CoverStory

© Chris Sorensen Photography

Simplifying the
Word lists and writing rules take the confusion out of aviation maintenance documents.

16 | flight safety foundation | AeroSafetyWorld | August 2007

 CoverStory

E
nglish is the international language of These and other examples illustrate how
aviation — and therefore the language difficult a language English can be, said the
most frequently used in technical and Aerospace and Defence Industries Association
maintenance documents — but often it of Europe (ASD), which has developed rules
is not the native language of the maintenance for the use of English in aviation maintenance
personnel who use these documents. documents.
As a result, complex technical instructions “Many readers [of technical maintenance
can be misunderstood, especially by those documents] have a knowledge of English that is
without strong English language skills — and limited, and are easily confused by complex sen-
occasionally by native-English speakers — and tence structures and by the number of meanings
the misunderstandings can lead to accidents. and synonyms which English words can have,”
The International Civil Aviation Organization the ASD said.
(ICAO) said in a 1996 article in the ICAO Journal
that language errors had become more prevalent, Pattern of Errors
partly because air carrier airplanes were being A study conducted for the U.S. Federal Aviation
manufactured in many different countries, where Administration (FAA) on language errors within
many different languages are spoken. the worldwide maintenance repair and overhaul
“Sometimes, the technical language of the (MRO) market found that the most common
manufacturer does not translate easily into the errors involve both written English and spoken
technical language of the customer, and the English.3 The study identified the most frequent
result can be maintenance documentation that is language-related errors as involving one of the
difficult to understand,” ICAO said.1 following three scenarios, in which a mainte-
“Anecdotal evidence suggests a case where a nance employee:3
certain maintenance procedure was ‘proscribed’
(i.e., prohibited) in a service bulletin. The tech- • Was unable to communicate ver-
nician reading this concluded that the procedure bally at the level required for adequate
was ‘prescribed’ (i.e., defined, laid down) and performance;
proceeded to perform the forbidden action.” • Did not realize that a person he or she was
The International Federation of Airworthi- speaking with had limited English ability;
ness (IFA) cited another example involving a or,
Japanese operator’s airplane, in service for five
days without batteries for the emergency exit • Did not fully understand written docu-
door operation auxiliary system.2 mentation in English, such as a mainte-
“During maintenance, the battery cases were nance manual or a work card.
replaced,” the IFA report said. “Seven of the “Language errors of many types are pos-
eight [replacement] cases did not contain batter- sible, although only a few are frequent, with a
ies. Another mechanic who should have checked language-error-prone activity having consis-
the existence of the batteries had reportedly tent characteristics: complex task instructions;

Technicalities
misread the English manual.” poorly designed document, in English; users

BY LINDA WERFELMAN

www.flightsafety.org | AeroSafetyWorld | August 2007 | 17

 CoverStory

with low ability in English and low familiarity The study identified a similar pattern in the
with the task to be performed; and time pressure most frequently cited factors that could prevent
to complete the task,” said one of several reports language errors:
on the study, which included surveys of 941
maintenance personnel in Asia, Europe, Latin • “The mechanic or inspector is familiar
America and the United States, along with task- with this particular job;
card comprehension tests and group discussions • “The document follows good design
of scenarios involving language errors. practice;
“When listed in this way, language errors
appear to have all of the usual human factors • “The document is translated into the na-
ingredients for error, not just language error. … tive language of the mechanic or inspector;
The implication is that if the ‘usual’ error-shaping • “The document uses terminology consis-
factors are present, then the ‘usual’ interventions tent with other documents; [and,]
should be effective (e.g., training, documentation
design [and] organization design.)” • “The mechanic or inspector uses the
aircraft as a communication device, for
© Chris Sorensen Photography example, to show the area to be inspected.”
Although the study found language errors to be a
“potential problem,” it also identified two frequent
factors in the discovery of an error: the mechanic
or inspector either “asked for assistance or clarifi-
cation” or “appeared perplexed.” Both factors rely
on “feedback from the message recipient to the
message sender,” the report said, and both typically
occur early in the maintenance process.
“Detection of language errors is typically
reported well before any maintenance/inspec-
tion errors have been committed, or [before] the
aircraft is released for service,” the report said.
The study found that younger maintenance
personnel and those with better reading skills
experienced fewer language errors.
“Increasing mastery of English will have a
significant impact on comprehension and is a
vindication of the English language training
programs invested in by many of the MROs we
visited,” the report said.

‘Strong Case’ for Simplification

ICAO said in its 1996 article that the preponder-
ance of maintenance information published in
English made a strong case for the use of simpli-
fied technical English, a “controlled language”
— that is, a language specifically adapted to
eliminate ambiguity and complexity by using
only selected words and applying grammar rules
in very specific ways.

18 | flight safety foundation | AeroSafetyWorld | August 2007

 CoverStory

Others in the aviation industry have shared

that belief. Efforts to address maintenance prob-
Writing to Rule
lems associated with misunderstandings of written

S
English began on a large scale in the late 1970s, implified technical English in general — and Specification ASD-
when the Association of European Airlines asked STE100, developed by the Aerospace and Defence Industries
the European Association of Aerospace Industries Association of Europe, in particular — is intended specifically for
people who use English language technical documents in the aero-
(AECMA) — as the ASD was then known — to
space industry.1,2
develop its first version of simplified technical The primary components of simplified technical English are a set
English suitable for use in aviation maintenance of writing rules for style and grammar, and a dictionary containing
documentation. AECMA’s first product, AECMA about 1,000 approved words. Also included are a thesaurus and guide-
Simplified English, has been revised several times; lines for adding words to the approved technical vocabulary.
the current document is ASD Simplified Technical Among the rules:
• Write in the active voice (i.e., “The pilot flew the airplane,” rather
English, Specification ASD-STE100, which com-
than “The airplane was flown by the pilot”);
bines writing rules and a dictionary of “controlled • Avoid long compound words and long sentences; and,
vocabulary” (see “Writing to Rule”).4 • Be consistent in your choice of words.
“Clear and unambiguous maintenance in- — LW
structions are the scope of the specification,” said Notes
Orlando Chiarello, chairman of the ASD STE 1. Aerospace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD). Simplified
Maintenance Group and product support man- Technical English. <www.simplifiedenglish-aecma.org/Simplified_English.
htm>.
ager for Secondo Mona, an Italian manufacturer
2. Boeing. Simplified English Checker. <www.boeing.com/phantom/
of aircraft fuel systems and other components.
sechecker/se.html>.
“Although sometimes difficult for the writer,
the unique scope of ASD-STE100 is to give to
whoever does maintenance in whichever part of
the world a text which must be technically correct international standards] should mandatorily use
and simple to understand. The user does not have ASD-STE100,” Chiarello said. “How correctly it is
to learn ASD-STE100; she/he has simply to read used is difficult to say, and there are many factors
an English text that is clear and easy.” that may have influence on the correct usage.”
Since 1987, the use of ASD-STE100 has been Although ASD-STE100 results in the use of
a requirement of international standards for simplified English for the readers of maintenance
aircraft maintenance documents. documents, it is “not a simplified version of
With its beginnings in Europe and North English for the writers,” he said, noting that those
America — home to most manufacturers of who use the specification to prepare aviation
aircraft, aircraft engines and other components — maintenance documents in technical English
simplified technical English has remained more must have a good command of written English
prevalent on those continents than elsewhere in and thorough training in the use of ASD-STE100.
the world, Chiarello said. Nevertheless, manu- The ASD-STE100 dictionary contains about
facturers in Africa, Asia, Australia and South 1,000 “general vocabulary” words, although writ-
America also use ASD-STE100, he said. In addi- ers using the specification may add the technical
tion, in Russia, one manufacturer has requested names and technical verbs required to describe
permission to adapt ASD-STE100 to the Russian various maintenance procedures, said Richard
language with the development of Simplified Wojcik, associate technical fellow for Boeing
Russian. Originally developed for civilian avia- Phantom Works, a research and development
tion, ASD-STE100 has been incorporated into unit at Boeing. There are, however, 20 categories
standards for production of military aircraft. that must be applied to determine whether a
“Theoretically, all manufacturers who write word qualifies as a technical name and 11 catego-
maintenance procedures in accordance with [the ries of technical verbs, Wojcik said.

www.flightsafety.org | AeroSafetyWorld | August 2007 | 19

 CoverStory

When the technical names and Simplification

technical verbs are included, “you have
potentially thousands and thousands of STE: “Stop the power supply.”
words,” he said, adding that, to some ex- Non-STE: “Turn off the power.”
tent, “it’s up to the judgment of the writ- Explanation: “‘Turn’ is approved when you use it to ‘move something around its axis.’
ing establishments within the companies If you do not ‘turn’ something to stop the power supply … do not use the word ‘turn.’”
which words they’re going to allow for
STE: “Continue the test.”
their companies as technical names.”
The ASD says that the specification Non-STE: “The test can be continued by the operator.”
emphasizes the principle of “one word Explanation: “Use the active voice” — rather than the passive voice in choices of verbs
and sentence structure.
— one meaning.” Therefore, in situa-
tions in which several English words
STE: “Set the rotary switch to INPUT.”
mean approximately the same thing,
Non-STE: “Rotary switch to INPUT.”
the dictionary includes only one and
Explanation: “Do not omit verbs [to make sentences shorter]. The reader will not know
excludes the synonyms.
what the action is.”
“For example, ‘start’ was chosen in-
stead of ‘begin,’ ‘commence,’ ‘initiate’ or STE: “When the landing gear retracts:
‘originate,’” the ASD says. “When there (1) The door-operating bar on the leg touches and turns the latch.
are several possible definitions of a word
(2) This causes the roller to move out of the slot.
in English, the specification selects one
(3) The second roller holds the door-operating bar.”
of these definitions to the exclusion of
the others. For example, ‘to fall’ has the Non-STE: “During the final movement of the landing gear retraction, the door operating
bar located on the leg contacts and turns the latch, withdrawing the roller from
definition of ‘to move down by the force the slot and the second roller entraps the door operating bar.”
of gravity,’ not ‘decrease’ (Table 1).” Explanation: “The tabular layout of text … with standard punctuation can help to show the
Wojcik cited another example: the relationship between two or more complex actions or events. This is clearer than writing
word “interference,” which according to long sentences.”

the rules may not be used “when it means

STE: “Make sure that the oxygen tubes are fully clean. This will help to prevent
things knocking together” but is permit- contamination and explosions.”
ted in describing electrical interference, Non-STE: “Extreme cleanliness of oxygen tubes is imperative.”
which is “not an event but rather an
Explanation: “Be specific in a warning or caution. You must tell the users exactly what they
environmental condition.” must do and what can happen, to get their attention immediately.”
“Many of the rules in simplified
STE = standard technical English
technical English are designed just to
clarify — they’re the same rules that Source: Aerospace and Defence Industries Association of Europe. ASD-STE100, Simplified Technical English. Issue 4. January 2007.

any good technical writer would apply,” Table 1

Wojcik said. “In general, it’s a clarify-
ing standard. ... It just forces people to
take out the double-talk, the unneces- ASD-STE100, including Boeing, Changing Practices
sary wording, the circumlocution, all whose Simplified English Checker Philip Shawcross, vice president
the things that people will put into a tells writers if they have used unap- of the International Civil Aviation
document because they want to sound proved words or violated writing rules. English Association, said that stan-
educated or because they just aren’t The program does not automatically dardization of language used by
thinking very carefully about how the correct what it identifies as errors, maintenance personnel has become
reader is going to understand what however; instead, it provides writers increasingly necessary because of the
they’re saying.” with information and allows them to substantial changes in maintenance
Several companies produce the determine whether what they have practices over the past 20 years,
software typically used to implement written makes sense.5 including:

20 | flight safety foundation | AeroSafetyWorld | August 2007

 CoverStory

• Expansion of the role of computers result, maintenance documents from all Elizabeth Mathews, a specialist in
in the maintenance environment; the main manufacturers are much more applied linguistics and leader of the in-
uniform and accessible than many were ternational group that developed ICAO’s
• Fewer translations of documents 20 years ago.” English language proficiency standards,
from English to a native language; Nevertheless, authors of the FAA said that maintenance personnel require
• Increased use of manufacturer- language-error study said they were skills in reading, writing and speaking/lis-
generated standardized training surprised to find that simplified tening to English. Detailed studies would
materials — written in English; technical English “had no consistent be required before the appropriate profi-
effect” in limiting language errors ciency levels for maintenance personnel
• More alliances among airlines, among non-native speakers of Eng- could be determined, she said. ●
many of which are in countries that lish outside the United States. Earlier
have no common language; and, findings had shown that simplified Notes
technical English was effective for 1. International Civil Aviation Organization
• An increasingly mobile, multicul- non-native English speakers in the (ICAO) Secretariat. “Awareness Grows
tural work force.6 United States.7 of Importance of Human Factors Issues
in Aircraft Maintenance and Inspection.”
“All these trends have something ‘invis- “Perhaps [simplified technical
ICAO Journal. January–February 1996.
ible’ in common: a much increased English] is less useful when applied in
reliance upon language and upon a a setting where the native language is 2. International Federation of Airworthiness
(IFA). “Human Factors: New Technology
single language — English,” said Shaw- other than English,” their report said.
Adds a New Dimension to Documents.”
cross, who also is in charge of training “Similarly, neither the interventions of
IFA News, 2006.
curriculum design for Aviation English a bilingual coach or a glossary pro-
Services, which provides training and duced any significant results, despite 3. Drury, C.G.; Ma, J.; Marin, C. “Language
Error in Aviation Maintenance: Findings
testing in aviation-specific English. their widespread use as interventions at
and Recommendations.” Included in
“The regulations set by civil aviation MRO sites.” Aviation Maintenance Human Factors
authorities represent only one of the The report added that translation of Program Review, Fiscal Year 2005, July
pressures exerted on operators to ensure information from English into the na- 2006. The study was conducted for the U.S.
that their maintenance staff [attains] a tive language was “the only consistent Federal Aviation Administration, which was
given level of proficiency in English,” significant intervention” in preventing especially interested in maintenance, repair
and overhaul facilities that were engaged in
Shawcross said. “Operational, techni- misunderstanding. Partial translation,
contract maintenance for major airlines.
cal, safety, financial and commercial with technical terms left in English, was
pressures are probably more effective in as effective as full translation. 4. Aerospace and Defence Industries
Association of Europe (ASD). Simplified
the way they drive for efficient com- As a result of the study’s findings,
Technical English. <www.simplifiedeng-
munication. … Translation is costly and the report recommended training for lish-aecma.org/Simplified_English.htm>.
slow. Computer-assisted translation for maintenance personnel in written and
5. Boeing. Simplified English Checker. <www.
technical texts is still very far from being spoken English and use of good design
boeing.com/phantom/sechecker/se.html>.
reliable. … Using the single universally practices in work documents, as well as
recognized aviation language compe- recognition of “the symptoms of imper- 6. Shawcross, Philip. “Reading and Writing
English in Engineering and Maintenance.”
tently also makes good business sense.” fect communication” and the harmful
Presentation to the 20th conference of
Simplified technical English is not effects of time pressures. the International Airline Language and
perfect, Shawcross said, noting that Communication Organisation. Feb. 3–4,
critics sometimes complain about its Proficiency Requirements 2005.
rules and/or choices of words. Although ICAO moved in 2004 to es- 7. Drury; Ma; Marin.
However, it “does embody a consid- tablish a baseline for English language
erable amount of common sense and proficiency for pilots and air traffic Further Reading From FSF Publications
good practice and has provided editors controllers, with proficiency testing set FSF Editorial Staff. “High Stakes in Language
worldwide with a single framework to begin in 2008, maintenance person- Proficiency.” Flight Safety Digest Volume 25
within which to write,” he added. “As a nel were not included. (January–February 2006).

www.flightsafety.org | AeroSafetyWorld | August 2007 | 21