The use of words:

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I came across this on the Canadian forum.


Heh. I was doing some tailwheel training yesterday, and the student was doing very well with the crosswind - he dropped the left wing, a little right rudder to stay straight, which he maintained during the flare. He established the landing attitude and touched down beautifully on the left main and the tailwheel at the same time - sort of a 2-pt landing :wink: As he slowed down, aileron progressively all the way over into the wind, keeping the downwind main in the air as long as possible, and spoiling lift on the upwind wing with the up aileron, and creating maximum adverse yaw on the downwind wing with the down aileron, to oppose weathervaning during the rollout as we slowed down and the rudder lost effectiveness.

Obviously the author of that post is from the same era and thought process as I am by noting he used the word " Effectiveness " instead of " Authority " .

Does that make us less professional as teachers?

[Pilot DAR]

I agree that "effectiveness" is a very appropriate term to describe a flight control. I appreciate effectiveness, I avoid authority!

Using our language correctly, is to me, one of the many important ways in which we demonstrate the care with which we do things. A person who speaks and writes with great care, probably does many other things with similar care, and that's what I like to see!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The use of words seems to have been changed by the system for some time and the use of " authority " to describe the force that a control surface such as the rudder produces as it is moved is typical of " new speak " in the training industry.

If an instructor were to ask me how the rudder responds to movement on a given airplane would he/she ask me " How authority is the rudder on that airplane? "

[J.O.]

Actually, it would be "how authoritative", but it would still be improper English.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

So how come so many instructors use rudder authority or elevator authority or aileron authority instead of effectiveness when teaching?

[bushav8er]

For the same reason that they don't know that their is not they're there. (one sad example of many)

[xsbank]

I can say with complete authority that using convoluted language is a way of separating the instructor from the student (some call 'em 'clients'). Its an effective example of a tartigrade sesquipedalian utterance and should positively ensure that instructors are seen as Heroes of The North, or SkyGods, if you prefer; sort of the same thing.

[Pilot DAR]

instructors are seen as Heroes of The North, or SkyGods

Well, maybe the newbie instructors. Happily, I have found generally that the ol' time instructors are pretty much like the ol' time pilots - they just speak normally... properly, but normally.

I suppose you can tell the ol' timers (Chuck...) 'cause from the outside they just appear like regular folk. It's only when you get into flying with them, you realize how much you still have to learn!

Grey hair does have a use, it helps you decide which instructor you can really learn from in safety!

[DHC6tropics]

:eek: Whew...you guys need a hobby! Maybe bocce or shuffleboard?

[learner001]

Obviously the author of that post is from the same era and thought process as I am by noting he used the word " Effectiveness " instead of " Authority " .

Does that make us less professional as teachers?


The excellently described representation of the sequence of events, the action, reaction and results throughout this, no doubt, beautifully performed x-wind landing in the opening post of Mr. Chuck Ellsworth and his subsequent question, hit more than just one ‘string’ in me.

1. Absolutely beautifully written. :ok:
2. Right away, I felt as actually sitting in that ol' dragger. (Cub - Dak, Sniff...) :sad:
3. I love teaching ‘thrown away’ students... (“You seem to just not have 'it', son/girl...!”) :=
4. Intrigued by the words of very observant Mr. Chuck Ellsworth. :)
a. Yes, I certainly have hobbies. Just got carried away this time...:p (@DH6tropics)

English is not my ‘mother tongue’, but I hope to be able to understandably express my thoughts about this anyway.


Actually I sort of ‘hate’ the use of these so called ‘new (sometimes ‘over-sophisticated’) expressions/language’.
Ample examples come to mind. Also in my language . . .

But let’s stick to the example and question of Mr. Chuck Ellsworth, which could be telling us a lot in this respect. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not just ‘word picking’. But this particular case is just a ‘more or less’ easy example on how deep, I think, one could go in analysing the sometimes far reaching consequences of 'just' the ‘different use of words or wording’... The example could be analog and/or could stand for many other ‘words’, ‘wordings’ and even ‘situations’...

One could even go further or deeper. But I think I got carried away far too much already, for that matter... (Really did not realise what I started, actually...) :{


- Using the word ‘Effectiveness’ not only clearly ‘describes’ immediately in ones mind what is meant, but it also -right away- expresses ‘the right feeling’ of what is meant. Needing no further clarification. (The ruddersurface and the airflow springs to ones mind right away...)

- Using the word ‘Authority’ would call for more (unconsciously) deduction and further clarification in ones mind. (Reflecting ‘different’ meanings, at first instance it could very well be possible that neither the rudder nor the airflow would spring to ones mind... But that instead, some 'coconut' swirl in the mind brings up: a ‘person (the pilot?) having authority’ or even more 'coconuts' the CAA, FAA or CASA...)


Some people would first need to have explained to them that in this context, with ‘Authority’ actually ‘Effectiveness’ [of the rudder surface in the (decreasing) airflow] is meant... Explaining this before using this word ‘Authority’, would be the best timing. But in ‘real life’ when using ‘sophisticated’ words, this explaining usually happens later. (Or not at all...) After a request (If anyone would dare asking... :oh:) to explain. Thus after already having used the (Probably well known, but in the context misinterpreted...) specific word.

Amongst the key factors in teaching, in my humble opinion, it makes a ‘different instructor’ that has the 'finesse' to really know to differentiate between the two words/expressions and especially: when to use which wording/expression.

And this is definitely not restricted to a wording example...

So, I would say it would make (us) ‘different’ (as) teachers. :hmm:

I’ll leave it to you, wether to qualify this as ‘more or less professional’... :)

Kind regards, learner . . . ;)

[fitliker]

free munths ago i cood nut speel komercyal pilut ,now i are one:E

[nolimitholdem]

hmm...I have a love for the language as well, but I have to voice my mild opposition to this particular example of "effectiveness" vs. "authority". (And yes, this entire discussion is pure pedantry, and so what! ;-)

"Effectiveness" is a more elegant word, and to my mind speaks to the craftsmanship of piloting - utilizing the flight controls to do something with some finesse. The excellent description quoted clearly illustrates this. To be effective is a fine thing, a gentlemanly thing, something to aspire to. Effective energy management is a beautiful thing to observe.

However, "authority" works better - to my mind - in flight situations that are cruder or more aggressive, where there are large opposing forces at work. An example of this would be the loss of an engine on takeoff. In that situation, I am really hoping that the rudder will have enough AUTHORITY to counteract the 115,000 lbs of thrust now placed on one side of the aircraft centreline. I am certainly not hoping that it will be merely "effective"!

So, I mildly disagree that "authority" requires more deduction to understand than "effective". There are times when you are "placing" the controls for maximum effectiveness. And there are other (hopefully rare) times when you are putting the boot down...with some authority!

:cool:

(Just my opinion!)

[PUKKA GEN]

The use of computors in flying was inevitable, and in most cases welcome. Unfortunately, those grey haired ,old (safe?) pilots were not able to program complicated, (duplicated?,triplicated) systems, and the language used fell to the "non flying" intellects. Thus we have a mixed, dare I say bi-lingual, system wherein one computor system has "authority"
over another, and "effectiveness " becomes secondary.
The QF 380, and the Hudson River landing, appear to be two recent cases where "grey hair" (just fly the airplane!), trumped cockpit horns/bells and rapidly changing (duplicating?) screens

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Interesting thoughts here.

Maybe my hang up is I am anti authority thus the use of the word is irritating to me?

If I am anti authority the next logical step in assessing my type would put me in the high risk category with regards to safety?

So if I were to lose an engine and applied enough rudder to be effective with regards to the desired flight path and safe handling of the aircraft why bring authority into it, flying an airplane is just operating a piece of machinery, is it not?

[bushav8er]

flying an airplane is just operating a piece of machinery, is it not?Chuck, Chuck, Chuck...you should know by now that its paper work that makes an aircraft fly. := ;)

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Sadly the industry has allowed the drones who pump out the paper work to strangle the industry.

Fortunately I am not mentally capable of understanding what their paper work means.

To be able to accept their thought process I would need a lobotomy and I am not willing to get one.

[Pilot DAR]

flying an airplane is just operating a piece of machinery, is it not?

Well... it can be I suppose, but we know it can be so much more... It's the most effective way to be free of the authority below! ('till they're waiting for you when you land!)

[DERG]

"So how come so many instructors use rudder authority or elevator authority or aileron authority instead of effectiveness when teaching?

Insecurity. They should not be teaching stuff they don't understand themselves. Ignorant too. Unless you can communicate properly they should not be in COMMAND of an aircraft.

[STC]

How about when a self described "professional" pilot can't figure out the difference between "to" and "too"?

[pigboat]

I can say with complete authority that using convoluted language is a way of separating the instructor from the student (some call 'em 'clients'). Its an effective example of a tartigrade sesquipedalian utterance and should positively ensure that instructors are seen as Heroes of The North, or SkyGods, if you prefer; sort of the same thing.

Whaaa?????

[J.O.]

How about when a self described "professional" pilot can't figure out the difference between "to" and "too"?

To which posting are you referring? :confused:

[treykule]

Does that make us less professional as teachers?

Not at all. That is not the reason we think you are less professional.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/icons/46.gif

It is your refusal to consider a lobotomy. That is necessary to be a professional flight instructor..I think it is actually in the CARS someplace, but as I am not a flight instructor or TC type I am unable to quote them chapter and verse.

On a bit more serious note, that first post was a pretty nice description.
Not sure why you got your parachute all in a knot over the semantics..Personally I am not anti-semantic at all. If the student understands is what it is all about. You have two (or is it too, or to?) much time on your hands Chuck to be contemplating these things and making them personal issues. Professionalism is a bit more than the improper use of a word or too (or is it two, or to?)

cheers

[Pilot DAR]

Professionalism is a bit more than the improper use of a word or too (or is it two, or to?)



Well, yes, we should all be able to forgive the occasional slip, as we would the occasional slightly bounced landing. But,

When the language we have inherited is eroded by chronic carelessness, that deserves comment. We demonstrate "professionalism" by always working to be better - in everything.

If I observe a person being careless in one thing, I will assume they are equally careless in everything.

So, if I were to observe a flying instructor who does not care to use their language with care while teaching, I'm going to assume that they also do not fly airplanes with care, and why would I want to study with them if I have a choice of a more "professional" one? Yes, I will, in part, judge the quality of a pilot's care in flying by the care with which they speak.

Working life, is to a large extent a continuing job interview, so you may as well conduct yourself as if it is, and present your best image....

[Fantome]

Part diatribe, part cool reflection on the state of Australia’s public language, Don Watson’s Death Sentence is scathing, funny and brilliant.

‘ ... in public life the language has never been held in less regard. It withers in the dungeons of the technocratic mind. It is butchered by the media. In politics it lacks all qualifications for the main game.’

Almost sixty years ago, George Orwell described the decay of language and why this threatened democratic society. But compared to what we now endure, the public language of Orwell's day brimmed with life and truth. Today's corporations, government departments, news media, and, perhaps most dangerously, politicians – speak to each other and to us in cliched, impenetrable, lifeless sludge.

Don Watson can bear it no longer. In Death Sentence, part diatribe, part cool reflection on the state of Australia's public language, he takes a blowtorch to the words – and their users – who kill joy, imagination and clarity. Scathing, funny and brilliant, Death Sentence is a small book of profound weight – and timeliness.

"Watson makes an eloquent, elegant, and sometimes scathing case for taking back language from those who would strip it of all color and emotion and, therefore, of all meaning." - Joanne Wilkinson, Booklist

"many lessons and insights in this book" - Leigh Buchanan, Harvard Business Review

"[Watson is] always clear and precise, even when exposing the verbal pollution that passes for wisdom in the public realm." - Toronto Star

"Don Watson has written a fine and necessary book. Any citizen who neglects to read it does so at his or her peril." - Lewis H Lapham, Harper's Magazine

"[a] marvelous polemic..." - forbes.com

"Captures the powerlessness and frustration we feel when confronted by meaningless words delivered with authority." - Los Angeles Times Book Review


From website - RANDOM HOUSE BOOKS

[treykule]

If I observe a person being careless in one thing, I will assume they are equally careless in everything.

So, if I were to observe a flying instructor who does not care to use their language with care while teaching, I'm going to assume that they also do not fly airplanes with care, and why would I want to study with them if I have a choice of a more "professional" one? Yes, I will, in part, judge the quality of a pilot's care in flying by the care with which they speak.



Ah, Pilot Dar.. Chuck and I are just two old toothless cats who like to take a swat at the pride now and then to stir things up. My post was directed at straight Cat Driver harrassment.

You assumptions may be correct, but I would be careful before you start judging instructors. A great instructor speaks to a student in language that is suitable for that student..I still tell pilots to bring the nose up.or put it down..I dont consider that careless or unprofessional. The communication is understood , and in the cockpit enviroment that is important. I find that some, particularly the young and inexperienced instructors tend to pontificate and use pretenious language. I always chuckle when I hear a 300 hour instructor confidently talking about things like the back side of the power curve in correct and proper technical language to students who really dont understand what is being said, and then when I fly with them, they dont have a blue's clue about how it really works (the instructors, not the students)
I could go on. Really professional instructors provide the knowledge and know how to convey it , and assure understanding.
So I hope you will not think I am being careless or unprofessional when I suggest you lower the nose a bit to increase the speed. BTW...the nose I am referring to is the pointy end of the plane.
My instructor rating expired many many years ago, but these days I get to see the product of the new breed of professional insturctors..Still all zippers, watches, and sunglasses, but they sure do talk pretty.....Just wish that those ex-instructor professionals could fly like they talk.

[Fantome]

The late Adrian Johnson was an instructor of unpretentious bush pilot type origins. Once overheard a debrief he was enduring with a stuffed-shirt from the department who said "Adrian. We like to hear you say 'lower the nose', if you don't mind. I have to say it is most jarring to me to hear you say as you did on our flight just now . .. . 'You'd better stuff the nose down NOW!"

[Pilot DAR]

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....

[lilflyboy262...2]

I've always been wary of those who "Talk the talk." Talking the talk and walking the walk are two very different things.
I would prefer a guy who might not use the precise terminology, but can show me how to safely fly an aircraft.
Knowing how to describe how we are plunging to our deaths is not as important to me as knowing how to solve the problem.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Talking the talk and walking the walk are two very different things.

For sure.

Of all the lessons in the lesson plans that flight instructors use when teaching new pilots the most important one seems to be very poorly taught in a lot of schools.

Attitudes and movements.

If any lesson requires clear precise wording and demonstration it is that lesson.

Without a clear understanding of the basics of aircraft control it is a long hill to climb for the student to be able to skillfully handle an aircraft.

[treykule]

I agree wholeheartly chuck..And this is one of those areas that the FIG, in my opinion failed a bit. The first lesson is supposed to be short to allow the student to get used to the flight training envirorment, remember where the airport is, get only a short PF briefing....and, oh,,,do attitudes and movements.
Most instructors, because they dont understand it themselves, spend a quick four minutes demonstrating and letting the student try it, and never do it again. They never do a post flight briefing to insure the student actually understood the lesson.. Very sad indeed. I see 300 hour , CPL, mulit IFR rated pilots who really do not understand it. Chasing airspeed on the climbs and descents is a common occurrance because they simply dont understand how attitude and power are related. And part of that is related to their instructor technique.

It is the one exercise, when I was instructing that I did not follow the flight lesson plan, and at the risk of boring my student, did very thorough ground pre and post flight briefing and review. It is also one I repeated on the second flight before getting into turns, climbs, descents etc. Those extra few minutes saved hours of corrections in their future training.

But that was then . This is now, and it seems it is more important for the student to spend 20 minutes on checklist compliance in a 172 than actually learn how to fly one. SOP's, CRM,SMS...all seem to be more important nowadays then actually learning to fly the plane. And dont get me started on instructor inspired fantasy scenarios..