AIRCRAFT LEASE AGREEMENT

dated as of APRIL 13, 2009 (“AGREEMENT”)

This Agreement (together with all supplements, annexes, exhibits and schedules hereto hereinafter referred to as the “LEASE”) is between AIRBORNE ENGINES LTD. with an office at 44 OLD CRESCENT ROAD, DANBURY, CT 06810-5104 (together with its successors and assigns, if any “LESSOR”) and TDCC REALTY CO., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Vermont with its mailing address and chief place of business at 6075 PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT AVENUE, SUITE 800, MEMPHIS, TN 38119 4709 (hereinafter called “LESSEE”).

1. LEASING:

(a) Subject to the terms and conditions set forth below, Lessor agrees to lease to Lessee, and Lessee agrees to lease from Lessor, the aircraft, including the airframe, engines and all appurtenant equipment (together hereinafter the “AIRCRAFT”) described in Annex A.

(b) Lessor shall purchase the Aircraft from the manufacturer or supplier thereof (“SUPPLIER”) and lease it to Lessee if on or before the Last Delivery Date (specified in Annex B) Lessor receives each of the following documents in form and substance satisfactory to Lessor:

(i) a copy of this Lease executed by Lessee, (ii) unless Lessor shall have delivered its purchase order for the Aircraft or received a bill of sale for the Aircraft in the name of Lessor (and in form and substance satisfactory to Lessor), the Purchase Document(s) Assignment and Consent in the form of Annex C, with copies of the purchase order or other purchase documents attached thereto;

(iii) copies of insurance policies or, at Lessor’s option, such other evidence of insurance which complies with the requirements of Section 10;

(iv) evidence of an N number for the Aircraft together with an assignment of the rights thereto to Lessor;

(v) evidence that the Aircraft has been duly certified as to type and airworthiness by the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”);

(vi) evidence that Lessor’s designated FAA escrow agent (which may be FAA counsel) has received in escrow the executed bill of sale and AC Form 8050-1 Aircraft Registration Form (except for the pink copy which shall be available to be placed on the Aircraft upon acceptance thereof), and an executed duplicate of this Lease all in proper form for filing with the FAA;

(vii) resolution of Lessee authorizing this Lease in the form of Annex D;

(viii) a completed inspection and/or survey with respect to the Aircraft in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Certificate of Acceptance; and

(ix) such other documents as Lessor may reasonably request. Lessor’s obligation to lease the Aircraft hereunder is further conditioned upon

(1) the cost to Lessor of the acquisition of the Aircraft not exceeding the Capitalized Lessor’s Cost stated on Annex A;

(2) upon delivery of the Aircraft, Lessee’s execution and delivery to Lessor of a Certificate of Acceptance in the form of Annex E; and

(3) filing of all necessary documents with, and the acceptance thereof by, the FAA.

(c) Lessor hereby appoints Lessee its agent for inspection and acceptance of the Aircraft from the Supplier. Once the Certificate of Acceptance has been signed, Lessee may not cancel this Lease.

AIRCRAFT LEASE AGREEMENT

dated as of APRIL 13, 2009 (“AGREEMENT”)

This Agreement (together with all supplements, annexes, exhibits and schedules hereto hereinafter referred to as the “LEASE”) is between AIRBORNE ENGINES LTD. with an office at 44 OLD CRESCENT ROAD, DANBURY, CT 06810-5104 (together with its successors and assigns, if any “LESSOR”) and TDCC REALTY CO., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Vermont with its mailing address and chief place of business at 6075 PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT AVENUE, SUITE 800, MEMPHIS, TN 38119 4709 (hereinafter called “LESSEE”).

1. LEASING:

(a) Subject to the terms and conditions set forth below, Lessor agrees to lease to Lessee, and Lessee agrees to lease from Lessor, the aircraft, including the airframe, engines and all appurtenant equipment (together hereinafter the “AIRCRAFT”) described in Annex A.

(b) Lessor shall purchase the Aircraft from the manufacturer or supplier thereof (“SUPPLIER”) and lease it to Lessee if on or before the Last Delivery Date (specified in Annex B) Lessor receives each of the following documents in form and substance satisfactory to Lessor:

(i) a copy of this Lease executed by Lessee, (ii) unless Lessor shall have delivered its purchase order for the Aircraft or received a bill of sale for the Aircraft in the name of Lessor (and in form and substance satisfactory to Lessor), the Purchase Document(s) Assignment and Consent in the form of Annex C, with copies of the purchase order or other purchase documents attached thereto;

(iii) copies of insurance policies or, at Lessor’s option, such other evidence of insurance which complies with the requirements of Section 10;

(iv) evidence of an N number for the Aircraft together with an assignment of the rights thereto to Lessor;

(v) evidence that the Aircraft has been duly certified as to type and airworthiness by the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”);

(vi) evidence that Lessor’s designated FAA escrow agent (which may be FAA counsel) has received in escrow the executed bill of sale and AC Form 8050-1 Aircraft Registration Form (except for the pink copy which shall be available to be placed on the Aircraft upon acceptance thereof), and an executed duplicate of this Lease all in proper form for filing with the FAA;

(vii) resolution of Lessee authorizing this Lease in the form of Annex D;

(viii) a completed inspection and/or survey with respect to the Aircraft in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Certificate of Acceptance; and

(ix) such other documents as Lessor may reasonably request. Lessor’s obligation to lease the Aircraft hereunder is further conditioned upon

(1) the cost to Lessor of the acquisition of the Aircraft not exceeding the Capitalized Lessor’s Cost stated on Annex A;

(2) upon delivery of the Aircraft, Lessee’s execution and delivery to Lessor of a Certificate of Acceptance in the form of Annex E; and

(3) filing of all necessary documents with, and the acceptance thereof by, the FAA.

(c) Lessor hereby appoints Lessee its agent for inspection and acceptance of the Aircraft from the Supplier. Once the Certificate of Acceptance has been signed, Lessee may not cancel this Lease.

Conference interpreters provide an important service that allows people of different languages and cultures to understand each other. It is a service that has a cultural, intellectual and social value, in addition to its economic value. It cannot be ruled exclusively by price considerations or by individual greed. The profession of conference interpretation has a single worldwide professional body to represent it, which makes it easier for members of the profession to follow the same ethical guidelines everywhere.

If conference interpreters follow the ethical principles enshrined in the AIIC (International Association of Conference Interpreters) Code of Professional Ethics, they will be able to:

(i) provide a quality service to their users and thereby to the purpose of their profession;

(ii) maintain good relations with their colleagues and their clients;

(iii) uphold the technical standards that are essential to the proper exercise of our profession;

(iv) attract new qualified interpreters into the profession; and

(v) maintain decent levels of remuneration that quality deserves.

We must not abandon our old tenets lightly, but must strive to improve them, to modernise them where necessary. The advantage of ethical principles is that they are general, they are guidelines, they can adapt to different cultures and situations without losing their essence.

Excerpt from: The role of ethics in a deregulated 21st century By Jean-Pierre ALLAIN, AIIC Webzine, May-June 2001 http://www.aiic.net/ViewPage.cfm/page352.htm

Conference interpreters provide an important service that allows people of different languages and cultures to understand each other. It is a service that has a cultural, intellectual and social value, in addition to its economic value. It cannot be ruled exclusively by price considerations or by individual greed. The profession of conference interpretation has a single worldwide professional body to represent it, which makes it easier for members of the profession to follow the same ethical guidelines everywhere.

If conference interpreters follow the ethical principles enshrined in the AIIC (International Association of Conference Interpreters) Code of Professional Ethics, they will be able to:

(i) provide a quality service to their users and thereby to the purpose of their profession;

(ii) maintain good relations with their colleagues and their clients;

(iii) uphold the technical standards that are essential to the proper exercise of our profession;

(iv) attract new qualified interpreters into the profession; and

(v) maintain decent levels of remuneration that quality deserves.

We must not abandon our old tenets lightly, but must strive to improve them, to modernise them where necessary. The advantage of ethical principles is that they are general, they are guidelines, they can adapt to different cultures and situations without losing their essence.

Excerpt from: The role of ethics in a deregulated 21st century By Jean-Pierre ALLAIN, AIIC Webzine, May-June 2001 http://www.aiic.net/ViewPage.cfm/page352.htm

Language Proficiency in Aviation

Philip Shawcross

English for Aircraft/ICAEA

We all use language and language tends to be something we take for granted. In point of fact, language is probably one of the most complex and also the most fundamental skills any of us has to master. It is a skill which engages not just our intellect but our personality, our emotions and our relation to the world. Paradoxically, the fact that language is everywhere and yet transparent explains in part why its use and acquisition have often been treated as negligible quantities in the operational and training worlds.

In the flight crew sector, that tends to drive the industry, there is now widespread and well documented recognition that linguistic misunderstandings and incomprehension have been contributory factors in several major accidents. Turning to the maintenance arena, where fortunately the time factor is not so critical, similar snares come to mind where even the application of the principles of Simplified English for Aircraft Maintenance Manuals has not meant that aircraft technicians no longer have reason to be puzzled at times, especially when they are not native speakers of English.

So, in the last few years, the Authorities have sought to address the question of proficiency in the language which is the official lingua franca of aviation, English, in the main aviation professions.

The Aircraft Maintenance Technician of 2004 works in a radically different environment from his forebear, the “mechanic”, of twenty years ago. Aircraft design and maintenance practice have changed substantially in the last two decades. A computer interface, which speaks English and is the nucleus of centralized maintenance, has become the alpha and omega of a working shift. It would be trite and unfair, however, to say the pen has replaced the wrench, but there is an element of truth in this. Technical documentation is also computer-based, generating new more discursive and synthetic reading habits, although it has in no way resulted in a paper-free environment. In non-English speaking countries, translation is fast becoming a thing of the past for economic, commercial, reactivity and safety reasons.

As regards documentation, eighteen years down the road, AECMA Simplified English has become accepted as the industry norm creating a few problems but attenuating many more. In its wake, the documentary styles of the various manufacturers’ documentation have tended to converge. Research sponsored by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and published this year has revealed in a comparative study that the use of Simplified English has reduced the error rate in reading comprehension among technicians from 18% to 14% for native English speakers and from 31% to 13% for non-native speakers. Perhaps that also says something about native speakers of English!

native speakers of English! The recent regulatory environment imposed by civil aviation authorities worldwide which defines the standards to which technicians are trained and work and delineates the process of release to service has brought with it increased paperwork as has the concern for part traceability. Standardisation and the need for savings have steered most airlines away from in-house training development and towards the use of manufacturer courseware … again in English.

Finally, the global economy and hard times have spurred the airlines towards various forms of cooperation, alliance, load sharing and partnership. National boundaries have less and less significance. Simultaneously, the maintenance workforce is increasingly mobile, multicultural and cosmopolitan. Sociological and personal reasons only reinforce the professional need for a common language both in the hangar and at the ramp.

As you can see, all these trends have something “invisible” in common: a much increased reliance upon language and upon a single language, English. Some very thorough and illuminating research is being conducted since 2001 by C.G. Drury at New York State University, Buffalo, under the auspices of the William J. Hughes Technical Center of the FAA. This study addresses the question of Language error in Aviation Maintenance. It is in response to an FAA concern that non-native English speakers in repair stations in the USA and abroad may be prone to an increased error rate that could potentially affect airworthiness.

Language proficiency is not just a question of understanding or not understanding information. It circumscribes the whole way people are able to behave because it affects their self-confidence, their awareness of the world around them and the scope of their capacity to report this to other.

Extracted from: http://www.inglesaeronautico.com/documentos/ language_proficiency.pdf

TEXT II

The extract below consists of the introductory lines in the abstract of the study referred to in lines 56 to 64 of Text I. Some words are missing and you will be asked to complete the blanks in question 34.

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 error 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.”

Retrieved from: http:// www2.hf.faa.gov/docs/508/docs/ Maint%20-%20Language%20SUNY.pdf

Language Proficiency in Aviation

Philip Shawcross

English for Aircraft/ICAEA

We all use language and language tends to be something we take for granted. In point of fact, language is probably one of the most complex and also the most fundamental skills any of us has to master. It is a skill which engages not just our intellect but our personality, our emotions and our relation to the world. Paradoxically, the fact that language is everywhere and yet transparent explains in part why its use and acquisition have often been treated as negligible quantities in the operational and training worlds.

In the flight crew sector, that tends to drive the industry, there is now widespread and well documented recognition that linguistic misunderstandings and incomprehension have been contributory factors in several major accidents. Turning to the maintenance arena, where fortunately the time factor is not so critical, similar snares come to mind where even the application of the principles of Simplified English for Aircraft Maintenance Manuals has not meant that aircraft technicians no longer have reason to be puzzled at times, especially when they are not native speakers of English.

So, in the last few years, the Authorities have sought to address the question of proficiency in the language which is the official lingua franca of aviation, English, in the main aviation professions.

The Aircraft Maintenance Technician of 2004 works in a radically different environment from his forebear, the “mechanic”, of twenty years ago. Aircraft design and maintenance practice have changed substantially in the last two decades. A computer interface, which speaks English and is the nucleus of centralized maintenance, has become the alpha and omega of a working shift. It would be trite and unfair, however, to say the pen has replaced the wrench, but there is an element of truth in this. Technical documentation is also computer-based, generating new more discursive and synthetic reading habits, although it has in no way resulted in a paper-free environment. In non-English speaking countries, translation is fast becoming a thing of the past for economic, commercial, reactivity and safety reasons.

As regards documentation, eighteen years down the road, AECMA Simplified English has become accepted as the industry norm creating a few problems but attenuating many more. In its wake, the documentary styles of the various manufacturers’ documentation have tended to converge. Research sponsored by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and published this year has revealed in a comparative study that the use of Simplified English has reduced the error rate in reading comprehension among technicians from 18% to 14% for native English speakers and from 31% to 13% for non-native speakers. Perhaps that also says something about native speakers of English!

native speakers of English! The recent regulatory environment imposed by civil aviation authorities worldwide which defines the standards to which technicians are trained and work and delineates the process of release to service has brought with it increased paperwork as has the concern for part traceability. Standardisation and the need for savings have steered most airlines away from in-house training development and towards the use of manufacturer courseware … again in English.

Finally, the global economy and hard times have spurred the airlines towards various forms of cooperation, alliance, load sharing and partnership. National boundaries have less and less significance. Simultaneously, the maintenance workforce is increasingly mobile, multicultural and cosmopolitan. Sociological and personal reasons only reinforce the professional need for a common language both in the hangar and at the ramp.

As you can see, all these trends have something “invisible” in common: a much increased reliance upon language and upon a single language, English. Some very thorough and illuminating research is being conducted since 2001 by C.G. Drury at New York State University, Buffalo, under the auspices of the William J. Hughes Technical Center of the FAA. This study addresses the question of Language error in Aviation Maintenance. It is in response to an FAA concern that non-native English speakers in repair stations in the USA and abroad may be prone to an increased error rate that could potentially affect airworthiness.

Language proficiency is not just a question of understanding or not understanding information. It circumscribes the whole way people are able to behave because it affects their self-confidence, their awareness of the world around them and the scope of their capacity to report this to other.

Extracted from: http://www.inglesaeronautico.com/documentos/ language_proficiency.pdf

TEXT II

The extract below consists of the introductory lines in the abstract of the study referred to in lines 56 to 64 of Text I. Some words are missing and you will be asked to complete the blanks in question 34.

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 error 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.”

Retrieved from: http:// www2.hf.faa.gov/docs/508/docs/ Maint%20-%20Language%20SUNY.pdf

The extract below consists of the introductory lines in the abstract of the study referred to in lines 56 to 64 of Text I. Some words are missing and you will be asked to complete the blanks in question 34.

“The existence of maintenance and inspection personnel _______ native language is not English suggests that language barriers _______ causing performance errors. This project examines _______ such errors exist, what patterns characterize these errors, what their contributing factors are and how effectively we can mitigate these errors. _______ language error would be communication errors by definition, _______ first we reviewed models of communication to search for characteristic error patterns. We identified two primary communication types relevant _______ 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.”

Retrieved from: http:// www2.hf.faa.gov/docs/508/docs/ Maint%20-%20Language%20SUNY.pdf

Language Proficiency in Aviation

Philip Shawcross

English for Aircraft/ICAEA

We all use language and language tends to be something we take for granted. In point of fact, language is probably one of the most complex and also the most fundamental skills any of us has to master. It is a skill which engages not just our intellect but our personality, our emotions and our relation to the world. Paradoxically, the fact that language is everywhere and yet transparent explains in part why its use and acquisition have often been treated as negligible quantities in the operational and training worlds.

In the flight crew sector, that tends to drive the industry, there is now widespread and well documented recognition that linguistic misunderstandings and incomprehension have been contributory factors in several major accidents. Turning to the maintenance arena, where fortunately the time factor is not so critical, similar snares come to mind where even the application of the principles of Simplified English for Aircraft Maintenance Manuals has not meant that aircraft technicians no longer have reason to be puzzled at times, especially when they are not native speakers of English.

So, in the last few years, the Authorities have sought to address the question of proficiency in the language which is the official lingua franca of aviation, English, in the main aviation professions.

The Aircraft Maintenance Technician of 2004 works in a radically different environment from his forebear, the “mechanic”, of twenty years ago. Aircraft design and maintenance practice have changed substantially in the last two decades. A computer interface, which speaks English and is the nucleus of centralized maintenance, has become the alpha and omega of a working shift. It would be trite and unfair, however, to say the pen has replaced the wrench, but there is an element of truth in this. Technical documentation is also computer-based, generating new more discursive and synthetic reading habits, although it has in no way resulted in a paper-free environment. In non-English speaking countries, translation is fast becoming a thing of the past for economic, commercial, reactivity and safety reasons.

As regards documentation, eighteen years down the road, AECMA Simplified English has become accepted as the industry norm creating a few problems but attenuating many more. In its wake, the documentary styles of the various manufacturers’ documentation have tended to converge. Research sponsored by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and published this year has revealed in a comparative study that the use of Simplified English has reduced the error rate in reading comprehension among technicians from 18% to 14% for native English speakers and from 31% to 13% for non-native speakers. Perhaps that also says something about native speakers of English!

native speakers of English! The recent regulatory environment imposed by civil aviation authorities worldwide which defines the standards to which technicians are trained and work and delineates the process of release to service has brought with it increased paperwork as has the concern for part traceability. Standardisation and the need for savings have steered most airlines away from in-house training development and towards the use of manufacturer courseware … again in English.

Finally, the global economy and hard times have spurred the airlines towards various forms of cooperation, alliance, load sharing and partnership. National boundaries have less and less significance. Simultaneously, the maintenance workforce is increasingly mobile, multicultural and cosmopolitan. Sociological and personal reasons only reinforce the professional need for a common language both in the hangar and at the ramp.

As you can see, all these trends have something “invisible” in common: a much increased reliance upon language and upon a single language, English. Some very thorough and illuminating research is being conducted since 2001 by C.G. Drury at New York State University, Buffalo, under the auspices of the William J. Hughes Technical Center of the FAA. This study addresses the question of Language error in Aviation Maintenance. It is in response to an FAA concern that non-native English speakers in repair stations in the USA and abroad may be prone to an increased error rate that could potentially affect airworthiness.

Language proficiency is not just a question of understanding or not understanding information. It circumscribes the whole way people are able to behave because it affects their self-confidence, their awareness of the world around them and the scope of their capacity to report this to other.

Extracted from: http://www.inglesaeronautico.com/documentos/ language_proficiency.pdf

Language Proficiency in Aviation

Philip Shawcross

English for Aircraft/ICAEA

We all use language and language tends to be something we take for granted. In point of fact, language is probably one of the most complex and also the most fundamental skills any of us has to master. It is a skill which engages not just our intellect but our personality, our emotions and our relation to the world. Paradoxically, the fact that language is everywhere and yet transparent explains in part why its use and acquisition have often been treated as negligible quantities in the operational and training worlds.

In the flight crew sector, that tends to drive the industry, there is now widespread and well documented recognition that linguistic misunderstandings and incomprehension have been contributory factors in several major accidents. Turning to the maintenance arena, where fortunately the time factor is not so critical, similar snares come to mind where even the application of the principles of Simplified English for Aircraft Maintenance Manuals has not meant that aircraft technicians no longer have reason to be puzzled at times, especially when they are not native speakers of English.

So, in the last few years, the Authorities have sought to address the question of proficiency in the language which is the official lingua franca of aviation, English, in the main aviation professions.

The Aircraft Maintenance Technician of 2004 works in a radically different environment from his forebear, the “mechanic”, of twenty years ago. Aircraft design and maintenance practice have changed substantially in the last two decades. A computer interface, which speaks English and is the nucleus of centralized maintenance, has become the alpha and omega of a working shift. It would be trite and unfair, however, to say the pen has replaced the wrench, but there is an element of truth in this. Technical documentation is also computer-based, generating new more discursive and synthetic reading habits, although it has in no way resulted in a paper-free environment. In non-English speaking countries, translation is fast becoming a thing of the past for economic, commercial, reactivity and safety reasons.

As regards documentation, eighteen years down the road, AECMA Simplified English has become accepted as the industry norm creating a few problems but attenuating many more. In its wake, the documentary styles of the various manufacturers’ documentation have tended to converge. Research sponsored by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and published this year has revealed in a comparative study that the use of Simplified English has reduced the error rate in reading comprehension among technicians from 18% to 14% for native English speakers and from 31% to 13% for non-native speakers. Perhaps that also says something about native speakers of English!

native speakers of English! The recent regulatory environment imposed by civil aviation authorities worldwide which defines the standards to which technicians are trained and work and delineates the process of release to service has brought with it increased paperwork as has the concern for part traceability. Standardisation and the need for savings have steered most airlines away from in-house training development and towards the use of manufacturer courseware … again in English.

Finally, the global economy and hard times have spurred the airlines towards various forms of cooperation, alliance, load sharing and partnership. National boundaries have less and less significance. Simultaneously, the maintenance workforce is increasingly mobile, multicultural and cosmopolitan. Sociological and personal reasons only reinforce the professional need for a common language both in the hangar and at the ramp.

As you can see, all these trends have something “invisible” in common: a much increased reliance upon language and upon a single language, English. Some very thorough and illuminating research is being conducted since 2001 by C.G. Drury at New York State University, Buffalo, under the auspices of the William J. Hughes Technical Center of the FAA. This study addresses the question of Language error in Aviation Maintenance. It is in response to an FAA concern that non-native English speakers in repair stations in the USA and abroad may be prone to an increased error rate that could potentially affect airworthiness.

Language proficiency is not just a question of understanding or not understanding information. It circumscribes the whole way people are able to behave because it affects their self-confidence, their awareness of the world around them and the scope of their capacity to report this to other.

Extracted from: http://www.inglesaeronautico.com/documentos/ language_proficiency.pdf

Language Proficiency in Aviation

Philip Shawcross

English for Aircraft/ICAEA

We all use language and language tends to be something we take for granted. In point of fact, language is probably one of the most complex and also the most fundamental skills any of us has to master. It is a skill which engages not just our intellect but our personality, our emotions and our relation to the world. Paradoxically, the fact that language is everywhere and yet transparent explains in part why its use and acquisition have often been treated as negligible quantities in the operational and training worlds.

In the flight crew sector, that tends to drive the industry, there is now widespread and well documented recognition that linguistic misunderstandings and incomprehension have been contributory factors in several major accidents. Turning to the maintenance arena, where fortunately the time factor is not so critical, similar snares come to mind where even the application of the principles of Simplified English for Aircraft Maintenance Manuals has not meant that aircraft technicians no longer have reason to be puzzled at times, especially when they are not native speakers of English.

So, in the last few years, the Authorities have sought to address the question of proficiency in the language which is the official lingua franca of aviation, English, in the main aviation professions.

The Aircraft Maintenance Technician of 2004 works in a radically different environment from his forebear, the “mechanic”, of twenty years ago. Aircraft design and maintenance practice have changed substantially in the last two decades. A computer interface, which speaks English and is the nucleus of centralized maintenance, has become the alpha and omega of a working shift. It would be trite and unfair, however, to say the pen has replaced the wrench, but there is an element of truth in this. Technical documentation is also computer-based, generating new more discursive and synthetic reading habits, although it has in no way resulted in a paper-free environment. In non-English speaking countries, translation is fast becoming a thing of the past for economic, commercial, reactivity and safety reasons.

As regards documentation, eighteen years down the road, AECMA Simplified English has become accepted as the industry norm creating a few problems but attenuating many more. In its wake, the documentary styles of the various manufacturers’ documentation have tended to converge. Research sponsored by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and published this year has revealed in a comparative study that the use of Simplified English has reduced the error rate in reading comprehension among technicians from 18% to 14% for native English speakers and from 31% to 13% for non-native speakers. Perhaps that also says something about native speakers of English!

native speakers of English! The recent regulatory environment imposed by civil aviation authorities worldwide which defines the standards to which technicians are trained and work and delineates the process of release to service has brought with it increased paperwork as has the concern for part traceability. Standardisation and the need for savings have steered most airlines away from in-house training development and towards the use of manufacturer courseware … again in English.

Finally, the global economy and hard times have spurred the airlines towards various forms of cooperation, alliance, load sharing and partnership. National boundaries have less and less significance. Simultaneously, the maintenance workforce is increasingly mobile, multicultural and cosmopolitan. Sociological and personal reasons only reinforce the professional need for a common language both in the hangar and at the ramp.

As you can see, all these trends have something “invisible” in common: a much increased reliance upon language and upon a single language, English. Some very thorough and illuminating research is being conducted since 2001 by C.G. Drury at New York State University, Buffalo, under the auspices of the William J. Hughes Technical Center of the FAA. This study addresses the question of Language error in Aviation Maintenance. It is in response to an FAA concern that non-native English speakers in repair stations in the USA and abroad may be prone to an increased error rate that could potentially affect airworthiness.

Language proficiency is not just a question of understanding or not understanding information. It circumscribes the whole way people are able to behave because it affects their self-confidence, their awareness of the world around them and the scope of their capacity to report this to other.

Extracted from: http://www.inglesaeronautico.com/documentos/ language_proficiency.pdf