Pedantry? What utter rubbish! This is a Professional pilot's forum, and the last I heard was that accuracy is the minimum acceptable standard. Correct me if that has changed...Affect and Effect are two utterly different words with utterly different meanings. Misuse them at your peril, but don't shout "pedant" in a derogatory way at those who take more care than you do.
Look at it this way, how will you appear to the proverbial Chairman of the Court of Enquiry if you limply explain that your request to refuel "with" 10 tons really meant "to" ten tons? No different, I submit, from the Affect/Effect confusion. Simply use of the wrong word. Or that you really meant ten tons in each wing? How often do we hear someone speak of ten tons of gas? You'd look a proper charlie if the fueller did as he was asked and you got 100LL instead of JetA1 - but I submit you might find your evidence in tatters at the hand of an even half competent prosecution lawyer. Or, "Yes, I know I said trim of 4.5 units, but thats not what I meant, I wanted 5.4..." Or when Radar correct your readback of 123.32 with a firm "NEGATIVE, that is 132.32" That is not pedantry, that is lifesaving accuracy. Don't knock it.
And yes I know the fueller knows the "gas" in a jet aircraft is not petrol, (would he if you showed up in an unfamiliar helicopter, or one of those diesel piston singles?) just as we know that we will not be landing "momentarily" at JFK or wherever, rather stopping for a considerable time; or that the train does not "terminate" here (Go forbid, what a costly way to run a railway!). It is no excuse at the court of enquiry to have misused words or terms in the "knowledge" (for which we read "unwarranted assumption") that "everyone else knew what I meant." We all make mistakes, but let's learn from them rather than ridiculing those who have already done so.
Last edited by the boy John; 26th Feb 2004 at 23:22.