I always chuckle when I hear a 300 hour instructor confidently talking
Me too!
I'm not suggesting that there always be a flawless choice of advanced aviation terms to intimidate the student, or highlight the standing of anyone else. I would just like to think that nearly all the time, the speaker makes the effort to understand and choose the most correct and appropriate word to convey the idea.
In recent times, I have noticed a lot more people "avoiding accidents", instead of "preventing a crash" [or other unsafe event]. We have people saying that someone should "bring" [an item] over there, instead of "taking" it there. We obviously have people suggesting that an inanimate object could have "authority" (given by whom?) rather than being "effective".
Yes, to "fit in" to a group, I will sometimes dumb down my speech, and even curse a little (with Chuck, anyway). That does not relieve me of the responsibility of speaking properly when the environment requires that.
Aviation, and cockpit discipline, are pretty well defined now. The procedures, and terminology appropriate to large aircraft and "professional" piloting can to some degree be adopted downward in context to small aircraft operations. (the 300 hours instructors with big watches and epaulettes would
love this!). There should be some expectation that the student be properly taught, and make the effort to learn the language of aviation appropriate to their type of flying, and the language in general, properly to demonstrate their "professional" attitude. If the student learns it correctly the first time, they won't have to un learn later, when they are required to get it right.
People
are listening....