Cover not available
Article published In:
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 28:2 (2005) ► pp.60–76

‘Checklist complete’. or is it? closing a task in the airline cockpit

| University of Canberra

For airline pilots, the call of ‘checklist complete’ is officially prescribed talk to claim that the crew’s joint conduct of a checklist is over, and the task can be understood as closed. However, very often this call is not the final talk for the task. This paper1 uses naturally occurring data, transcriptions of pilots interacting on actual passenger flights, to show that the recipient pilot commonly says something in response. That pilot might say thank you or okay. These two non-official responses do interactional work. They allow the other pilot to know that the call of ‘checklist complete’ was itself heard, and that there is now a shared crew understanding that the checklist is closed. Such an understanding is critical in the airline cockpit where it is crucial to perform tasks in strict sequential order. Thank you and okay are evidence of pilots’ orientation to their work as a progression through a series of tasks, and where there is value in making salient that one task is closed and it is legitimate to move to a next task. The paper examines how officially scripted talk for work is actually realised in situ.

Published online: 1 January 2005
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.28.2.05nev
References
Antaki, C.
(2002) “Lovely”: turn-initial high-grade assessments in telephone closings. Discourse Studies, (4), 5–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arminen, I.
(2001) Closing of turns in the meetings of alcoholics anonymous: members’ methods for closing ’sharing experiences’, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 341, 211–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) Institutional interaction: studies of talk at work. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Aston, G.
(1995) Say ‘thank you’: some pragmatic constraints in conversational closings. Applied Linguistics, 16 (1), 57–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
BASI (Bureau of Air Safety Investigation)
(1996) Boeing 747-312 VH-INH, Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport, New South Wales, 19 October 1994. Investigation Report 9403038. Department of Transport and Regional Development, Canberra.Google Scholar
Beach, W.A.
(1993) Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 191, 325–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Button, G.
(1987) Moving out of closings. In G. Button & J.R.E Lee (Eds.) Talk and social organization (pp. 101–151). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(1990) On varieties of closings. In G. Psathas (Ed.) Interactional competence (pp. 93–147). Washington: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Condon, S.
(2001) Discourse ok revisited: default organization in verbal interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 331, 491–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cushing, S.
(1994) Fatal words: communication clashes and aircraft crashes. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Döpke, S., Brown, A., Liddicoat, A., & Love, K.
(1994) Closings in talkback radio: institutional effects on conversational routines. In R. Gardner (Ed.) Spoken interaction studies in Australia. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Series S, 11, 21–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. & Heritage, J.
(Eds.) (1992) Talk at work: interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
FSF (Flight Safety Foundation)
(1997) Flight crew’s failure to perform landing checklist results in DC-9 wheels-up landing. Accident Prevention, 54 (5), May, 1–15.Google Scholar
Goldberg, J.A.
(2004) The amplitude shift mechanism in conversational closing sequences. In G. Lerner (Ed.) Conversation analysis: studies from the first generation (pp. 257–297). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hazlehurst, B.
(2003) The cockpit as multiple activity system: a computational model for understanding situated team performance. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 13 (1), 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, C. & Luff, P.
(2000) Technology in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helmreich, R.L.
(1994) Anatomy of a system accident: the crash of Avianca flight 052. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 4 (3), 265–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, A.
(2005) Safety, culture and risk: the organisational causes of disasters. Sydney: CCH Australia.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. & Klausen, T.
(1996) Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. In Y. Engeström & D. Middleton (Eds.) Cognition and communication at work (pp. 15–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, E. & Palen, L.
(1997) Constructing meaning from space, gesture, and speech. In L.B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.) Discourse, tools, and reasoning: essays on situated cognition (pp. 23–40). Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LeBaron, C. & Jones, S.
(2002) Closing up closings: showing the relevance of the social and material surround to the completion of an interaction. Journal of Communication, 52 (3), 542–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McHoul, A. & Rapley, M.
(Eds.) (2001) How to analyse talk in institutional settings: a casebook of methods. London: Continuum International.Google Scholar
Mjøs, K.
(2001) Communication and operational failures in the cockpit. Human Factors and Aerospace Safety, 1 (4), 323–340.Google Scholar
Mondada, L.
(2003) Working with video: how surgeons produce video records of their tasks. Visual Studies, 18 (1), 58–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevile, M.
(2001) Understanding who’s who in the airline cockpit: pilots’ pronominal choices and cockpit roles. In A. McHoul & M. Rapley (Eds.) How to analyse talk in institutional settings: a casebook of methods (pp. 57–71). London: Continuum International.Google Scholar
(2004a) Beyond the black box: talk-in-interaction in the airline cockpit. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
(2004b) Integrity in the airline cockpit: embodying claims about progress for the conduct of an approach briefing. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37 (4), 447–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) You always have to land: accomplishing the sequential organization of actions to land an airliner. In S. Norris & R. Jones (Eds.) Discourse in action: introducing mediated discourse analysis (pp. 32–45). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
in press). Making sequentiality salient: and-prefacing in the talk of airline pilots. Discourse Studies, 8 (2). DOI logo
Nevile, M. & Walker, M.B.
(2005) A context for error: using conversation analysis to represent and analyse recorded voice data. Aviation Research Report, B2005/0108. Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Department of Transport and Regional Services, Canberra. Available via [URL]
Rendle-Short, J.
(1999) When ‘okay’ is okay in computer science seminar talk. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 22 (2), 19–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E.A. & Sacks, H.
(1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8 (4), 289–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. & Heritage, J.
(2001) Breaking the sequential mold: answering ‘more than the question’ during comprehensive history taking. Text, 21 (1/2), 151–185.Google Scholar
Taggart, W.R.
(1994) Crew resource management: achieving enhanced flight operations. In N. Johnston, N. McDonald, & R. Fuller (Eds.) Aviation psychology in practice (pp. 309–338). Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
ten Have, P.
(1999) Doing conversation analysis: a practical guide. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 11 other publications

Deppermann, Arnulf
2014. Multimodal participation in simultaneous joint projects. In Multiactivity in Social Interaction, ► pp. 247 ff. DOI logo
Estival, Dominique & Brett Molesworth
2009. 'A study of EL2 pilots’ radio communication in the General Aviation environment. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 32:3 ► pp. 24.1 ff. DOI logo
Estival, Dominique & Brett Molesworth
2012. Radio Miscommunication. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 5:3 ► pp. 351 ff. DOI logo
Froholdt, Lisa Loloma
2016. ‘I See You on My Radar’: Displays of the Confirmatory Form in Maritime Technologically Mediated Interaction. The Sociological Review 64:3 ► pp. 468 ff. DOI logo
Nevile, Maurice
2007. Talking without overlap in the airline cockpit: Precision timing at work. Text & Talk - An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse Communication Studies 27:2 ► pp. 225 ff. DOI logo
NEVILE, MAURICE
2007. Action in time: Ensuring timeliness for collaborative work in the airline cockpit. Language in Society 36:02 DOI logo
Nevile, Maurice
2009. “You Are Well Clear of Friendlies”: Diagnostic Error and Cooperative Work in an Iraq War Friendly Fire Incident. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 18:2-3 ► pp. 147 ff. DOI logo
Nevile, Maurice
2012. Conversation Analysis and Cockpit Communication. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, DOI logo
Nevile, Maurice & Johanna Rendle-Short
2007. Language as action. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 30:3 ► pp. 30.1 ff. DOI logo
Nevile, Maurice & Johanna Rendle-Short
2007. Language as action. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 30:3 ► pp. 30.1 ff. DOI logo
Pan, Yushan, Guoyuan Li, Thiago Gabriel Monteiro, Hans Petter Hildre & Steinar Nistad
2018. Assessment of Relations Between Communications and Visual Focus in Dynamic Positioning Operations. In Technology Enhanced Assessment [Communications in Computer and Information Science, 829], ► pp. 163 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.