Do Language Barriers Result in Aviation Maintenance Errors?

The existence of maintenance and inspection personnel whose native language is not English suggests that language barriers may be causing performance errors. This project examines whether such errors exist, what patterns characterize these errors, what their contributing factors are and how effectively we can mitigate these errors. Any language errors would be communication errors by definition, so first we reviewed models of communication to search for characteristic error patterns. We identified two primary communication types relevant to aviation maintenance: synchronous communications (largely verbal and informal) and asynchronous communication (largely written and formal). We then analyzed several error databases (e.g. ASRS) and found that both the contributing factors and the use of recovery mechanisms were different for the two error types. Next, we analyzed survey data from 113 aircraft operators, covering their English speaking/reading abilities and use of mitigation strategies. There were significant differences across four world regions in the incidence of these two sets of factors. Neither of these data sources emphasized maintenance, so to discover more refined patterns of error, contributing factors and mitigation strategies, we conducted a series of focus groups at maintenance organizations. The patterns found were grouped, as expected, into synchronous and asynchronous. We developed classified lists of contributing and mitigating factors, which will be used in subsequent stages to quantify error incidence and test the effectiveness of mitigation strategies.

[1]  G. Good,et al.  Determination and application of vision standards in industry. , 1996, American journal of industrial medicine.

[2]  W. D. Rummel,et al.  Probability of detection as a quantitative measure of nondestructive testing end-to-end process capabilities , 1998 .

[3]  J. Shaoul Human Error , 1973, Nature.

[4]  R. S. Easterby Ergonomics Checklists: An Appraisal , 1967 .

[5]  D. Morgan Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art , 1993 .

[6]  Charles Hellier,et al.  Handbook of Nondestructive Evaluation , 2001 .

[7]  Floyd W. Spencer Visual Inspection Research Project Report on Benchmark Inspections. , 1996 .

[8]  Colin G. Drury,et al.  HUMAN FACTORS GOOD PRACTICES IN BORESCOPE INSPECTION , 2001 .

[9]  Zili Sloboda,et al.  Use of Archival Data , 2005 .

[10]  Andrew B. Watson,et al.  Detection and Recognition of Simple Spatial Forms , 1983 .

[11]  이영식 Communication 으로서의 영어교육 , 1986 .

[12]  M. Cant,et al.  What does outsourcing bring you that innovation cannot? How outsourcing is seen-and currently marketed-as a universal panacea , 1998 .

[13]  H W Mertens,et al.  Performance of color-dependent air traffic control tasks as a function of color vision deficiency. , 1996, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[14]  K M Shealy,et al.  Reaching out. , 2000, Nursing.

[15]  R. Kleinstein CHAPTER ONE – Occupational Optometry and Primary Care , 1993 .

[16]  B L Beard,et al.  Image discrimination models predict detection in fixed but not random noise. , 1997, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[17]  Barbara G. Kanki,et al.  Training Aviation Communication Skills , 2001 .

[18]  Piedmont Airlines,et al.  AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT REPORT , 1969 .

[19]  Em Griffin A First Look at Communication Theory , 2005 .

[20]  Colin G. Drury,et al.  Simplified English for Aircraft Workcards , 1996 .

[21]  G. M. Johnson,et al.  Understanding Communication Processes in Focus Groups , 1993 .

[22]  Colin G. Drury,et al.  Analyzing human error in aircraft ground damage incidents , 2000 .

[23]  J. Dille,et al.  FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Office of Aviation Medicine , 2001 .