Transcript Analysis
Transcribe a real exchange, diagnose it against the standard, and write a finding a stranger could check
At a glance
- Due
- 23 April 2027
- Weight
- 30% of the course
- Submit
- A timed transcript of your allocated exchange, a diagnosis of every deviation you claim, and a finding of 600 to 800 words
- Format
- One PDF. The transcript uses the timings, station labels and notation used across this site, with unintelligible passages marked as such
- Where
- The course submission folder, by Friday noon of week 7
Before that: Collect your allocated exchange. Week 6. One exchange per student, allocated in week 6. Nobody else has yours, and the audio is not published, so there is nothing to work on until you have it. Comparing transcripts with somebody holding a different exchange is fine; comparing with somebody holding yours is not. Where that happens.
Here is four minutes of real audio. Say what was said, say what was wrong with it, and write it up so somebody who thinks you are wrong can check.
What you submit#
A transcript of the assigned exchange — one per student, allocated in week 6 — with timings, station labels and the notation used across this site. Include the parts you could not make out, marked as unintelligible. A gap honestly marked is worth more than a confident guess, and the marking reflects that.
A diagnosis. For each deviation from standard phraseology: what was said, what the standard form is, and what the deviation risked in that specific exchange. Not in general — in that one.
A finding, 600–800 words. One claim about the exchange, argued.
How it is marked#
Accuracy of transcription (25). Against the marker’s own transcript. Honestly marked gaps do not lose marks; invented content does.
Diagnosis against the standard (40). Each claimed deviation has to be
named against a specific phrase in the glossary or in ICAO phraseology. “This
was non-standard” is not a diagnosis. “This used ROGER where AFFIRM was
required, so an acknowledgement of receipt was recorded as an agreement” is.
The heaviest criterion, because it is the course’s central skill and the one that most often collapses into taste.
Quality of the written finding (35). The test is checkability. Can a reader who disagrees with you find the thing you relied on and evaluate it themselves? That means quoting the transmission, citing the standard, and being explicit about the step where you moved from what was said to what it risked.
A finding that is right for reasons the reader cannot follow scores below a finding that is arguable and fully exposed.
The trap in this assessment#
Most first attempts diagnose the transmission that sounds most unusual. That is usually an accent, a regionalism or a busy controller clipping words — none of which is a deviation from the standard.
Meanwhile the actual deviation is often perfectly fluent and sounds fine, which is week 7’s whole argument. Fluency is not compliance. Check the forms, not the delivery.
Use of the audio#
The exchanges are drawn from published accident and incident dockets and from recordings released for training. They involve real people, some of whom died. Write about the transmission and the system that shaped it. Do not write about the character of the person transmitting, and do not name individuals where the source does not.
The spec
The brief poses the problem and leaves room for a response. The spec is the fixed part: what a marker checks. Some lines can be checked mechanically; the rest call for judgement.
- the transcript covers the full assigned exchange, with timings
- every deviation claimed is named against a specific standard phrase
- a reader who disagrees with your finding can locate what you relied on
How it is marked
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| Accuracy of transcription | 25% |
| Diagnosis against the standard | 40% |
| Quality of the written finding | 35% |
What each grade looks like
The criteria above say what is being marked. These say what each level of it looks like. Each band assumes the one before it.
| Grade | What work in this band does |
|---|---|
| PPass50–59 | The transcript covers the full exchange with timings and station labels, gaps are marked rather than filled in, and the finding makes one claim about what happened. |
| CRCredit60–69 | Deviations are named against a specific standard phrase rather than called non-standard, and the finding quotes the transmission it rests on. |
| DDistinction70–79 | Every claim is located in the audio and named against the glossary or ICAO phraseology, and the diagnosis says what each deviation risked in this exchange rather than in general. |
| HDHigh Distinction80–100 | Everything in Distinction, and a reader who disagrees can take the finding apart: the step from what was said to what it risked is exposed, and you say what four minutes of audio cannot settle. |