Does it make sense to say an aircraft has an attitude of 3° or that it has a flight position of 3°? I am trying to translate an aircraft manual, and there is a diagram showing what the HUD would look like given a "posición de vuelo de 3°".

The diagram is captioned in Spanish as "vuelo horizontal a 3° de posición de vuelo".

I'm thinking  of two ways to translate this, but I think both do not completely make sense, and I think they don't make sense because the original is using terminology in an imprecise way.

If I translate it as "Level flight at 3° flight attitude", it seems off because attitude is a combination of both pitch and roll, so how could you have an attitude of 3°?

If I translate it as "Level flight at a flight position of 3°", then it seems even more off because flight position, as I understand it, is combination of all 3 angles of orientation, yaw, pitch and roll. So you can't just say "my flight position is 3°"

So I am basically writing to confirm my suspicion that this doesn't really make sense and that the diagram is more likely referring to an elevation/pitch of 3° (with respect to the fuselage reference line). If anyone knows Spanish and is familiar with the term "posición de vuelo", then that's a bonus :)
Actually most of the time when referring to "attitude" we are talking only about pitch attitude.  You can call bank angle "roll attitude" but it's more typically called "bank angle" in common usage.   If I have an airplane in a turn and I'm descending, you can just say my attitude is too low and I need to raise it, and I won't be confused as to whether you're referring to pitch or roll and will know I need to increase pitch attitude.

So 3 degrees of flight attitude would clearly, to me at least, refer to flight with the airplane's pitch attitude 3 degrees above the horizon while in level flight (or turning for that matter), not climbing or descending, which sounds like a pretty typical number.