Linguistic question: "will" vs "shall" and "must"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: ME
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Linguistic question: "will" vs "shall" and "must"
Foggy Albion native speakers, please help
How much "will" is mandatory in the following excerpt. Why is it not "shall" or "must"?:
With my limited knowledge of English I may understand this as a kind of gentle request to follow a national rule which contradicts the ICAO standard. Am I right or does it have far more reaching legal implications? Is "will" a common word in your rules and do we have to follow whatever is after?
How much "will" is mandatory in the following excerpt. Why is it not "shall" or "must"?:
When an aircraft is descended from a flight level to an altitude preparatory to commencing approach for landing, ATC will pass the appropriate QNH. On vacating the flight level, the pilot will change to the aerodrome QNH unless further flight level vacating reports have been requested by ATC, in which case, the aerodrome QNH will be set following the final flight level vacating report. Thereafter, the pilot will continue to fly on the aerodrome QNH until established on final approach. When requested by the pilot or local procedures require, the appropriate QFE and aerodrome or threshold elevation shall also be given. When carrying out a radar approach, ATC will assume that an aircraft is using QNH on final approach and will include a reminder of the appropriate QNH setting in the RTF phraseology. If the pilot requests to undertake the approach using QFE, then ATC will pass the appropriate QFE and “height” will be substituted for “altitude” in the RTF phra-seology. It should also noted that the Obstacle Clearance Height is always given with reference to the aerodrome or threshold elevation.
STATE RULES AND PROCEDURES - EUROPE 1495 UNITED KINGDOM RULES AND P
STATE RULES AND PROCEDURES - EUROPE 1495 UNITED KINGDOM RULES AND P
Last edited by Romasik; 23rd Jul 2013 at 22:47.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Age: 70
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure if it applies in this case, but whenever I was dealing with International documents we always included (right at the start) definitions of Shall, should, may will etc.
It's amazing the different definitions you can find for the same word!
ex-egll
It's amazing the different definitions you can find for the same word!
ex-egll
Is "will" a common word in your rules and do we have to follow whatever is after?
Essays can be, and have been, written about the subtleties of the usage of "will" and "shall", including one on the implications for the United States Constitution!
As a general rule, "shall" used in the third person normally indicates a command. Substituting "will", on the other hand, makes the meaning potentially ambiguous - it can still have the same meaning as "shall" in a given context, but alternatively it may simply mean, for example, an intention or a habitual action (although neither of those meanings is particularly appropriate in your context, so it would be reasonable to read "will" as "shall" here).
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the problem with lawyers and "legal" interpretations is that they often forget why the clumsy wording exists in the first place.
the whole idea is that aircraft in near proximity to the runway, and in near proximity to each other, have altimeters showing the same basic information.
if you are trying to maintain 500ft vertical separation with one aircraft on a sub scale of 1013mb and the other on a sub scale of 1032mb both pilots may think that they are ok but in actual fact they are at the same altitude and will collide.
the rule is just trying to get aircraft to use the same altimetry settings at appropriate times. what is so hard about that that it comes down to some tommyrot about the meanings of "will" and "shall" ??
the whole idea is that aircraft in near proximity to the runway, and in near proximity to each other, have altimeters showing the same basic information.
if you are trying to maintain 500ft vertical separation with one aircraft on a sub scale of 1013mb and the other on a sub scale of 1032mb both pilots may think that they are ok but in actual fact they are at the same altitude and will collide.
the rule is just trying to get aircraft to use the same altimetry settings at appropriate times. what is so hard about that that it comes down to some tommyrot about the meanings of "will" and "shall" ??
What's the context of the document? Where did you get it from? Who is it directed at?
Generally, 'shall' is used in the case of a mandate (e.g. in EASA implementing rules), 'should' in the case of a recommendation, where the passage is addressed to the object of the mandate.
'Will' looks like an expectation. You might see it, for example, in a concept of operations to describe the anticipated roles of each party.
Generally, 'shall' is used in the case of a mandate (e.g. in EASA implementing rules), 'should' in the case of a recommendation, where the passage is addressed to the object of the mandate.
'Will' looks like an expectation. You might see it, for example, in a concept of operations to describe the anticipated roles of each party.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ingerlund
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAP493:
"Shall"
means that the instruction is mandatory
"will"
is used for informative or descriptive writing, e.g. 'pilots will file...', is not an instruction to the controller
"Shall"
means that the instruction is mandatory
"will"
is used for informative or descriptive writing, e.g. 'pilots will file...', is not an instruction to the controller
if you are trying to maintain 500ft vertical separation with one aircraft on a sub scale of 1013mb and the other on a sub scale of 1032mb both pilots may think that they are ok but in actual fact they are at the same altitude and will collide
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: ME
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the context of the text extract that you have quoted, I would interpret the words 'will' that you have highlighted to be a description that explains an instruction that is issued to pilots in some other regulatory document (I hope that makes sense). In reality, it sounds like it was written by an ex-controller who has forgotten who the audience of the document is and also forgotten what the status and purpose of the document is.
Last edited by Romasik; 25th Jul 2013 at 14:17.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: ME
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAP493:
"Shall"
means that the instruction is mandatory
"will"
is used for informative or descriptive writing, e.g. 'pilots will file...', is not an instruction to the controller
"Shall"
means that the instruction is mandatory
"will"
is used for informative or descriptive writing, e.g. 'pilots will file...', is not an instruction to the controller
Last edited by Romasik; 24th Jul 2013 at 09:57.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: ME
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dubbleyew eight:
Sure, I understand the altimeter setting issues. At the same time we have other related problems:
- Company SOP
- Habbits
- Discussions in the cockpit how to interpret this very strange in the legal document "will" and, as a result, following or not following the rule depending on a particular captain.
I would personally follow, but I know many others who won't.
And I'm also not sure how pilots who are used to this rule behave in the airspace where ICAO standards prevail...
the problem with lawyers and "legal" interpretations is that they often forget why the clumsy wording exists in the first place.
the whole idea is that aircraft in near proximity to the runway, and in near proximity to each other, have altimeters showing the same basic information.
if you are trying to maintain 500ft vertical separation with one aircraft on a sub scale of 1013mb and the other on a sub scale of 1032mb both pilots may think that they are ok but in actual fact they are at the same altitude and will collide.
the rule is just trying to get aircraft to use the same altimetry settings at appropriate times. what is so hard about that that it comes down to some tommyrot about the meanings of "will" and "shall" ??
the whole idea is that aircraft in near proximity to the runway, and in near proximity to each other, have altimeters showing the same basic information.
if you are trying to maintain 500ft vertical separation with one aircraft on a sub scale of 1013mb and the other on a sub scale of 1032mb both pilots may think that they are ok but in actual fact they are at the same altitude and will collide.
the rule is just trying to get aircraft to use the same altimetry settings at appropriate times. what is so hard about that that it comes down to some tommyrot about the meanings of "will" and "shall" ??
- Company SOP
- Habbits
- Discussions in the cockpit how to interpret this very strange in the legal document "will" and, as a result, following or not following the rule depending on a particular captain.
I would personally follow, but I know many others who won't.
And I'm also not sure how pilots who are used to this rule behave in the airspace where ICAO standards prevail...
Last edited by Romasik; 25th Jul 2013 at 14:56.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: In the rain
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would imagine most set QNH / 1013 immediately upon receipt of a clearance to an altitude / level.... Our Ops manual mandates it everywhere, regardless of the local rules.
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICAO SARPS state:
There is no mention of 'will' in ICAO SARPS notes, therefore it could be assumed it is only a descriptive term and has no formal status. ICAO altimeter setting SARPS may indicate exactly what ICAO desire, with appropriate differences filed by countries (such as the UK) who do it differently
It is to be noted that in the English text the following practice has been adhered to when writing the specifications: Standards employ the operative verb “shall”, while Recommended Practices employ the operative verb “should”.
[/url][/IMG]
[/url][/IMG]
At school, I was taught that 'shall' indicated future tense with 'I' or 'we'. 'Will' was to be used with the second or third person, 'you' or 'he'. In the future perfect tense, it indicated a degree of confidence above future conditional.
..I think if you want to make it an order, then 'is to' / 'are to' would offer a bit more clarity of intent.
..it's a bit tricky as the use of 'if' slides you into the subjunctive mood, not a solid base to work from.
wets
..I think if you want to make it an order, then 'is to' / 'are to' would offer a bit more clarity of intent.
..it's a bit tricky as the use of 'if' slides you into the subjunctive mood, not a solid base to work from.
wets
