speakers, but it is

because of the power of the speakers. As a result, English has become the language

for communication for aviation, technology, business, and science.

This chapter reviews the literature in three main areas: (1) aviation terminology

along with (2.1.1) IATA three-letter airport codes (2) aviation English, and (3) related

studies.

2.1 Aviation terminology

English has obviously come to be the language for universal communication.

Nonetheless, it is essential for THAI flight attendants to be accustomed to the English

language practiced onboard, especially when it comes to the safety of passengers on

an aircraft. It is recommended to look into the terminology used in aviation or

airspeak in order to shape the norms of communication language (Sullivan & Griginer

2002). The main reason is to avoid ambiguous language as well as to achieve the

objectives of flight safety and security.

“Even within a single language, terminology and phrasing need to be standardized,

to avoid ambiguity, and greatly effort have been made to develop such a system for

English, widely called ‘Airspeaks’ “ (crystal 2003, p.109).

Although different airlines have different procedures and practices, the use of

terminology as an instrument of communicative skills for flight attendants remains the

same.

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

6

“Over 180 nations worldwide have adopted the recommendations of the International

Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) about English Terminology” (Crystal 2003,

p.109).

Comprehending the terminology or technical terms used in the airline industry

enables flight attendants to have a proper professional understanding, maintain safety

and security, and deliver great services to passengers. Consequently, flight attendants

need to concentrate on a specialized form of language for the purpose of enhancing

effective communication between themselves and the cockpit crew. Building on the

understanding of terminology can prevent unclear workplace communication. Below

are five examples of terminology used onboard THAI. Please see Appendix A for

details.

Terminology for flight attendants will be categorized into five sections:

1. Terminology related to flight safety and emergency

2. Terminology related to onboard services

3. Terminology related to service and emergency equipment

4. Terminology related to check-in and reservations

5. Terminology related to first aids, medication, symptoms, and medical

treatments

In the aviation industry, flight attendants are frontline staff who deal with

customers. Flight attendants’ duties do not solely concern delivery of services to

passengers, but also to ensuring safety and security onboard the aircraft.

“…………….communicate not just in the sense of issuing commands but also in the

sense of encouraging and cajoling and negotiating and sharing information in the

clearest and most transparent manner possible.” (Gladwell 2008, p. 192).

In order to avoid communication failures in aviation, language restrictions are

applied when coping when safety and emergency situation (Sullivan & Griginer

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

7

2002). Communication between the crew uses technical terms, and codes. The

meaning of the messages is reduced to keep the significant meaning of the situation.

Terminology refers to occupationally related terms explaining how jargon or technical

terms in that particular profession should be addressed. Aviation is an industry aiming

to prioritize the safety and security of aircraft, crewmembers, and passengers onboard

the aircraft.

Since there have not been many studies on aviation terminology for flight

attendants. I would like to point out the importance of the understanding terminology

used in aviation by revealing some of studies of terminology in the medical field.

“Medical terms have been shown to be widely misinterpreted by the public, including

a perceived difference between the term fracture and a break………………If patient

misunderstands the term unconscious it can have serious implications.” (Cooke,

Wilson, Cox and Roalfe 2017, p.119)

“Medicines terminology is a type of health data standard, which standardizes drug

information attributes with a unique identifier and drug concept relationships such as

name, dosage form, strength, pack size, therapeutic use, and so forth”

(Phuksaritanon, Kijsanayotin, and Theeraroungchaisri 2017, p.84)

“Cancer patients often do not correctly understand their diagnosis, prognosis, or

treatments options………..it may also result from the language clinicians use,

including euphemisms, vague words, and medical jargon.” (Pieterse, Jager, Smets,

and Henselmans 2012, p. 1186)

In his critique of terminology and methods, King (2011) describes a term of

minimal important difference (MID) as a technical term that even people in the

pharmacoeconomics have difficulty to interpret the outcome of patients’ health-

related quality. He emphasizes that the terminology can be overcomplicated. Yet, a

few terms can have slightly different definitions.

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

8

A number of studies have revealed that the misunderstanding of standardized

terminology may lead to confusion when adopting mandatory steps for a professional

(Linsey, 1991). For example, the terminology, ‘deadheading’ (or some airlines might

call it ‘passive’), simply means a crewmember flies as a passenger to perform a duty

as a crew on the way back. The term of deadheading is not related to death. Another

example would be the term ‘apron’ which means the area where airplanes are serviced

or parked. It does not carry the lexical meaning as a protective garment worn over the

front part of one’s clothes with strings to tie at the back.

2.1.1 IATA three-letter airport codes

IATA-three letter airport codes are an abbreviation and they are assigned to all

airports around the world to classify the identification of each location as well as to

smoothly organize air transportation (Saukko, 2014). Nontheless, some IATA three-

letter airport codes have some stories behind their names (Higgins, 2012).

According to Higgins (2012), IATA three-letter airport codes are used to refer

to cities with a great number of main airports such as Paris with two major airports

that are ORY (Paris Orly Airport) and CDG (Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport) or

London with LHR (London Heathrow Airport) and LGW (London Gatwick Airport).

These identifiers can be seen on baggage tags, rosters, and briefing room displays.

Needless to say, using abbreviations does save space; nevertheless, it may

sometimes be hard to understand for those who are not working in the field (Terada:

Tokunaga: Tanaka 2004). Therefore, this study aims to measure the understanding of

THAI flight attendants of IATA three-letter airport codes. However, in reality, THAI

flight attendants only address destinations either by city names or flight numbers

instead of by IATA three-letter airport codes. Addressing destinations by city names

is not mistaken, but inadvertently addressing destinations by flight numbers may

cause puzzlement when talking to outsiders or talking to crewmembers from other

airlines because different airlines address their destinations with different flight

numbers. Note that THAI serves passengers on both domestic and international

flights. Please see the appendix for the list of all THAI’s destinations.

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

9

2.2 Aviation English

Nowadays, flying is a common way connecting people from everywhere. The

reasons why people travel can be numerous; some travel because of their business,

some people travel to explore new places, and some travel because of their families.

English has influenced how people travel as can be seen in safety instructions on

international flights, information about emergency procedures and, directions to major

attractions, which are in English (Crystal, 2003).

Although different airlines have different procedures and practices, the use of

aviation terminology as an instrument of communication among crewmember remain

the same. Crystal (2003) indicates that more than 180 countries around the world have

adopted the recommendations of the International Civil Aviation Organization

(ICAO) about English terminology. Pilso (2014) expresses that English has been

selected to serve as a material tool for aviation English to make it the international

language of aviation and this performs the role of an international language for

communication, i.e., lingua franca. According to Jennifer Jenkins’s book World

English (2009: 143), she notes that lingua franca (ELF) refers to language for

communication amongst different mother tongue speakers.

The English language used onboard THAI is likely to be observed as aviation

English due to the relationship of safety and emergency procedures.

Misunderstandings and ambiguities are viewed as communication failures.

“Most people, when faced with an ambiguous situation, try to solve it by applying

cultural familiar criteria” (Cushner 1999, p. 72).

In this case, the cultural familiarity is the Thai language. Thus, emergency

situations cannot be judged based on familiarity. Having established knowledge of

aviation English is English because in English in aviation has restrictions of how the

language is interpreted. In movies pilots do not talk in a normal way to traffic

controllers, they use a fixed sentence patterned and a restricted vocabulary in order to

use unambiguous expressions for all possible situations (Crystal 2003). This explores

the idea that it is possible to apply terminology for flight attendants as fixed sentenced

patterns and restricted vocabulary.

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

10

The English language is elastic and mutable in nature. These qualities allow

feasible options for non-English native speakers to seek the closest meaning to

replace a specific word. Sometimes a meaning can be replaced by different words. It

would be a hazardous working environment to communicate when one word has two

possible meanings. House (2003) remarks that ELF is not a restricted code, and in any

way, ELF cannot be addressed as a language for a specific purpose like aviation

English. Instead, aviation English may be called a lingua franca of aviation.

As another line of thought on Kim and Elder (2009, p.14) illustrates “Since

English, plain or otherwise, is generally the language used and since the participants

in the exchange are by no means all native speakers, it may be more helpful to think

of aviation English as a Lingua Franca than as a restricted specific purpose code”.

2.3 Related studies

Cooke. J Accid, Wilson. S, and Cox. P (2017) state that misunderstanding the

medical term “unconscious” can have serious implications. The further explanation

was that the importance of understanding medical terminology could be used to

determine an ambulance response. A total number of 700 adult participants who could

speak sufficient English provided a history to a nurse. They were asked one of seven

questions relating to their understanding of the term “unconscious”. The evidence

presented showed that for those whose first language was English had a better

understanding than those whose English was not their first language. Therefore,

decision making does not only depend on the individual interpretation because the

technical term “unconscious” may have different meanings between people and

professionals.

Pilso, Ana-Marija (2014) conducted a research on non-standard phraseology

in aviation English. The findings revealed that the English language used in aviation

should be maintained according to the standards and procedures required by the

International Air Transport Association (IATA) to ensure safety. The study

determined that most English native speakers do not use English for aviation; instead,

they likely switch from the standard ICAO phraseology to plain English. This matter

can confuse non-native English speakers during communication. The study

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

11

investigated qualitatively by transcribing data to perceive the behavioral differences

between non-native English speakers and native English speakers. The result showed

that non-native English speakers tend to follow the guidelines of the standard ICAO

phraseology more than native English speakers. Her study recommended that English

mother tongue speakers could increase their awareness of practicing the guidelines of

ICAO phraseology rather than using plain English. Failure to use of English in

aviation could affect the safety in the industry.

Pieterse. Arwen H, Jager. Nienke A, Smets. Ellen M.A, and Henselmans Inge

(2013) explored the UK lay understanding of medical terminology in cancer-related

terms in a Dutch sample by examining understanding of common terms relating to

diagnosis, prognosis, and treatments. They also experimentally explored the effect of

medical terminology versus plain language in order to perceive efficacious interaction

with oncologists. Participants were likely to place their trust in oncologists and make

a decision based on their suggestions. The 194 participants completed the

questionnaires to evaluate their understanding of technical term after reading 10

cancer-related scenarios. The results revealed that on average they understood a

majority of cancer-related terms, but only 2.2% understood all 10 terms correctly.

These results suggested that lay people’s understanding of commonly used terms in

oncology is below the standard.

Babbitu, U. Q. and Cyna A.M.’s (2010) study investigated the clinical

technical terms between anesthetists and patients in order to determine that whether

patients understand the technical terms used by the anesthetists before getting a

clinical consultation or not. They observed 70 patients and the results showed that

half of the patients participating in this study did not understand roughly one or more

terms used during the clinical consultation. The most poorly understood technical

term was ‘influx’. Only seven patients out of 36 had either no understanding or poor

interpretation. They mentioned that “aspiration’’, “allergy’’, “anaphylaxis”, “local

anesthetic”, and “sedation” were the next five most commonly misunderstood

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

12

technical terms. From the findings, they suggested that doctors should make sure that

patients understand their health condition before prescribing medication.

Sullivan & Griginer (2002) reported on the use of English at a Turkish airport.

Despite their English teaching experiences, they strongly felt that teaching standard

English language was neither sufficient nor appropriate. They documented

communication between pilots and Air Traffic Controllers (ATCs) such as tape-

recorded communication between them, interviews and questionnaires in Turkish and

observations at the airport tower. The results revealed that the language used among

them was the English language based on the restricted codes of Airspeaks that was

invented by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in 1944. The study

showed that there was local language variation, for instance, the use of greetings and

the use of farewells including the way numbers should be pronounced in Turkish.

Murphy (2001) explored the process of flight attendants’ sense making during

an in-flight emergency when they faced emergency situations. She observed and

interviewed flight attendants from major airlines in the United States. The results

revealed that they often impressed their airlines’ management by paying great

attention to service and this matter may influence their ability to perform in

emergency situations. She evaluated their air travel performance relating to safety as

well as recommended joint training programs to discuss emergency situations

between flight attendants and pilots.

Dunbar, Chute, & Jordan (1998) conducted a study on evaluation of cabin

crew technical knowledge. Their study investigated flight attendants’ technical

knowledge and flight deck crewmembers and flight attendants’ expectations towards

flight attendants’ technical knowledge. A total of 177 flight attendants from two

carriers in the United States participated this study and they were asked to complete

13 technical questions. They explored the expectations of the flight attendants by

distributing surveys to 181 flight deck crewmembers and another sample of 96 flight

attendants from the same two airlines. The survey questions were based on the

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

13

operational knowledge required for flight attendants. The results revealed that flight

deck crewmembers and flight attendants had very different perceptions of operational

knowledge.

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

14

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes (1) Research procedure, (2) The instruments, (3)

Scoring method (4) Data collection, and (5) Data analysis.

The reason the researcher selected only those who were hired in the year 2011

was because it was the first year of recruitment after three years of putting crew

recruitment on hold since 2008. As a result, the recruitment attracted a large number

of people and it led to 400 people being recruited in the year 2011. Another aspect

that made recruitment in year 2011 unique was the company decided to gather 80

experienced crew to be specifically trained together (split into four classrooms, 20

people for each classroom with a training period of two months) to reduce the training

period while the rest of employees were trained in a normal training program (three

months).

3.1 Research procedure

Only THAI flight attendants recruited in 2011 participated in this study. The

total number of flight attendants was 400 that came from class 6/2011 – 25/2011, 20

classrooms (20 flight attendants per classroom), using Krejcie & Morgan’s (1970)

formula to determine sampling size. Based on Krejcie & Morgan’s (1970) table, with

a total population of 400 flight attendants, the sample size required to represent the

whole population in this study was 196. THAI flight attendants were selected using

non-probability; purposive samplings by setting a qualification of participants that

was the participants were respectively collected from THAI flight attendants who had

been recruited in 2011. When collecting the targeted participants by purposive

samplings, convenience samplings were applied. The participants were asked to be a

part of the sample in the study based on their own willingness.

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

15

The reason for choosing THAI flight attendantsin 2011 was because there

were specific characteristics of THAI flight attendants recruited in the year 2011 as

follows:

o THAI recruited flight attendants in the year 2011after a recruitment freeze

since 2008. Therefore, it attracted a large number of people with a lot of

experience from different fields.

o Flight attendants TOEIC requirement was raised since 2007 from a 600 score

minimum requirement to a 650 score minimum requirement.

This was the first time THAI decided to try gathering 20 experienced flight

attendants to be trained in one classroom. The total number of 80 experienced flight

attendants were split into four classrooms that were 11/2011, 12/2011, 13/2011, and

14/2011. With these new changes and qualities, it can be assumed that overall THAI

flight attendants might have obtained the equivalent standard of using English as a

media of international communication. In addition, THAI flight attendants hired in

2011 had been working with the company for some period of time; thus, they were

assumed to be acquainted with the terminology in aviation industry used onboard

THAI.

3.2 The instruments

The instruments in this study were closed-ended questions and open-ended

questions. The materials were divided into three sections as shown below:

Section I: Close-ended questions by seeking demographic information such as

the age of participants, sex, marital status, and educational background.

Section II: Open-ended questions on previous flying experiences and TOEIC

score. If they were experienced cabin crewmembers, names of their previous airlines

were requested.

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

16

Section III: Open-ended questions - 80 written test questions based on

knowledge of aviation terminology from the THAI Cabin Crew Manual, defining

terminology usage in five categories: terminology relating to flight safety and

emergency, terminology relating to onboard services, terminology relating to service

and emergency equipment, terminology relating to check-in and reservations, and

terminology relating to first aids, medication, symptoms and medical treatments,

including IATA three-letter airport codes assigned to each airport on THAI

destinations.

In order to determine an adequate number of questions, the researcher

randomly took 80% from a total number of 167 terms and 80% of the 67 IATA three-

letter airport codes were put in the test.

o 80% of 167 terms equals 133.6 questions (134 questions)

o 80% of 67 IATA three-letter airport codes equals 53.6 questions (54

questions.

Both categories were randomly selected in the test based on random sampling.

Then, the 134 terms were combined and 54 IATA three-letter airport codes were

selected to be written on a piece of paper chosen by lucky draw until the total number

of 80 questions was completed. The test was completed within one hour.

By applying probability random sampling, all five sections of terminology and

IATA three-letter airport codes for THAI’s destinations in this study had an equal

chance of being selected to be in the written test.

3.3 Scoring method

Since section III consisted of 80 written test questions, and scoring was

marked manually. The total score of the test was 80 points. Participants could answer

the questions in either English or Thai as long as the answer did not deviate from the

appropriate answer. In order to maintain scoring reliability, the researcher manually

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

17

rechecked the scoring twice and compared it with the initial scoring to determine the

final scores.

3.3.1 IATA three-letter airport codes

Scoring was determined using the criteria as follows:

o If participants answered IATA three-airport codes by location and the

location happened to share the same name with the airports, a half point

was given. For example, SIN is an IATA three-letter airport code for

Singapore Changi Airport. If participants answered either Singapore

Airport or Singapore, a half point was given.

o If participants answered IATA three-letter airport codes by location and

the location did not share the same name with the airports, a half point was

given. For example, FCO is an IATA three-letter airport code for

Leonardo Da Vinci – Fiumicino Airport in Rome. If participants answered

Rome, a half point was given. In this case, one point was given if

participants answered Leonardo Da Vinci, Fiumicino or Leonardo Da

Vinco – Fiumicino.

o If there was more than one airport in one location, the full name of the

airport was necessary. For example, LHR is an IATA three-letter airport

code for Heathrow Airport located in London. In order to get a point,

participants must have answered either London Heathrow or Heathrow.

London has five airports: London Gatwick Airport, London City Airport,

London Luton Airport, London Stansted Airport, and London Heathrow

Airport.

Answering IATA three-letter airport codes in the Thai language was equally

treated as answering IATA three-letter airport codes in English. Misspellings were not

considered as mistakes under the IATA three-letter airport code questions; hence,

points were not deducted for such a matter. In addition, if participants did not write

the word ‘international’ or accidentally added the word ‘international’ for IATA

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

18

three-letter airport codes, a point was not deducted. All unanswered questions were

given zero points.

3.3.2 Aviation terminology

Nevertheless, it is understandable that participants might have some

difficulties spelling some terminology in full, but as long as they could describe what

the terms were for then, a point was given.

o One point was given to participants who could describe the procedures if

any or a full term. For example, ‘brace command’ is a command given by

the cockpit one minute before impact – head down keep your head down,

brace-brace or fasten seatbelt sign chiming repeatedly. The key word here

is the command ‘head down keep your head down’, ‘fasten seatbelt sign

chiming repeatedly’, and brace-brace.

The scoring was given as below:

o If participants answered Brace command as a command given by cockpit

in an emergency situation, a half point was given.

o If participants answered the keyword that was Brace command is a

command from the cockpit ‘ brace-brace’ or ‘head down keep your head

down’ or ‘seatbelt sign chiming repeatedly’, one point was given.

o A half point was given to participants who could roughly describe the

procedures or a term. For example, EOD is an abbreviation of Explosive

Ordinance Disposal. However, participants might describe EOD as bomb

experts or bomb searchers.

Similar to the IATA three-letter airport codes, answering aviation terminology

in either Thai or English language was treated equally. Misspellings were not

considered as mistakes under the aviation terminology questions; hence, points were

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

19

not deducted for such a matter. Grammatical errors were not penalized as long as the

sentence was comprehensible and the remainder of the terms and descriptions were

not changed. All unanswered questions were given zero points.

Time spent on the test should not exceed one hour because participants were

expected to be familiar with most of the questions; therefore, they should be capable

to finish the test within one hour.

3.4 Data collection

This study was a mixed method of quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative

analysis was utilized to measure the data statistically. The Statistical Package for the

Social Studies (SPSS) was used to calculate and evaluate the data in terms of mean,

percentage, and frequency of the general background information. Qualitative

analysis was conducted in accordance with the 80 written test questions. At the same

time, the 80 written test questions were manually scored based on IATA Cabin

Operations Safety Best Practice Guide 2015, 2nd Edition (IATA, 2015), and THAI

Cabin Crew Manual (CCM, 2017). THAI CCM contains all relevant information

needed for operational procedure regarding safety and emergency, onboard services,

emergency equipment, check-in and reservations, and first aids, medication,

symptoms and medical treatments.

3.5 Data analysis

The score of each part was put into SPSS to quantitatively analyze the

collected data for mean, standard deviation, and frequency to measure the degree of

understanding of aviation terminology for THAI flight attendants. All data were

interpreted into numerical information. In addition to 80 written test questions, the

data was analyzed qualitatively based on written answers provided by the

respondents.

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

20

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

This chapter illustrates the findings from the 112 collected questionnaires

investigating the degree of understanding of terminology knowledge of the IATA

three-letter airport codes for THAI’s destination along with the degree of

understanding of onboard terminology required for THAI flight attendants.

The findings are presented as follows:

4.1 General background information of the respondents

4.2 Knowledge of IATA three-letter airport codes for THAI’s destinations

4.3 Knowledge of onboard terminology for THAI flight attendants

4.3 Results of five sub-sections of required onboard terminology as

listed below:

4.3.1 Terminology related to flight safety and emergency

4.3.2 Terminology related to onboard services

4.3.3 Terminology related to service and emergency equipment

4.3.4 Terminology related to check-in and reservations

4.3.5 Terminology related to first aids, medication, symptoms, and

medical treatments.

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

21

4.1 General background information

Table 4.1. Age of the respondents

Age Frequency Percentage 20-25 0 0.00 25-30 25 22.30 30-35 80 71.40 35-40 7 6.30 Total 112 100

Table 4.1 shows the age range among 112 respondents that were THAI flight

attendants. Most of the respondents were between 30-35 years of age (71.40%). Only

6.30% were between 35-40, and 22.30% were between 25-30 years of age.

Table 4.2. Gender of the respondents

Gender Frequency Percentage Male 49 43.80

Female 63 56.30 Total 112 100

Table 4.2 presents a similar ratio of the respondents: males (43.80%) and

females (56.30%).

Table 4.3. Marital status of the respondents

Marital Status Frequency Percentage Single 83 74.10

Married 28 25.00 Divorced 1 0.90 Widowed 0 0.00

Total 112 100

Table 4.3 shows most of the respondents were single (74.10%) although none

of them were widowed (0.00%) and only one was divorced (0.90%). Of all the

respondents, a quarter of them were married (25.00%).

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

22

Table 4.4. Educational level of the respondents

Highest Education Frequency Percentage Bachelor’s Degree 79 70.50 Master’s Degree 33 29.50 Doctoral Degree 0 0.00

Total 112 100

Table 4.4 illustrates that an overwhelming number of the respondents had a

bachelor’s degree (70.50%). None of them had a doctoral degree (0%) whereas

29.50% of the respondents held a master’s degree.

Table 4.5. Previous airline experience of the respondents

Airline Frequency Percentage Bangkok Airways 6 5.40

JAL 10 8.90 Korean Air 3 2.70 Orient Thai 6 5.40

Air Asia 5 4.50 Asiana 5 4.50

Cathay Pacific 1 0.90 Business Air 2 1.80

Royal Jordanian 1 0.90 Oman Air 3 2.70 Emirates 2 1.80

Kenya Airlines 4 3.60 Phuket Air 1 0.90 EVA Air 7 6.30 Nok Air 4 3.60

Qatar Airways 2 1.80 No Experience 50 44.60

Total 112 100

As shown in Table 4.5, nearly half of the respondents did not have flying

experience prior to joining THAI (44.60%). There was an experienced cabin crew

from each airline such as Cathay Pacific, Royal Jordanian, and Phuket Air (0.90%);

meanwhile, there was a similar ratio between JAL (8.90%) and EVA Air (6.30%).

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

23

However, a small percentage of the respondents were experienced cabin crew from

different airlines.

Table 4.6. Years of previous flying experiencs of the respondents

Past Experience (Years) Frequency Percentage 0 50 44.60 1 14 12.50 2 12 10.70 3 27 24.10 4 7 6.30 5 1 0.90 6 1 0.90

Total 112 100

Of 112 respondents, only one respondent had six years of flying experience

(0.90%) and most of the respondents did not have flying experience at all (44.60%).

About a quarter of the respondents had three years of flying experience (24.10%).

Table 4.7. TOEIC score of the respondents

TOEIC Score Frequency Percentage 600 1 0.90 665 1 0.90 690 1 0.90 700 8 7.10 710 1 0.90 715 1 0.90 735 1 0.90 740 2 1.80 750 5 4.50 755 1 0.90 760 1 0.90 765 4 3.60 770 3 2.70 775 2 1.80 780 1 0.90 785 3 2.70 790 2 1.80 795 2 1.80

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

24

TOEIC Score Frequency Percentage 800 7 6.30 805 1 0.90 810 2 1.80 815 1 0.90 820 2 1.80 825 3 2.70 830 2 1.80 835 3 2.70 840 3 2.70 845 2 1.80 850 11 9.80 855 4 3.60 860 1 0.90 865 1 0.90 870 1 0.90 880 2 1.80 890 3 2.70 900 9 8.00 920 1 0.90 940 1 0.90 950 4 3.60 960 1 0.90 965 1 0.90 970 1 0.90 980 2 1.80 985 1 0.90 990 3 2.70

Total 112 100

Table 4.7 reveals that of all the respondents, 2.70% obtained the highest

TOEIC score of 990 while 0.90% obtained the lowest TOEIC score of 600. Of all the

respondents, a few had obtained an average TOEIC score of 850 (9.80%).

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

25

Table 4.8. Total scores of the five terminology sections of the respondents

Scores Frequency Percentage 56.50 2 1.80 57.50 1 0.90 58.50 1 0.90 63.00 1 0.90 63.50 1 0.90 64.00 1 0.90 64.50 1 0.90 65.00 4 3.60 65.50 2 1.80 66.00 2 1.80 66.50 2 1.80 67.00 4 3.60 67.50 4 3.60 68.00 2 1.80 68.50 7 6.30 69.00 8 7.10 69.50 3 2.70 70.00 6 5.40 70.50 7 6.30 71.00 5 4.50 71.50 6 5.40 72.00 8 7.10 72.50 6 5.40 73.00 7 6.30 73.50 6 5.40 74.00 5 4.50 74.50 2 1.80 75.00 2 1.80 75.50 1 0.90 76.00 1 0.90 76.50 1 0.90 77.00 1 0.90 78.00 1 0.90 Total 112 100

Table 4.8 shows the overall scores obtained by the respondents. The total

score from all five terminology was 80 points.

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

26

Table 4.9. The statistics of IATA, Flight Safety and Emergency, Onboard Services,

Emergency and Services equipment, Check-in, Medical Treatments’ scores

IATA score

Flight Safety and Emergency

score

Onboard Service score

Emergency and Service Equipment

score

Check-in

score

Medical Treatments

score

Total

Max 24.00 23.00 16.00 9.00 1.00 6.00 78.00 Min 15.50 12.50 12.00 7.00 0.50 3.00 56.50

Mean 19.67 20.34 15.42 8.10 0.98 5.53 70.00

As shown in Table 4.9, the statistics of all five terminology is presented in

terms of the maximum, minimum, and mean of all the respondents.

4.2 Knowledge of IATA three-letter airport codes for THAI’s destinations

In this section, the scores identify to what degrees the respondents had

knowledge on IATA three-letter airport codes. The data were obtained from questions

1-24 in section III of the questionnaire. The total score of this section was 24 points. It

was analyzed with the means of frequency and percentage. The results are displayed

in the table below:

Table 4.10. Scores of IATA three-letter airport codes of the respondents

Scores Frequency Percentage 15.50 1 0.90 16.50 1 0.90 17.00 3 2.70 17.50 1 0.90 18.00 6 5.40 18.50 11 9.80 19.00 26 23.20 19.50 27 24.10 20.00 10 8.90 20.50 8 7.10 21.00 3 2.70 22.00 6 5.40 22.50 2 1.80 23.50 4 3.60 24.00 3 2.70

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

27

Total 112 100

From table 4.10, the highest score of all the respondents was 24 points

(2.70%) whereas the lowest score of all the respondents was 15.50 points (0.90%). Of

all the respondents, nearly a quarter of them received 19.50 points (24.10%), followed

closely by 19 points (23.20%).

Figure 4.11. The results of IATA three-letter airport codes from the respondents

According to figure 4.11, almost a quarter of the respondents found that the

most ambiguous IATA three-letter airport code was HDY (17.90%). At the same

time, a small number of the respondents answered the IATA three-letter airport codes

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

28

such as BLR, KTM, CTU, AKL, VTE, DME, CMB, and PUS incorrectly (0.90%).

Some respondents were confused when it came to the IATA three-letter airport codes

FCO (3.60%); moreover, some of the respondents could not indicate the full name of

the airports.

4.2.1 Frequency table of IATA three-letter airport codes from the respondents

*F = Frequency, P = Percentage

4.3 Knowledge on onboard terminology for THAI flight

This section concludes the results of the five sub-sections in order to observe

the degree of understanding of aviation terminology of the respondents.

4.3.1 Terminology related to flight safety and emergency

The data were acquired from question 25-48 in the section III of the

questionnaire. The data were analyzed in terms of mean, frequency, and percentage.

The total score of this section was 24 points. The results are represented below:

Table 4.12. Scores of flight safety and emergency terminology of the respondents

Scores Frequency Percentage 12.50 1 0.90 13.50 2 1.80 14.50 1 0.90 16.50 1 0.90 17.50 7 6.30 18.00 2 1.80 18.50 4 3.60 19.00 5 4.50 19.50 6 5.40 20.00 17 15.20 20.50 1 0.90

Score

DPS SGN FCO SIN USM HND BLR PER KTM RGN CTU IKA F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P

0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 3.60 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.09 0 0.00 1 0.90 0 0.00 1 0.90 2 1.80 0.50 104 92.90 98 87.50 64 57.10 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 53 47.30 0 0.00 97 86.60 0 0.00 0 0.00 44 39.30 1.00 8 7.10 14 12.50 44 39.30 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 58 51.80 112 100.00 14 12.50 112 100.00 111 99.10 66 58.90

Total 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00

Score AKL MAA KBV VTE DME HKG HDY CMB XMN GAY LHR PUS

F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P 0.00 1 0.90 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.90 1 0.90 0 0.00 20 17.90 1 0.90 0 0.00 3 2.70 2 1.80 1 0.90 0.50 0 0.00 9 8.00 0 0.00 91 81.30 79 70.50 2 1.80 0 0.00 89 79.50 2 1.80 3 2.70 59 52.70 100 89.30 1.00 111 99.10 103 92.00 112 100.00 20 17.90 32 28.60 110 98.20 92 82.10 22 19.60 110 98.20 106 94.60 51 45.50 11 9.80

Total 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

29

Scores Frequency Percentage 21.00 13 11.60 21.50 12 10.70 22.00 4 3.60 22.50 4 3.60 23.00 15 13.40 Total 112 100

As shown in Table 4.12, from the total score of 24 points, the top three highest

scores was 23 points (13.40%), followed closely by 22.5 and 20 points (3.60%). Only

one respondent received the lowest score of 12.5 points (0.90%) while most of the

respondents received 20 points (15.20%).

Figure 4.13. The respondents’ results of flight safety and emergency terminology

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

AC deicing Conv Training Recur Training

CIC PIC

ABP EOD

EPAS EVAC Signal

TOD Brace Command

Brace Signal Bulkhead

Class of Fire Deadhead

Decompression Go Around

Pilot Jncapacitattion Rapid Disembarkation

Secure Cabin 30 Second reviews Sterile Flight Deck

TESTS briefing Unruly PAX

percentage

Safe

ty a

nd E

mer

genc

y Te

rmin

olog

y

The respondents's results of flight safety and emergency terminology

0 point 0.5 point 1 point

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

30

The results from Figure 4.13 illustrates that all the respondents could describe

the terminology such as Deadhead, Sterile Flight Deck and Unruly PAX appropriately

(100%). Only a few of the respondents described the term, TOD incorrectly (37.50%),

followed by a similar percentage of the terms, Bulkhead (19.60%) and CIC (12.50%).

Of all the respondents, half of them did not provide adequate terminology

descriptions of Rapid Disembarkation (58.00%), Secure Cabin (50.00%), and Class of

Fire (45.50%).

4.3.1.1 Frequency table of flight safety and emergency terminology

*F = Frequency, P = Percentage, A/C = aircraft, Con Train = Conversion Training,

Recur Train = Recurrent Training

4.3.2 Terminology related to onboard services

The data were acquired from question 49-64 in section III of the questionnaire.

The data were analyzed in terms of mean, frequency, and percentage. The total score

in this section was 16 points. The results are represented below:

Table 4.14. Scores of onboard service terminology of the respondents

Scores Frequency Percentage 12.00 1 0.90 13.00 5 4.50 14.00 15 13.40 15.00 14 12.50 15.50 3 2.70 16.00 74 66.10 Total 112 100

Score A/C Deicing Con Train Recur Train CIC PIC ABP EOD EPAS EVAC

Signal TOD Brace Command Brace Signal Bulkhead

F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P 0.00 1 0.90 5 4.50 1 0.90 14 12.50 0 0.00 1 0.90 5 4.50 4 3.60 0 0.00 42 37.50 0 0.00 0 0.00 22 19.60 0.50 2 1.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.70 0 0.00 1 0.90 0 0.00 43 38.40 0 0.00 34 30.40 40 35.70 2 1.80 1.00 109 97.30 107 95.50 111 99.10 98 87.50 109 97.30 111 99.10 106 94.60 108 96.40 69 61.60 70 62.50 78 69.60 72 64.30 88 78.60

Total 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00

Score Class of Fire Deadhead/Passive Decompression Go Around Pilot

Incapacitation Rapid

Disembarkation Secure Cabin

30 second review

Sterile Flight Deck

TESTS briefing Unruly PAX

F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P 0.00 2 1.80 0 0.00 4 3.60 3 2.70 1 0.90 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.50 51 45.50 0 0.00 1 0.90 5 4.50 1 0.90 65 58.00 56 50.00 42 37.50 0 0.00 51 45.50 0 0.00 1.00 59 52.70 112 100.00 107 95.50 104 92.90 110 98.20 47 42.00 56 50.00 70 62.50 112 100.00 61 54.50 112 100.00

Total 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

31

Regarding the scores of onboard service terminology, Table 4.14 indicates that

66.10% of the respondents acquired a full score of 16 points. Only one respondent

obtained 12 points (0.90%); meanwhile, 13.40% belonged to the majority of the

respondents who obtained 14 points.

Figure 4.15. The respondents’ results of onboard service terminology

Figure 4.15 indicates that most of the respondents received a full score of 16

points (100%) regarding onboard service terminology. Only a few of the respondents

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

BLND

DEPA

INAD

MAAS

PSU

STCR

UM

WCHC

WCHS

Galley

LAV

BBML

GFML

LSML

SFML

VGML

Percentage

Onb

oard

serv

ice

term

inol

ogy

Therespondents'sresultsofonboardserviceterminology

0 point 0.5 point 1 point

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

32

answered the terminology incorrectly, i.e., PSU (25.00%), followed by MAAS

(14.30%), and STCR (12.50%).

4.3.2.1 Frequency table of onboard service terminology

*F = Frequency, P = Percentage

4.3.3 Terminology related to service and emergency equipment

The data were acquired from question 65-73 in section III of the questionnaire.

The total score in this section was 9 points. The data were analyzed in terms of mean,

frequency, and percentage. The results are represented below:

Table 4.16. Scores of service and emergency equipment terminology of the

respondents

Scores Frequency Percentage 7.00 13 11.60 7.50 18 16.10 8.00 30 26.80 8.50 38 33.90 9.00 13 11.60

Total 112 100

Considering the scores of all the respondents on service and emergency

equipment, Table 4.16 shows the same percentage of 11.60% obtained the highest

score of 9 points and the lowest score of 7 points while the largest group at 33.90%

obtained 8.5 points.

Score

BLND DEPA INAD MAAS PSU STCR UM WCHC WCHS F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P

0.00 0 0.00 1 0.90 0 0.00 16 14.30 28 25.00 14 12.50 1 0.90 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.50 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.90 1 0.90 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1.00 112 100.00 111 99.10 112 100.00 95 84.80 83 74.10 98 87.50 111 99.10 112 100.00 122 100.00

Total 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00

Score

Galley LAV BBML GFML LSML SFML VGML F P F P F P F P F P F P F P

0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.90 0.50 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.90 1.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 110 98.20 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 110 98.20

Total 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

33

Figure 4.17. The respondents’ results of service and emergency equipment

terminology

As shown in Figure 4.17, most of the respondents answered the terminology

questions correctly (100%). It was found that 25.90% of the respondents found that

the term of POB was problematic whereas a few respondents inadequately described

the terms Survival Kits (78.60%) and Baby Bassinet (45.50%).

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Baby Bassinet

Dog House

Halon

Survial Kits

PBE

POB

UPK

AED

ELT

Percentage

Serv

ice

and

Em

erge

ncy

equi

pmen

t ter

min

ilogy

The respondents' results of service and emergency equipment terminology

0 point 0.5 point 1 point

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

34

4.3.3.1 Frequency table of service and emergency equipment terminology

*F = Frequency, P = Percentage

4.3.4 Terminology related to check-in and reservations

The data was acquired from question 74 in section III of the questionnaire.

The data was analyzed in terms of mean, frequency, and percentage. This section had

only one question in accordance with the instrument. The result is represented below:

Table 4.18. Scores of check-in and reservations terminology of the respondents

Scores

Carry-on-Baggage

Frequency Percentage 0.50 5 4.50 1.00 107 95.50

Total 112 100

As can be seen from Table 4.18, 95.50% of the respondents described the full

term Carry-on-Baggage. Only a small percentage of the respondents partly described

the term (4.50%).

4.3.5 Terminology related to first aids, medication, symptoms, and

medical treatments.

The data were acquired from question 75-80 in section III of the questionnaire.

The data were analyzed in terms of mean, frequency, and percentage. The total score

in this section was 6 points. The results are represented below:

Score

Baby Bassinet Doghouse Halon Survival Kits PBE POB UPK AED ELT F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P

0.00 0 0.00 2 1.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 29 25.90 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.50 51 45.50 0 0.00 1 0.90 88 78.60 0 0.00 2 1.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1.00 61 54.50 110 98.20 111 99.10 24 21.40 112 100.00 81 72.30 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00

Total 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

35

Table 4.19. Scores of first aids, medication, symptoms, and medical treatments of the

respondents

Scores Frequency Percentage 3.00 2 1.80 4.00 11 9.80 4.50 4 3.60 5.00 18 16.10 5.50 2 1.80 6.00 75 67.00

Total 112 100

Table 4.19 indicates that a large number of the respondents obtained the full

score of 6 points (67.00%); meanwhile, only two respondents obtained a score of 3

points (1.80%). Most of the respondents obtained 5 points out of the full score

(16.10%).

Figure 4.20. The respondents’ results of first aids, medication, symptoms, and medical

treatments

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CPR

Direct Pressure

Heimlich Maneuver

Hypoxia

Recovery Position

Valsava Maneuver

Percentage Firs

t aid

s, m

edic

ines

, sym

ptom

s and

med

ical

tr

eatm

ent

The respondents' results of first aids, medication, symptoms, and medical treatments

0 point 0.5 point 1 point

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

36

Figure 4.20 shows that the respondents fully understood the terms of CPR

(100%) and Hypoxia (100%). At the same time, a respondents had equal difficulty

explaining two terms Direct Pressure (19.60%) and Heimlich maneuver (19.60%).

Only a small number of the respondents failed to provide an explanation of Recovery

Position (3.60%).

4.3.5.1 Frequency table of first aids, medication, symptoms, and medical

treatments terminology

*F = Frequency, P = Percentage

THAI flight attendants are confronted with innumerable demanding tasks such

as coping with conflicts, being vigilant for an unexpected situation, delivering the

finest service while still maintaining flight safety and security. Therefore, the results

in this chapter may give a detailed picture of whether THAI flight attendants have

obtained the essential knowledge necessary to efficiently perform each emergency

procedure as well as exceeded the airline’s expectations.

Score

CPR Direct Pressure Heimlich Maneuver Hypoxia Recovery Position Valsalva Maneuver F P F P F P F P F P F P

0.00 0 0.00 22 19.60 22 19.60 0 0.00 4 3.60 0 0.00 0.50 0 0.00 0 0.00 6 5.40 0 0.00 2 1.80 2 1.80 1.00 112 100.00 90 80.00 84 75.00 112 100.00 106 94.60 110 98.20

Total 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00 112 100.00

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

37

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter contains (1) summary of the study, (2) summary of the findings,

(3) discussion, (4) conclusion, and (5) recommendations.

5.1 Summary of the study

5.1.1 Objective of the study

This study aimed to investigate the understanding level of aviation

terminology for THAI flight attendants.

5.1.2 Subjects

According to the Krejcie & Morgan’s (1970) formula, 196 flight attendants

were the subjects in this study; however, only 112 flight attendants participated in this

study because of the time limit.

5.1.3 Instruments

A questionnaire was distributed as the instrument to examine to what extent

flight attendants understand aviation terminology. There were three sections in the

questionnaire: general background information of the respondents, flying experience

and TOEIC score of the respondents, and 80 written test questions about aviation

terminology.

5.1.4 Procedures

The SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Studies) software was utilized

after all the data were collected. SPSS was used to calculate and evaluate the data in

details of means, percentage, and frequency. The data were interpreted into numerical

information.

In addition to 80 written test questions, the data were analyzed qualitatively

based on written answers provided by the respondents.

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

38

5.2 Summary of the findings

5.2.1 General background information’s results of the respondents

Most of the respondents (71.4%) were between 30-35 years of age. The

number of male (43.8%) and female (56.2%) respondents was similar. The majority

of the respondents were single (74.1%). For educational level, the greatest number of

the respondents had acquired a bachelor’s degree (70.5%) and approximately a

quarter of the respondents had acquired a master’s degree (29.5%).

Moreover, nearly half of the respondents (44.6%) did not have previous flying

experience at all while over a half of the respondents were experienced cabin crew

from different airlines as shown in Table 4.5.

From Table 4.6, almost a quarter of the respondents (24.1%) had three years

flying experience before being hired by THAI. Moreover, the average TOEIC score

(9.8%) of the respondents was 850.

5.2.2 To what extent do THAI flight attendants have terminology knowledge

of the IATA three-letter airport codes for THAI’s destinations?

Referring to Table 4.10, the findings show that a quarter of all the respondents

received 19.50 points (24.1%) and 19 points (23.2%) out of 24 points. As the

percentage of the scores of 19.50 points and 19 points were minimally different; those

who received a score under 19 points may need to pay extra attention to IATA three-

letter airport codes. As Terada, Tokunaga, and Tanaka (2004) stated in their study the

reason the IATA uses three-letter airport codes is to differentiate between aviation

abbreviations and airport code abbreviations. Having said that, a THAI flight

attendant is expected to know all the IATA three-letter airport codes that THAI

operates to; however, based on the mean of IATA three-letter airport codes from the

Table 4.9, it can be assumed that THAI flight attendants were likely to have a

moderate knowledge level of IATA three-letter airport codes.

Surprisingly from Figure 4.11, for some destinations such as FCO, BLR,

GAY, KTM, IKA, CTU, PUS, and DME, some of the respondents answered them

with the name of their countries rather than the airport names. Especially, LHR, this is

the airport that most of the respondents have flown to but still their answers were

somewhat incorrect. Some of the respondents described LHR as London instead of

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

39

London Heathrow or Heathrow. It can be assumed that the reason they described

LHR as London was partly because THAI does not fly to any other airport in London

and the respondents might not have an idea that there is more than one major airport

in London. Astonishingly, none of the respondents mistook LHR with LHE, Allama

Iqbal International Airport located in Lahore, Pakistan.

Another common mistake made by the respondents was HDY. they could

have confused between HDY (Had Yai International Airport) and HYD (Hyderabad

Rajiv Gandhi International Airport) from first glance. One interesting mistake was

that one respondent answered the IATA three-letter airport code of VTE as Vienna

International Airport instead of Wattay International Airport. It is more likely that the

respondent answered from first glance and it was genuinely an oversight.

For IATA three-letter airport codes such as USM, KBV, SIN, HND, RGN,

and PER, all of the respondents could answer them correctly. For USM and KBV, it

can be assumed that they are domestic abbreviations of IATA three-letter airport

codes; therefore, it is highly likely that all of the respondents were familiar with them.

Similarly, for RGN and PER, these two IATA three-letter airport codes, their airport

codes easily suggest the name of the place; further, they share the same name of the

airports and the places, so that, these two may be the least challenging for the

respondents including the IATA three-letter airport codes SIN.

Since SIN is an international daily flight and with service four times daily, it

can be assumed this was the most common flight that the respondents were extremely

likely to operate. Additionally, its airport name partially is the name of its own

country (Singapore Changi Airport). As a result, the respondents might find SIN as

the least confusing IATA three-letter airport codes amongst all of IATA three-letter

airport code questions.

What can be learned from this section is that although the knowledge of IATA

three-letter airport codes is less significant than aviation terminology, a flight

attendant is expected to maintain job knowledge and be aware of the destinations

flown to.

The results of this study indicate that THAI flight attendants were able to

complete most of the IATA three-letter airport codes.

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

40

5.2.3 To what extent do THAI flight attendants understand the use of onboard

terminology required in the THAI Cabin Crew Manual?

This section includes the results of the five sub-sections in order to investigate

the terminology knowledge presently possessed by the respondents.

5.2.3.1 Terminology related to flight safety and emergency

According to Table 4.12, most of the respondents received 20 points (15.2%)

out of 24 points on the flight safety and emergency terminology. The majority of the

respondents obtained more than an average score of 20 points. It can be concluded

that more than half of the respondents were likely to understand flight safety and

emergency terminology.

The thorough details of the results can be seen in Figure 4.13 by ranking the

common mistakes THAI flight attendants made, which were TOD (37.5%), Bulkhead

(19.6%), CIC (Crew In Charge) (12.5%), EOD (Explosive Ordinance Disposal)

(4.5%) and Conversion training (4.5%), Decompression (3.6%) and EPAS

(Emergency Power Assist System) (3.6%).

Unexpectedly, the results revealed that over a quarter of the respondents

defined TOD as Time of Departure, and one respondent defined it as a toddler instead

of Top of Descent. Another surprising finding was the term, Bulkhead. It was

described as a headrest, overhead bin, crew rest compartment, and cargo space instead

of a partition in an aircraft. Also, a small number of the respondents might have been

confused with the term of CIC because they defined CIC as cockpit in command,

cabin crew manual guide, and cargo compartment instead of Crew In Charge.

The terminology of EOD and Conversion training were also brought into

attention. A few of the respondents defined EOD as End of Descent, bomb experts,

and bomb searchers instead of Explosive Ordinance Disposal. Likewise, they defined

Conversion training as conversational class and meeting. In their study, Chute and

Wiener (1996) mentioned that almost 60% of flight attendants rated their ability to

describe the aircraft defects and confidence as moderate or even less.

In addition to Figure 4.13, the outcomes regarding the terminology of

Decompression and EPAS’s may suggest THAI flight attendants need to give extra

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

41

attention to refreshing their job knowledge from time to time. Decompression is an

unwanted incident during flight while EPAS is a pneumatic system equipped on

Boeing 777 aircraft doors. Boeing 777 aircraft is a common aircraft that all the

respondents are licensed to fly. Inadequate technical training has been mentioned in a

number of reports (National Transportation Safety Board, 1992; Transportation Safety

Board of Canada, 1995; Chute & Wiener, 1996). If flight attendants acquired the

required knowledge of terminology, communication could be facilitated and flying

might be smoother throughout the flight. Contrary to expectations, the term, Sterile Flight Deck showed that all the

respondents were able to give an explanation. In contrast, a few studies have showed

that majority of flight attendants tended to be in a dilemma when dealing with an

emergency situations during the critical phase of the flight such as Sterile Flight Deck

(Dunbar, Chute, & Jordan, 1998; Gibbs, Slevitch, & Washburn, 2017).

As a result, this is an important aspect for THAI flight attendants to be

conversant with and they need to maintain their knowledge of aviation terminology.

The overall majority of the respondents understood flight safety and emergency

terminology; however, a few of the respondents provided a description of the

terminology rather than an explanation.

5.2.3.2 Terminology related to onboard services

As shown in Table 4.14, most of the respondents answered the onboard

services terms flawlessly (66.1%) while a few of the respondents obtained an average

score in this sub-section. Regarding Figure 4.15, an overwhelming number of the

respondents could answer most of the onboard service questions. Only three terms

seemed to be confusing for the respondents compared with other onboard service

terminology.

From the results in this section, it can be assumed that a majority of the

respondents possessed good knowledge level of the onboard service terminology

because most of them were more confident describing the terminology here than in

the other four sub-sections of aviation terminology.

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

42

The top three problematic terms for THAI flight attendants in Figure 4.15

were PSU (Passenger Service Unit), MAAS (Meet And Assist Service), and STCR

(Stretcher). A quarter of the respondents described PSU as an in-flight entertainment

system, pressure per unit, or left it unanswered. Meanwhile, half a quarter of the

respondents explained MAAS and STCR incorrectly. MAAS was defined as

connecting flight passengers; further, they tended to answer “I do not know” for the

terminology, STCR (Stretcher) question. Another simple term such as BBML

(Infant/Baby meal) was incorrectly answered (1.8%). BBML was erroneously defined

as a bland meal.

THAI is a well-known airline that attempts to deliver the finest service for

passengers. As stated in Murphy’s study (2001), the reason why flight attendants are

onboard is 80% for safety and 20% for service. Nevertheless, the passengers want to

see – 20% for safety and 80% for service; therefore, it seems as if flight attendants

sometimes have to keep their role as safety executors hidden (Murphy, 2001).

5.2.3.3 Terminology related to service and emergency equipment

As can be seen in Table 4.16, of all the respondents did not think service and

emergency equipment were problematic considering that majority of the respondents

were likely to have a moderately high level of accuracy.

From Figure 4.17 a few of the respondents misunderstood POB (Portable

Oxygen Bottle). They stated that they did not know the answer or else described the

term as passenger on board. At the same time, a tiny number of the respondents tried

to give more explanations even though they might not know the accurate term of POB

such as mobile oxygen bottle and handy oxygen bottle.

In addition, almost half of the respondents described a rough meaning of the

Baby Bassinet as an onboard baby cot or onboard baby cradle even though these

answers were not totally incorrect. But more accurate keywords required would give

the restriction of the Baby Bassinet. For example, baby crib for a baby not over six

months, not higher than 67 centimeters, and not heavier than 10 kilograms. Six

months, 67 cm, and 10 kg were the keywords required for this terminology.

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

43

Another interesting observation related to the term Survival Kits was that

more than three-quarters of the respondents knew the purpose of the Survival Kits but

they were not aware of its contents. Perhaps, this might be underlined for recurrent

training. Having said that, overall the respondents had a good understanding level of

service and emergency equipment terminology.

5.2.3.4 Terminology related to check-in and reservations

Carry-On-Baggage was the only term in this section. As presented in Table

4.18, nearly all of the respondents provided the answer with the keyword of the

Carry-On-Baggage weight restriction that was not over seven kilograms. Only a

handful of the respondents merely answered baggage brought into the aircraft.

Overall, THAI flight attendants were generally well-versed in check-in and

reservation terminology.

5.2.3.5 Terminology related to first aids, medication, symptoms, and medical

treatments.

From Table 4.19, half of the respondents were familiar with the overall

terminology. The exception was the term of Heimlich Maneuver; about one-fifth of

the respondents were unable to explain what Heimlich Maneuver meant and what

Direct Pressure was all about as well as intentionally left the answer blank. At the

same time, a small number of the respondents could not provide an or misunderstood

the term of Recovery Position as sleeping and lying down rather than providing the

explanation; for instance, a position used for recovering patients or lying side-ways to

keep the airway open.

Additionally, Figure 4.20 showed that most of the respondents had a good

level of understanding of first aids, medication, symptoms, and medical treatments.

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

44

5.3 Discussion

For IATA three-letter airport codes results from Figure 4.11, almost a quarter

of the respondents found that the most ambiguous IATA three-letter airport codes is

HDY that is Hat Yai International Airport. Most of the respondents indicated the

location of the airport instead of the name of the airport. For example, DPS is Bali

Airport or Bali instead of either Ngurah Rai International Airport or Denpasar

International Airport. The same challenge happened to PUS, Pusan International

Airport instead of Gimhea International Airport. Having said that, overall of the

respondents could answer the questions; however, a few numbers of the respondents

could not indicate the airport names in full. This IATA three-letter airport codes’

knowledge is not concerning safety and security of the aircraft; thus, what can be

enhanced on this section is that THAI flight attendants may need to be more

professional by paying extra attention to the IATA three-letter airport codes.

According to the ICAO recommendation (2010), flight attendants need to

complete a recurrent training program annually in order to ensure knowledge is

current and to maintain their license to fly. Consequently, THAI as an airline operator

adapted the recommendation to help THAI flight attendants keep their knowledge

before being released as a licensed cabin crew member.

The results of flight safety and emergency terminologies indicated that the

majority of the respondents thought safety and emergency terminologies were the

hardest compared with other four terminologies. Nonetheless, I assumed that flight

attendants are fully aware of the terminology what Sterile Flight Deck is all about

along with the procedures of how to respond toward it; therefore, it is questionable

that, perhaps, when facing a real emergency situation, flight attendants may be

emotionally interfered by the surroundings so that their technical knowledge seemed

to vanish in the haze while online. In order to maintain aviation knowledge overtimes,

the interval between annual recurrent training could be shortened. This may give

THAI fight attendants more confidence and are able to provide information to flight

deck crew especially in case of emergency.

Since the findings of onboard service and check-in and reservation

terminologies presented the majority of the respondents that they confidently

explained these two sections of aviation terminologies when compared with the other

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

45

three sections, it also highlighted that THAI flight attendants maintain a high degree

of knowledge of onboard service and check-in and reservation terminologies.

Being a professional flight attendant means keeping the flying license valid.

For recurrent training, there are 30 questions based on terminologies mainly for flight

safety and emergency and service and emergency equipment. Also, another 20

questions based on first aids, medication, symptoms, and medical treatments.

Meanwhile onboard service and check-in reservation terminologies are the two

sections that are not mandatory for recurrent training. Nevertheless, only five

mistakes are allowed in order to pass the exam for flight safety and emergency,

service and emergency equipment as well as first aids, medication, symptoms and

medical treatments (10%).

From Table 4.9, in order to pass the examination, the respondents should

maintain the score at least 72; however, the results showed that only 41 respondents

reached the required minimum score.

Therefore, only 41 respondents out of 112 respondents could maintain the

high knowledge of aviation terminologies.

Calculation based on 100 respondents, those who maintained the good

understanding level of aviation terminologies are 37 respondents. Consequently,

from the total 400 THAI flight attendants, only about 148 flight attendants possessed

a good knowledge of the terminologies and are capable to maintain their knowledge

overtimes.

However, if look closely from the results from each part of five terminologies

shown in Table 4.9, the respondents were allowed to only get 10% of mistake from

each terminology that means in each terminology section, the respondents could only

make 2 mistakes, except Check-in and reservation terminology because there was

only one question. In consequence of Table 4.9, IATA three-letter airport codes and

Safety and Emergency terminologies’ scores were a little bit below the expectation

while the rest of the terminologies’ scores exceeded the expectation. What can be

noticed here is that the attention should be specially paid on the Flight Safety and

Emergency terminologies.

THAI flight attendants are the front line staff dealing with the safety of the

passengers on an aircraft. Without sufficient knowledge, they are no different than a

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

46

waiter or a waitress in the sky. In a medical field, professionals act as an interpreter to

convey technical terms in order provide information to patients (Babitu, & Cyna,

2010; Pieterse, Jager, Smets, & Henselmans, 2013; Cooke, Wilson, & Cox, 2017).

The professionals are expected to have an excellent level of knowledge and in this

case, it can be implied that THAI flight attendants are also expected to possess a good

level of understanding of aviation terminologies.

Even though a handful number of the respondents passed the exam, it does not

suggest that of all the respondents did not maintain the required level of the

understanding of aviation terminologies. One thing to be kept in mind is that recurrent

training happens only once a year and within a year the knowledge can deteriorate.

From that reason, THAI flight attendants need to be aware of this matter and refresh

themselves from time to time to maintain their knowledge.

5.4 Conclusion

The study reports important findings. First, the results imply that THAI flight

attendants have an operational level of knowledge of IATA three-letter airport codes.

Despite this result, the respondents’ responses to open-ended questions can be

suggested that there are a great number of examples when THAI flight attendants

unlikely to sustain their degree of technical knowledge after an annual recurrent

training. Second, the results may have suggested that almost half of THAI flight

attendants are hesitant with their technical knowledge. They may not be opened about

their own confusions towards aviation terminologies. Finally, the results of this study

suggested that THAI flight attendants might not be comfortable with their technical

knowledge while working. Evidently, from the fact, the whole knowledge was not

related to a number of years as an experienced flight attendant.

Although from the Table 4.9 the overall scores from the five terminologies

may be under the expected line, it generally did not mean that THAI flight attendants

acquired a poor knowledge of the aviation terminologies. In fact, this study could be a

guideline that is as a flight attendant we all should be aware of our responsibilities and

maintain a good knowledge even after the annual recurrent training.

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

47

5.5 Recommendations

Since this is the study of only one airline, the results from other airlines may

be interesting. According to section III in the questionnaire, an addition of in depth

interview is suggested.

A research gap in this study is the of all the respondents could answer the

terminology of Sterile Flight Deck flawlessly meanwhile a few numbers of studies of

aviation incidents reported that the majority of flight attendants tended to get

confused when facing a real emergency situation during the stage of Sterile Flight

Deck. Therefore, the terminology of Sterile Flight Deck could be specifically

examined whether it is because of a temporarily emotional interference or human

errors.

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

48

REFERENCES

Annex, I. C. A. O. (2010). 6—Operation of Aircraft. ICAO Annex.

Babitu, U. Q., & Cyna, A. M. (2010). Patients' Understanding of Technical Terms

Used During the Pre-anaesthetic Consultation. Anaesthesia and intensive

care, 38(2), 349.

Chute, R. D., & Weiner, E. L. (1995). Cockpit-Cabin Communication: I. A tale of

Two Cultures. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 5(3), 257-

276.

Chute, R. D., & Winter, E. L. (1996). Cockpit-Cabin Communication: II. Shall We

Tell the Pilots?. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 6(3), 211-

231.

Cooke, M. W., Wilson, S., Cox, P., & Roalfe, A. (2000). Public Understanding of

Medical Terminology: Non-English Speakers may not Receive Optimal Care.

Emergency Medicine Journal, 17(2), 119-121.

Crystal, D. (2003). English as a World Language. Cambridge: CUP.

Crystal, D. (2013). A Global Language. In English in the World (pp. 163-208).

Cushner, K. (2005). Human Diversity in Action: Developing Multicultural

Competencies for the Classroom with PowerWeb. Open University Press. The

McGraw-Hill companies, Order Services, PO Box 182605, Columbus, OH

43218-2605.

Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: University

press

Dunbar, M. G., Chute, R. D., & Jordan, K. (1998). Evaluation of Cabin Crew

Technical Knowledge. The International of Aviation Psychology.

Gibbs, L., Slevitch, L., & Washburn, I. (2017). Competency-Based Training in

Aviation: The Impact on Flight Attendant Performance and Passenger

Satisfaction. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 26(2), 55.

Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The Story of Success. Hachette UK.

Higgins, C. J. (2012). The Hidden Meaning in Those Letters and Numbers.

International Journal of Humanities and Social Science.

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

49

House, J. (2003). English as a Lingua Franca: A Threat to Multilingualism?. Journal

of sociolinguistics, 7(4), 556-578.

IATA (2012) Airline Coding Directory, 82nd Edition.

IATA (2015) Cabin Operations Safety Best Practice Guide 2015, 2nd Edition.

ICAO (2000) Annex 1 personnel Licensing, ICAO’s Accident/Incident Data

Reporting (ADREP) Taxonomy.

ICAO, D. (2010). 9835 AN/453: Manual on the Implementation of ICAO Language

Proficiency Requirements.

Kim, H., & Elder, C. (2009). Understanding Aviation English as a Lingua Franca.

Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 32(3), 23-1.

King, M. T. (2011). A Point of Minimal Important Difference (MID): A Critique of

Terminology and Methods. Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes

research, 11(2), 171-184.

Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research

Cctivities. Educational and psychological measurement, 30(3), 607-610.

Lindsey, J. S. (1991). Self-Assembly in Synthetic Routes to Molecular Devices.

Biological Principles and Chemical Perspectives: A Review. ChemInform,

22(38).

Mackenzie, D. (2010). ICAO: a history of the International Civil Aviation

Organization. University of Toronto Press.

Murphy, A. (2001). The Flight Attendant Dilemma: An Analysis of Communication

and Sensemaking During In-Flight Emergencies. Journal of Applied

Communication Research, 29(1), 30-53.

Nanakorn, S. (2011). Intercultural Communication Competence Among Thai Airways

Cabin Crew. Language Institute, Thammasat University.

National Transportation Safety Board (1992). Special Investigation Report: Flight

Attendant Training Performance During Emergency Situations (NTSB/SIR-

92/02). Washington, DC: Author.

Phuksaritanon, R., Kijsanayotin, B., & Theeraroungchaisri, A. (2017). A Medicines

Terminology Governance Model for Thailand. Thai Journal of Pharmaceutical

Sciences, 41(2)

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

50

Pieterse, A. H., Jager, N. A., Smets, E., & Henselmans, I. (2013). Lay Understanding

of Common Medical Terminology in Oncology. Psycho-Oncology, 22(5),

1186-1191.

Plišo, A. M., & Locher, (2014) M. Non-Standard Phraseology in Aviation English.

Saukko, I. (2014). In the Business of Air Forwarding-Case. Varova Oy.

Terada, A., Tokunaga, T., & Tanaka, H. (2004). Automatic Expansion of

Abbreviations by Using Context and Character Information. Information

processing & management, 40(1), 31-45.

Thai Airways International Public Company Limited, (2017) revised version on 03

May. Cabin Crew Manual (CCM).

Transportation Safety Board of Canada (1995). A Safety Study of Evacuation of Large

Passenger-Carrying Aircraft (SA9510). Canada: Minister of Supply and

Services.

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

51

APPENDICES

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

52

APPENDIX A

6 domestic destinations excluding Bangkok (BKK)

CNX Chiang Mai KBV Krabi

HDY Hat Yai URT Surat Than

HKT Phuket USM Samui

61 international destinations excluding Bangkok (BKK)

AKL Auckland KIX Osaka

ARN Stockholm KMG Kunming

BLR Bangalore KTM Kathmandu

BNE Brisbane KUL Kuala Lumpur

BOM Mumbai LHE Lahore

BRU Brussels LHR London (Heathrow)

CAN Guangzhou MAA Chennai

CCU Kolkata MCT Oman

CDG Paris (Charls de Gaulle) MEL Melbourne

CGK Jakarta MNL Manila

CMB Colombo MUC Munich

CPH Copenhagen MXP Milan (Malpensa)

CTS Sapporo (Chitose) NGO Nagoya

CTU Chengdu NRT Tokyo (Narita)

DAC Dhaka OSL Oslo

DEL Delhi PEK Beijing

DME Moscow (Domodedovo) PEN Penang

DPS Denpasar PER Perth

DXB Dubai PNH Phnom Penh

FCO Rome (Fiumicino Airport) PUS Busan

FRA Frankfurt PVG Shanghai

FUK Fukuoka RGN Yangon

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

53

GAY Gaya SGN Vietnam (Ho Chi Minh)

HND Tokyo (Haneda) SIN Singapore

HAN Vietnam (Hanoi) SYD Sydney

HKG Hong Kong TPE Taipei

HYD Hyderabad VNS Varanasi

ICN Seoul (Incheon) VTE Vientiane

IKA Tehran (Iman Khomeini) XMN Xiamen

ISB Islamabad ZRH Zurich

KHI Karachi

Terminology for flight attendants will be divided into five sections:

1. Terminology related to flight safety and emergency

- Aircraft Variant

- Aircraft deicing

- Base Release

- Conversion Training

- Initial Training

- Recurrent Training

- AHY: Air hostess in economy

- AP: Air purser

- ASY: Air steward in economy

- CIC: Crew In Charge

- FO: First Officer

- IM: Inflight Manager

- PIC: Pilot In Command

- SO: Second Officer

- ABP: Able-Bodied Passenger

- DP: Duty Period

- EOD: Explosive Ordinance Disposal

- EPAS: Emergency Pneumatic Assist System

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

54

- EVAC signal: Evacuation signal

- FDP: Flight Duty Period

- MEL: Minimum equipment

- STB: standby

- TOD: Top Of Decent

- UTC: Time of useful consciousness

- AFT: At the back

- Block time

- Brace commands

- Brace positions

- Brace Signal

- Bulkhead

- Cabin clear

- Cabin crew station

- Checklist

- Check-in and Check-out

- Classes or fire: A: material fire/ B: Flammable liquid/ C: Electrical fie/

D: Metal fire (Lithium Battery)

- Cross checked

- Deadhead/Passive

- Decompression

- Ditching evacuation

- Door armed/disarmed

- Emergency codes/signals during flight

- FORWARD

- Go around

- MID: middle

- Minimum crew

- Missed approach

- On ground evacuation: Remote/terminal

- Over-wing exit

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

55

- Pilot incapacitation

- Pre-flight security check and post-flight security check

- Rapid disembarkation: Bomb/Fuel leakage

- Seatbelt

- Secure cabin

- Silent Review (30 seconds review)

- Sterile flight deck

- Support crew member

- Taxi

- TESTS briefing

- The assistant firefighter

- The Communicator

- The Firefighter

- Turbulence

- Unruly passenger

- Urgency call

2. Terminology related to onboard services

- BLND: Blind Passenger

- DEPA: Accompanied deportee

- DEPU: Unaccompanied deportee

- IFE: Inflight entertainment

- INAD: Inadmissible passenger

- MAAS: Meet and assist service

- MEDA: Medical case

- PA: Public announcement

- PSU; Passenger service unit

- STCR: Stretcher passenger

- UM: Unaccompanied minor

- WCHC: Wheelchair cabin seat

- WCHR: Wheelchair ramp

- WCHS: Wheelchair steps

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

56

- YP: Young passenger

- Apron

- Galley

- Lav: Lavatory

- AVML: Asian Vegetarian

- BBML: Infant/Baby Meal

- BLML: Bland Meal

- CHML: Child Meal

- DBML: Diabetic Meal

- FPML: Fruit Platter Meal

- GFML: Gluten Free Meal

- HNML: Hindu Meal

- KSML: Kosher Meal

- LCML: Low-Calorie Meal

- LFML: Low Fat/Cholesterol Meal

- LSML: Low Sodium Meal

- MOML: Muslim Meal

- NLML: Non-Lactose Meal

- SFML: Seafood Meal

- SPML: Special Meal

- RVML: Raw Vegetarian Meal

- VGML: Strict European Vegetarian/ Vegan Meal

- VJML: Vegetarian Jain Meal

- VLML: Vegetarian Lacto-Ovo/ Western Vegetarian Meal Meal

- VOML: Vegetarian Oriental Meal

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

57

3. Terminology related to emergency equipment

- Baby bassinet

- Demo kit

- Doghouse

- Flashlight

- First aids kit

- Halon: Fire extinguisher

- Life vest

- Medical kit

- Megaphone

- Overhead stowage/bin/locker

- Survival kit

- PBE: Protective Breathing Equipment

- PED: Portable Electronic Devices

- POB: Portable Oxygen Bottle

- UPK: Universal Precaution Kit

- AED: Automated External Defibrillator

- ELT: Emergency Location Transmitter

4. Terminology related to check-in and reservations

- Aisle seat

- Arrival time

- Baggage tag

- Boarding pass

- Boarding time

- Carry-on Baggage

- Check-in

- Child

- Class of service: FC/BC/YC

- Connecting flight

- Departure time

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

58

- Direct flight

- Gate

- Infant

5. Terminology related to first aids, medication, symptoms and medical

treatments

- CAB: Circulation, airway, and breathing

- CPR: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation

- COPD: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

- DVT: Deep vein thrombosis

- HAI: High altitude illness

- TB: Tuberculosis

- Airsickness

- AMBU bag

- Antihistamines

- Asthma

- Burns

- Diabetes: Insulin shock, diabetes coma

- Direct pressure

- Ear distress

- Evolved gas

- Flight phobia

- Heimlich maneuver

- Hypertension

- Hyperventilation

- Hypoxia

- Infant

- Jet lag

- Masked hangover

- Obstructed airways/chocking

- Recovery position

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

59

- RICE treatments

- Tranquilizers

- Valsalva maneuver

- Ventolin inhaler

- Vertigo

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

60

APPENDIX B

QUESTIONNAIRE

This questionnaire is a part of a research of the understanding of aviation

terminology for THAI AIRWAYS flight attendants to fulfill the Master’s Degree

requirement. Please kindly take a moment to complete this questionnaire.

All answers are confidential and will be particularly used in this study. Your

kind responses towards this study are priceless and your attempt at doing so will

always be greatly appreciated.

Direction: This questionnaire is designed to explore the degree of terminology

knowledge of THAI flight attendants. In order to obtain the accurate result of the

study, please answer all the questions based on your true knowledge and

understanding truthfully. This test must be completed within one hour.

This questionnaire is divided into three sections:

Section I: General background information

Section II: Flying experience and English proficiency TOEIC score

Section III: 80 written test questions about aviation terminology

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

61

SECTION I: General background information

Direction: Please provide information by marking / in the O for answers

1. AGE

O 20-25

O 25-30

O 30-35

O 35-40

2. SEX

O Male

O Female

3. Marital status

O Single

O Married

O Divorced

O Widowed

4. Highest Education

O Bachelor’s Degree

O Master’s Degree

O Doctoral Degree

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

62

SECTION II: Flying experience and TOEIC score

1. Previous flying experience before joining THAI (please skip this question if

your first flying experience is with THAI.)

Flying experience ____________________________years

Name/s of previous company/ies ________________________

2. Your English language proficiency score

TOEIC _____________________

Section III: 80 written test questions about aviation terminology

For the questions below, please write down your best answer, preferably in English

(80 points)

Please answer the full name of the three-letter airport code abbreviations given below.

(24 points)

1. DPS =

2. SGN =

3. FCO =

4. SIN =

5. USM =

6. HND =

7. BLR =

8. PER =

9. KTM =

10. RGN =

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

63

11. CTU =

12. IKA =

13. AKL =

14. MAA =

15. KBV =

16. VTE =

17. DME =

18. HKG =

19. HDY =

20. CMB =

21. XMN =

22. GAY =

23. LHR =

24. PUS =

Please explain the full meaning of the terminology below. (56 points)

25. Aircraft Deicing

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

26. Conversion Training

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

64

27. Recurrent Training

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

28. CIC

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

29. PIC

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

30. ABP

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

31. EOD

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

32. EPAS

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

33. EVAC signal

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

34. TOD

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

65

35. Brace commands

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

36. Brace Signal

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

37. Bulkhead

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

38. Class of fire A/B/C/D

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

39. Deadhead/Passive

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

40. Decompression

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

41. Go Around

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

42. Pilot Incapacitation

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

66

43. Rapid Disembarkation

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

44. Secure Cabin

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

45. 30 seconds reviews (Silent Reviews)

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

46. Sterile flight deck

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

47. TESTS briefing

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

48. Unruly passenger

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

49. BLND

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

50. DEPA

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

67

51. INAD

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

52. MAAS

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

53. PSU

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

54. STCR

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

55. UM

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

56. WCHC

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

57. WCHS

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

68

58. Galley

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

59. LAV

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

60. BBML

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

61. GFML

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

62. LSML

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

63. SFML

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

64. VGML

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

65. Baby bassinet

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

69

66. Doghouse

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

67. Halon

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

68. Survival kit

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

69. PBE

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

70. POB

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

71. UPK

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

72. AED

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

73. ELT

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

70

74. Carry-on-baggage

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

75. CPR

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

76. Direct pressure

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

77. Heimlich maneuver

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

78. Hypoxia

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

79. Recovery position

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

80. Valsalva maneuver

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB

71

BIOGRAPHY

Name Mrs. Yanisa Chenyawanich Choo

Date of Birth March 8, 1985

Educational Attainment 2003: Bachelor’s of Arts in Business English,

Bangkok University International College

Work Position Flight attendant

Thai Airways International Public Company

Limited

Work Experiences Flight attendant:

Thai Airways International Public Company

Limited

Flight attendant:

Qatar Airways

Ref. code: 25605921040605VDB