How poor maintenance (or grammar) practices can effect a normal flight.

[Lu Zuckerman]

Read this: http://www.airsafety.com/reports/ROW040222B.pdf

:E :E

[Flap40]

I suggest a trip back to the classroom to learn the difference between "Affect" and "Effect".

Why do so many people get this wrong?

[TDK mk2]

Probably, Mr Flap40, because like me they don't understand the difference between them. Perhaps you could save us all the long trip back to the classroom and enlighten us?

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Flap40

Since 1968 I have worked as a Reliability, Maintainability and Systems Safety Engineer. One of the requirements of a Reliability Engineer is to prepare an FMEA or FMECA depending on the contract. The E in FMEA and FMECA stands for EFFECT as in Failure Modes EFFECT Criticality Analysis.

The binding caused by the wire brush was the failure mode. The effect was a jammed rudder control. I think I got it right the first time.

:E :E

[Sonic Bam]

Oh, please! "affect" or "effect" - this really is the height of pedanticity.

Lu
Agreed, the FOD found during the investigation was excessive, but the report does not give a verdict on what caused the incident. You appear to be implying/concluding that it was FOD left by mechanics that caused the incident. Are you sure that was the failure mode?

I don't suppose any mineral water bottles or cutlery were found in the footwell?

Has the final report been published yet?

[Diverse]

Mmm...effect's meaning in the title of this thread would imply that poor maintenance would result in a normal flight.

affect (act upon)

Poor maintenance would affect the normal operation of a flight.


effect (to accomplish or bring about)

An engineer would effect a suitable repair.


Hope this helps

[spork]

I think it's generally accepted that pedantry over grammar and spelling has no place in open forums such as these. One should probably bear in mind that English is not necessarily the first language of participants. The exception to this rule seems to be when discussing such grammar and spelling.

I think its generally excepted that pedantry over grammer and spellin has no place in open fora such as these. You should prolly bare in mind that English is not neccessarily the 1st language of participants. The exception to this rule seams to be when discussion grammer and spellin.

[learner001]

ferry nies ekzampel mr. spork... :ok:

Ai zink everybody alzo kould read ant understend ferry eazyly de intension of mr. lu's post... :p

I am very sorry that I only found out, after the difference between a- and effect was (not) pointed out... by mr. flap40 off course... :{

Probably wasting a lot of time by being very busy sorting out (the right order of) priorities on a forum... :rolleyes:

rgds, learner... ;)

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Sonic Bam

I subscribe to an aviation safety web service. The subject report came from them. Here is their introduction to the report:

“And this B737 operator gets the bad housekeeping award for inducing a "rudder malfunction" with a scrub brush and general crud in the bilge.”

The official NTSB report is yet to be issued.

Regarding Affect Vs Effect I will have to stick with the latter no matter how much it effends / affends any member of this forum.

:E :E

[arcniz]

Lu:

Your initial post would be syntactically correct if it read thus:


"How poor maintenance practices can effect an ABnormal flight."


[in this case, "effect" actually means "cause". Rather odd, heh?]

(affirmed and sworn on the ghost of far too much time spent studying such things while still at a tender age.)


Your real point is well taken - that the cruddier an airframe/engine/electronics bay becomes, the likelier it is to devise some way of getting at your peace of mind whilest in use.

[smartercharter]

So how did this affect the effectiveness of the controls?
:p

[learner001]

w.i.e. affected planes i.e. effectively adversely affect the effect of affection for effective ruddermovement-effects effected by inaffected effective pilots... :8 :uhoh:

rgds, learner... ;)

[mono]

Lets be careful not to jump to conclusions here.

As has been stated, there is as yet no conclusion to the report. Furthermore, the brush recovered from the foot well area was intact and, as has been stated in the report, showed no evidence of any crush damage to any of its faces.

I'll wait for the final conclusions:ok:

[Dolfin]

To Flap40:

A visit to a dictionary would be simpler and quicker. Sadly, such items seem to be going out of fashion.

In the original post, the intended meaning was fairly obvious, as the literal meaning was too ridiculous to contemplate. However, in something like a tech log or an engineering report, similar mistakes could easily lead to confusion or much worse.

No matter how you inform someone he or she has made such a basic error, your efforts seem to be received with very bad grace. I am guessing that all the respondents in the thread so far have English as their first language, and are also possibly all British. I wonder what the rest of the members think of us?

This is an aviation website, not the English Language section of the Open University. Nevertheless, it still grates to see a headline proclaiming How Poor Maintenance Practices Can Bring About a Normal Flight.

[TURIN]

I quite agree, Dolphin.

The now classic maint rep....

'No.4 engine missing.'

...and the even classier reply..

'No.4 engine found on starboard outer wing.'

...is a wonderful example of how language can, and will be confused. :ok:

[cdtaylor_nats]

Was I the only one who thought it was a really clever play on words.

[smartercharter]

That is exactly what it was - humour, not sarcasm!
Some of us dont look down our noses at each other - but can enjoy a joke together.........obviously not all though!!!!:8

[Lu Zuckerman]

Maybe I should have said, “ How poor maintenance practices can have an effect on a normal flight.” However I was referencing the effect relative to the failure mode. This is in direct reference to MIL-STD 1629, which outlines the procedures for performing a Failure Modes Effect Criticality Analysis. This is the world I live in and it is governed by a dictionary of technical terms and not the Oxford Dictionary.

Your critical analysis of my comments is typical of this and other forums on PPRuNe in which one individual tries to prove how smart they are by showing how dumb the other guy is. This seems to be a part of the British mentality. IMHO


:E :E

[the boy John]

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.

[spork]

[Last edited by the boy John on 26th February 2004 at 16:22]It wasn't right first time then...