From Sikorsky - "That language is fully compliant with the ... requirement to prove 30 minutes of flight after detection of an oil leak."
When the determination of engineering standards is established by interpretation of language, we're moving into the area of cost-saving and ass-covering as the primary tools of achieving those standards. Just think about how much it would have cost to re-design and re-work the MRG to meet the 30-minute standard if, as tested, it was only capable of lasting 10.
A man I know who worked for Bristow Helicopters, bemoaning changes to culture in the company, said to me some years ago that "in Old Man Bristow's day, this was a helicopter company that made a profit, whereas now, it's a profit-making company that uses helicopters. It might as well be lorries for all the difference it makes to the bean-counters!"
The culture of advancement and ass-covering in large corporations is pretty much the same as the culture of advancement and ass-covering in large public service bodies and the use of language is becoming more and more the same - that is to say, it is wilfully misleading while not exposing anybody to challenge. That quote from the Sikorsky man sounds just like something we'd expect to hear in Yes, Minister!
Which of the major car manufacturers allowed a defect to run without a recall because it calculated the likely cost of litigation would be less than the estimated cost of the recall?
And didn't one American airline introduce the concept of "negative profit" (i.e., a loss) way back?
Use of language - what a way to judge engineering standards, eh?