View Full Version : Weasel Words in FSA
Latest Flight Safety Australia page 51. Quote: "With RNP if there is a non-normal event like engine or GPS failure, the crew will have more tools in the tool kit to manage the work, solve the problem and extract the aeroplane if they're at a low altitude"..Unquote.
Yes - Quite....
Anyone reading the book by Don Watson called "Death Sentence - the Decay of Public Language" will know what I mean.
What the bloody hell is a non-normal event like a GPS failure and what sort of tools in a tool kit is the writer (Captain Passerini Qantas technical pilot, Boeing fleets) going on about? What is a "technical" pilot as against a normal pilot? How does a pilot "extract" an aeroplane? Does it mean climb like a bat out of hell?
Most of us prefer to read intelligent concise English - not weasel words which mean SFA.
king oath
2nd Mar 2005, 05:39
Haven't had a chance to read it yet but let me tell you Alex is a good bloke. Technical pilot in QF parlance means he knows a hell of a lot about the technical aspects of the aircraft types he deals with. Ask an esoteric question of a technical nature and he will answer it even if he has to annoy Boeing or whoever for the good info.
Unusual to get a management bloke who is a gem to have in his field of management and a good bloke too. Probably because he genuinely enjoys the subject, not ladder climbing.
Promise I'll read the article soon,but.
gaunty
2nd Mar 2005, 06:11
NO offence intended to those "non-technical" pilots in QF or anywhere for that matter as I applaud the concept in these "need to know only" days, but,
Technical pilot in QF parlance means he knows a hell of a lot about the technical aspects of the aircraft types he deals with. Ask an esoteric question of a technical nature and he will answer it even if he has to annoy Boeing or whoever for the good info.
Don't/shouldn't all professional pilots strive to "know a hell of a lot" about the aircraft strapped to their back for a good part of the day, beyond reaching for the "book" when there is something not quite right.
The Transat Atlantic fuel exhaustion incident may be a good example?
Or was that just something that was fashionable in the old days.
"Need to know" training and attitudes might be good for the bottom line in the short term, but IMHO have a precarious place in the longer term
The move to automation, glass etc is a really great move but IMHO requires more rather than less "know a hell of a lot" until they have got it 101% perfect.
"This is a recording of your Captain speaking, you are on the first fully automatic commercial flight conducted entirely without the aid of us pesky and expensive pilots, we are currently enjoying our retirement in the Bahamas, but I digress, you can be assured that the flight testing has been been extremely thorough and you can be assured nothing can go wrong.........go wrong.......go wrong........go wrong.":p
Capt Fathom
2nd Mar 2005, 10:13
Well Gaunty, go tell it to Boeing and Airbus!
Ron & Edna Johns
2nd Mar 2005, 10:58
Oh gaunty, for crying out loud......
As Boeing Technical Pilot, Alex is simply the man in Flight Tech Dept who does the liaison between Boeing and QF on all operational technical matters, as well as being involved in liaison with other depts throughout QF on Boeing aircraft issues.
That's all.......! (that's all? It's a bloody demanding role, actually).
Someone has to do it.
What an absolute beat-up of a thread....
gaunty
2nd Mar 2005, 11:06
I gotta suspicion :} Boeing might understand, but are only fighting a rear guard action, I'm not sure about Airbus who have not so much as given in perhaps, as led the charge.:uhoh:
It's IMHO all to do with dealing with the lowest common denominator as far as pilots are concerned.:{
Mission statement;
"Build aircraft that even the most determined idiot will have to work very hard to crash.":sad:
My new car with 8 airbags, 4 side curtain thingys, Global Capsule, AWD, TRACS, SIPS, SRS, ABS, Adaptive gearbox, deflogulator and 3 stage decraminator, blah, blah, with extra string even, may have taken all the "fun" out of it but, gratefully, it does allow me to concentrate on avoiding the increasing number of retards on the road.
Do I know how it all works, yup, what's not in the excellent manual took me about an hour on the net to suss, but then I was always a bit anal about these things :p
Aaaaaaaah now the moggie, was a car with which one could conjure fantasies. :)
Ron & Edna Johns
I hate that, when I\'m composing a post etc.
Read my lips, I was not in any way belittling the role which I have no doubt is a demanding, but faithfully executed role.
My point was;
Don\'t/shouldn\'t all professional pilots strive to "know a hell of a lot" about the aircraft strapped to their back for a good part of the day
and I\'m certain that Alex would go out of his way to help them?
I understand the language being used, but I also understand the frustration exhibited by Menen
Gaunty, Menen:
"Technical Pilot/Manager": Standard administrative appointment in most airline Flt Ops Depts nowadays. The focal for all things technical. Complements "Fleet Manager", "Training Manager", etc.
"Non-Normal": Standard terminology in most Airplane (US ver.) Flight Manuals nowadays. Considered to be more user-friendly than "Abnormal."
Technical "jargon" (or weasel words): Appropriate in the context of the intended reader. RNP is a topic which holds the greater interest for airline types at the moment and perhaps Alex's intended audience. Nothing more frustrating for techo-type readers to be spoonfed patronising monosyllables.
..difficult to please everybody sometimes..
weasil
5th Mar 2005, 00:45
As stated by a previous post, the title "Tech Pilot" is extremely common in US Flight Training departments.
At US Airways we have a tech pilot for each fleet type. This is simply one of our Check Airmen/Flight Instructors who is designated as the go to guy for finding out technical info from the aircraft manufacturer. By the simple nature of their position they often have access to more information than even the most conscientious line pilot.
schnauzer
5th Mar 2005, 02:53
Menen?
Ever flown an aeroplane that uses "non normal checklists"? Ever flown an aeroplane that is capable of RNP approaches? Ever been in a company that is big eveough to have someone designated as a "Technical Pilot"?
I think the answer is no to each question - and that is fine. Everyone has to start somewhere. But I also think that you might like to use this as a lesson for when not to open your mouth - or keyboard as the case may be.
There may be a little jargon in that magazine - I have read the article - but it is after all a professional journal, isnt it?
john_tullamarine
5th Mar 2005, 03:16
schnauzer ,
For info, Menen is all the things you suppose him not to be ... although he may have left the front seat side of the game a little before RNP became flavour of the month ...
Menen - What's a "weasel" word?!
gaunty
5th Mar 2005, 06:31
I don't have too many problems with the "technical jargon" and the trend towards non inflamatory or non pejorative language so that we don't frighten the horses. :rolleyes:
The replacement of the pejorative "death plunge" with the more reasonable "an uncommanded rapid descent" is entirely in order, but I'm not sure about "a non normal and involuntary negative gradient departure from a commanded optimal flight envelope".
Perhaps it's context.
"death plunge" = media report
"an uncommanded rapid descent" = airline media release
"a non normal and involuntary negative gradient departure from a commanded optimal flight envelope". = technical report?
Capt Passerini I hastento add is NOT in and of that mode and the gist of his article demonstrated and imparted to the reader a well researched and deep knowledge of his subject matter.
But we are seeing an increasing use of suchlike in efforts to appear, perhaps "scholarly".
And I do agree wholeheartedly with Menens dismay at an overwhelming trend towards unnecessary verbosity in technical language and the substitution of "intelligent concise English" with, well, "weasel words"
Is it possible to simplify "With RNP if there is a non-normal event like engine or GPS failure, the crew will have more tools in the tool kit to manage the work, solve the problem and extract the aeroplane if they're at a low altitude".. without losing the sense?
I don't know, but I'll have a go;
"With RNP the crew operate in a structured environment such that a safe flight path is always available in the event of mechanical or equipment failure."? :8 :ok:
OBNO
again it's context and I suspect our friend Menens might be slightly different however go here;
weasel words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words)
Gaunty & Woomera. Thanks. Also, the link to Weasel Words was excellent - couldn't have said it better myself!