I bring you a weekly bite-sized chunk of the science behind helicopter human factors and CRM in practice, simplifying the complex and distilling a helicopter related study into a summary of less than 500 words.
TITLE:
Supporting the investigation of language and other communication factors.
WHAT?
Paper examining how language and communication factors are identified, analysed, and reported during aviation accident investigations. The authors argue that although communication is recognised as central to human factors and CRM, the specific role of language itself is often poorly understood, inconsistently investigated, and rarely included in formal accident findings.
WHERE?
Collaboration between researchers and investigators associated with Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University’s Accident Investigation Database Research Committee, drawing on international accident investigations and applied linguistics research.
WHEN?
Published in the ISASI Forum (April–June 2026) and adapted from a technical paper presented at ISASI 2025.
WHY?
The authors argue that aviation safety has traditionally focused on communication in terms of CRM and radiotelephony phraseology, but has paid far less attention to broader language-related human factors such as:
- accents and pronunciation
- listening comprehension
- reading proficiency
- multilingual cockpit and maintenance environments
- plain language use outside standard phraseology
- language effects during stress, workload, and abnormal situations
They suggest investigators often recognise possible language issues but lack the frameworks, terminology, or specialist support to systematically analyse them.
HOW?
The paper combines:
- Review of previous accident investigation research
- Analysis of language and communication issues in aviation safety reports
- A detailed case study of the 2005 Helios Airways B737 accident
- Application of a proposed “Taxonomy of Communication Factors in Aviation” and Language Information Checklist developed by the authors.
The approach draws on applied linguistics, which studies how language functions in real-world operational settings.
FINDINGS:
The paper highlights several key points:
- Reading comprehension and multilingual operational environments may represent under-recognised safety risks.
- Language factors are often mentioned in accident reports but rarely become formal findings.
- Communication issues are frequently grouped under broad labels such as “CRM” or “communication breakdown,” masking specific linguistic mechanisms.
- Existing aviation human factors models place communication centrally, but do not adequately explain the role of language itself.
- Abnormal situations often require plain operational language, not just ICAO phraseology.
SO WHAT?
This paper looks at language as a core operational human factors issue. The authors argue that CRM is fundamentally constructed through language. If communication quality degrades because of accent comprehension, ambiguous plain language, reduced listening accuracy under stress, or poor reading comprehension, then CRM performance itself can also degrade.
This has several implications:
- Operators should recognise that standard phraseology alone does not eliminate communication risk.
- CRM training should pay more attention to:
- communication under stress
- multilingual operations
- plain language use in abnormal situations
- confirmation and repair of misunderstanding
- Reading comprehension of manuals, checklists, and training material may represent an overlooked safety issue in global aviation operations.
- Accident investigators may need greater support from linguistics and communication specialists.
REFERENCE:
Bieswanger, M., Mathews, E., & Valdes, E. “Rick”. (2026). Supporting the investigation of language and other communication factors. ISASI Forum, 59(2), 18–21.
competentaviators.com 