Corresponding technical documentation (e.g. FCOM and QRH checklist) provide ESL flight crewmembers with information to resolve various system issues on the flight deck,
EICAS technical English caution messages and abbreviations
including crew alert messages. Such alerts require ESL flight crewmembers background knowledge of system health, failure modes, and require ESL flight crewmembers keen understanding of how to effectively solve problems related to crew alerts. Problem solving on the flight deck requires ESL flight crewmembers ability to read, comprehend, and execute various tasks using technical documentation with an English language emphasis. Tasks are designed to ensure that information on flight deck crew alerting systems and corresponding technical procedures meet crewmember mental model expectations, so that they have adequate information to maintain safe flight. Problem solving is especially important when responding to aircraft non-normal/emergency conditions that require use of Western built information systems. For example, a QRH checklist may be utilized to diagnose an engine failure or electrical system failure. The QRH checklist is a common type of checklist, developed by manufacturers of an airplane and contain technical information that generally coincides with information displayed on the alert system (i.e. warning, cautions, advisories).
Figure 4is an example of written English language technical information utilized by ESL flight crewmembers in response to an engine failure on takeoff. Key aspects shown in Figure 4are examples of written English language design style features. The QRH checklist follows a left to right reading style, typical of written English language cultural characteristics (Ulijn and Strother, 2012). The QRH paper checklist includes different types of acronyms/abbreviations, phrases, sentences, and emergency conditions wording that are mixed within the structure of the QRH checklist. Sentence structure is different in many areas on the QRH checklist, including some sentences that do not contain all of the elements that make-up a sentence, and thus appear to be simplified. The format is also different in each section of the QRH checklist.
Figure 4 L410 UVP-E20 Aircraft QRH Checklist: From IAC (2013)
English language technical information was designed so that ESL flight crewmembers may use the information in response to crew alerts. Arrangement of information, style, and logic flow of information is noted on both displayed crew alerts and the QRH checklist. Even though the design of information is considered an important aspect of crew alerting and information systems, design has the potential to impact ESL flight crew usability and thus performance. Understanding ESL flight crewmembers differences in their cognitive processing of written English language information is paramount,
especially factors that may influence operator performance (Smith-Jackson, 2006; Riley et al, 2006). Cognitive factors that may influence ESL flight crewmember reading comprehension of technical information include English language literacy and
proficiency. According to Burian (2006) ESL flight crewmembers have the potential to experience cognitive difficulty with interpretation of information on checklists.
Written English language interpretation difficulties on checklists can be related to design ambiguities such as phrases, abbreviations, and acronyms. It may be easy to read
literature when the language is familiar to the individual reading written English language (native English language individuals), but, if the reader is accustomed to understanding a different language (ESL individuals), they may not understand the abbreviations or acronyms adequately (Hartley, 1994). Abbreviations and acronyms should be designed adequately so that technical information on checklists may be followed by ESL flight crewmembers, and thus allowing them to respond effectively to the alert. According to Dyson (2004), configuration of data may impact reading comprehension of information on paper. Configuration of data can also impact ESL flight crewmembers information processing on displayed crew alerts. Mangen et al (2013) stated that with respect to linear text on paper, adequate spatial integration of technical information and layout has the potential to support memory and recall of information. However, design
inconsistencies with use of English language on checklists have the potential to cause misunderstandings and even disregard for checklist procedures (Degani and Wiener, 1998). According to Flight Safety Foundation (2015), the International Federation of Airline Pilots Association (IFALPA) indicated a large number of ESL flight
crewmembers use written English language QRH checklists on the flight deck.
Therefore, checklists should be written clearly and refrain from ambiguous language in text corpora. Spelling out abbreviated text is important wherever possible on checklists to afford understanding by ESL flight crewmembers. For example, VNE is abbreviated for a reference speed ‘not exceed’, related to aircraft airspeed based on aircraft condition during typical phase of flight (e.g. takeoff/landing).
With respect to design of checklists, ESL flight crewmembers should not have to
translate written English language technical information back in to their native language to solve problems on the flight deck. Written English language technical documentation should be written in a format that is compatible with ESL flight crewmember
expectations. However, ESL flight crewmember reading comprehension can be impacted by design of English language (e.g. sentence length, simplified text). According to Hutchins et al (2006, p.5), with respect to checklists, “strings of characters that name the procedure cannot be translated because translation would destroy the correspondence between the form of the message and the form of the procedure name.” In other words, string of characters such as ‘FUEL SHUTOFF’ may not be translated. On the other hand,
Drury and Ma (2005), indicated that certain pieces of aviation technical written information may be translated and still retain its understanding even if it were fully translated. They also indicated that certain written English language technical terms should not be translated because its translation may be very difficult to understand by the non-native English individual. Such technical terms like rudder and empennage are universally accepted technical terms and are understood by many cultures. Deleting or adding information as a result of a translated language by ESL individuals can be the result of misunderstandings with syntactic sentence structure. Words and sentences that are unfamiliar to an ESL individual can be attributed to errors of omission and
commission (Dordick, 1996). Design of English language can lead to misunderstandings of English language. Misunderstandings of written English language by ESL individuals can lead to translation of written English language technical information into ESL adult native language. This behavior has the potential to impact ESL adults understanding of information, if the word or sentence is not the same word or sentence translation with the same meaning in ESL adults native language. This can cause ESL adults to revert back to English language. According to Kobayashi and Rinnert (1992), reverting back to English language can occur because an ESL adult lacks understanding of translated syntax meaning. This behavior by ESL individuals can result in inappropriate translation of technical information back into their native language.
Displayed crew alerts should follow many of the aforementioned written English language design criteria, and design goals to preclude misunderstandings of English language by ESL flight crewmembers. Visual ergonomics (English text design)
associated with locating information on a display can impact information access as well as reading and comprehension (Holzinger et al, 2011). Since display space is limited for the amount of crew alerting information that is allocated on a screen, does the design of sentences, phrases, abbreviations and acronyms have the potential to impact ESL flight crewmembers cognitive processing of information? Indeed, abbreviations do appear on alert systems (e.g. ECAM and EICAS) often, and space is limited, but there is still a need to investigate the effects of written English language abbreviations on ESL reading comprehension (DeBrito, 1998). According to Hutchins et al (2006), written English language text on displays appears in different formats such as abbreviations and acronyms. Careful considerations regarding design of phrases and other pieces of technical information on displays has the potential to impact performance. Amount of written English language technical information on displays would seem critical to ESL flight crewmembers ability to understand written English language. The FAA (1996) indicated that displayed safety related warning information has the potential to impact ESL understanding of written English language, especially abbreviated text. As Wogalter et al (1997) indicated there is a disparity in research on factors that influence how effectively ESL individuals read and understand written English language safety related alerts (e.g. warnings). What is the degree of ESL flight crewmembers reading ability and understandability of safety related alerts on crew alerting systems? Does their English language proficiency of written English language improve or exacerbate
misunderstandings of safety alert information in different formats? Do ESL flight
crewmembers have adequate background knowledge of written English language on crew alerting and information systems? These questions will be answered within the context of the thesis.