PC Gone Mad in B200 Accident Report
Thread Starter
PC Gone Mad in B200 Accident Report
Gender-free plural pronouns: may be used throughout the report to refer to an individual (i.e. they, them and their).
The report then chops and changes between "the pilot" and "they"
It may have been used in educated speech and in all but the most formal writing to refer to singular indefinite pronouns or singular nouns of general personal reference but where an investigation into an accident has established that there was only one pilot, I would have thought that the use of "the Pilot" would be more appropriate and consistent.
Is this now the level of written English in the public service?
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2016-170/
Following the accident, the pilot reported that their biggest lesson was not to hesitate during emergency procedures. They believed that their doubt in the veracity of the warning resulted in their hesitation while completing the four engine fire drill (memory) actions, resulting in them missing the step to feather the propeller.
"The biggest lesson the pilot reported following the accident was not to hesitate during emergency procedures. The pilot believed that initial doubt in the veracity of the warning resulted in hesitation whilst completing the four engine fire drill (memory) actions, subsequently resulting in missing the step to feather the propeller."
----------------
Carson: May I take it that you think "The Priest and the Acolyte" was not immoral?
Wilde: It was worse; it was badly written.
So we have an aircraft crewed by one pilot. Within a couple of paragraphs, the ATSB is referring to the single pilot as "they"
The report then chops and changes between "the pilot" and "they"
It may have been used in educated speech and in all but the most formal writing to refer to singular indefinite pronouns or singular nouns of general personal reference but where an investigation into an accident has established that there was only one pilot, I would have thought that the use of "the Pilot" would be more appropriate and consistent.
Is this now the level of written English in the public service.
The report then chops and changes between "the pilot" and "they"
It may have been used in educated speech and in all but the most formal writing to refer to singular indefinite pronouns or singular nouns of general personal reference but where an investigation into an accident has established that there was only one pilot, I would have thought that the use of "the Pilot" would be more appropriate and consistent.
Is this now the level of written English in the public service.
they
ðeɪ/ (say dhay)
pronoun (personal), third person, plural, subjective (objective them)
[Middle English; from Old Norse their those, related to Old English thā, plural of thæt THAT]
Usage: The use of they, them, and their as non-gender-specific singulars (as in a doctor and their patients) has always had currency in spoken English and is now increasingly accepted in written English. This use of they gives rise to the form themself for the reflexive pronoun by analogy with myself, himself, etc.
ðeɪ/ (say dhay)
pronoun (personal), third person, plural, subjective (objective them)
- plural of he, she, and it.
- people in general: they say he is rich.
- (used with singular force in informal contexts, and increasingly in formal contexts, in place of a gender-specific form where the sex of the antecedent is not determined): if anybody cheats they will be disqualified.
[Middle English; from Old Norse their those, related to Old English thā, plural of thæt THAT]
Usage: The use of they, them, and their as non-gender-specific singulars (as in a doctor and their patients) has always had currency in spoken English and is now increasingly accepted in written English. This use of they gives rise to the form themself for the reflexive pronoun by analogy with myself, himself, etc.
Mick - There is no "clarity" using a pronoun that can apply to either a single person or multiple people. Reading the sentences as written has me rereading previous sentences to work out to whom the pronouns are referring. Hardly an exercise in clarity or brevity.
There are ways to avoid this abomination resulting from the search for the epicene pronoun. The use of "they" for the third person singular might be increasingly accepted - and I cannot argue with that - but it is lazy and there are alternatives.
There are ways to avoid this abomination resulting from the search for the epicene pronoun. The use of "they" for the third person singular might be increasingly accepted - and I cannot argue with that - but it is lazy and there are alternatives.
Pilot is now back working for the same company "they" were working for before "they" joined the RFDS - Broken Hill Aviation.
DF.
DF.
What's wrong with using "he" if the pilot is a male and "she" if the pilot is a female? Like it was in the olden days
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: constantly crossing the equator
Age: 38
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
As Compressor Stall alluded to, when I first read the report, I had to re-read paragraphs to confirm that it was in fact a single pilot operation and that a second crew member had not materialised out of the ether.
Being a technical report setting out the facts as determined by the investigators, accurate descriptions and terminology should take precedent over the push for "gender-free plural pronouns".
But in their rush for "gender-free plural pronouns," the ATSB overlooked the fact that there was only one pilot.
Being a technical report setting out the facts as determined by the investigators, accurate descriptions and terminology should take precedent over the push for "gender-free plural pronouns".
But in their rush for "gender-free plural pronouns," the ATSB overlooked the fact that there was only one pilot.
One that grates on me is "fishers" when you're not allowed to say "fishermen". When spoken, it's not immediately clear if one is talking about the catcher or the catchee.
You're missing the point.
In order to work out the operational/safety implications of the report, you have to read what it says. If what it says is confusing, it makes it difficult to work out the implications.
In order to work out the operational/safety implications of the report, you have to read what it says. If what it says is confusing, it makes it difficult to work out the implications.
I read the report and due to the grammatical use of 'their' instead of 'he' totally failed to understand it, I could not grasp what it was trying to alert me to and as a result of that lack of understanding I subsequently crashed my aeroplane.
It is an outrage! An outrage I say!
The ATSB owe me a new aeroplane!
The sentence is totally indecipherable! I challenge anyone to make any sense of it. I certainly can't.
The world is going to pieces.
And don't get me started on people who put the toilet roll on backwards now get off my lawn!
It is an outrage! An outrage I say!
The ATSB owe me a new aeroplane!
The sentence is totally indecipherable! I challenge anyone to make any sense of it. I certainly can't.
The world is going to pieces.
And don't get me started on people who put the toilet roll on backwards now get off my lawn!
So why did the pilot get dismissed? The report suggests that CASA was deficient in not knowing how to interpret their own Part 61 requirements and the RFDS was deficient in not incorporating the change to the false fire detection warnings. Basically if the pilot had ignored the warning and just landed then he would still have a job with the RFDS! Clearly a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Did the B200 that crashed at Essendon have a similar fire warning system and did that pilot also not shut down the engine properly.It seems as though the King Air has quite a few traps for young and old players.
Did the B200 that crashed at Essendon have a similar fire warning system and did that pilot also not shut down the engine properly.It seems as though the King Air has quite a few traps for young and old players.
Last edited by Lookleft; 13th Jul 2017 at 01:05. Reason: Kharon, not sure why I owe you but happy to buy you a beer at your next indaba.
Mick - There is no "clarity" using a pronoun that can apply to either a single person or multiple people. Reading the sentences as written has me rereading previous sentences to work out to whom the pronouns are referring. Hardly an exercise in clarity or brevity.
There are ways to avoid this abomination resulting from the search for the epicene pronoun. The use of "they" for the third person singular might be increasingly accepted - and I cannot argue with that - but it is lazy and there are alternatives.
There are ways to avoid this abomination resulting from the search for the epicene pronoun. The use of "they" for the third person singular might be increasingly accepted - and I cannot argue with that - but it is lazy and there are alternatives.
The ATSB has been writing reports this way for what? at least a year, probably longer. I'd hazard a guess that if it wasn't for the fact that they recently started flagging the use of gender-free pronouns in the footnotes no one would be complaining (well, they certainly weren't a year ago).
Addendum.
Near as I can tell the ATSB has been using "they" and "their" as singular non-gender pronouns in their reports since at least April 2015 (see AO-2013-136 Final – 7 April 2015; "The pilot’s logbook indicated that, prior to the flight, they had accrued a total of 2,316 hours helicopter flight time, of which 561 hours were in 412 helicopters."). They have only started drawing attention to this practice by way of a footnote (viz Gender-free plural pronouns: may be used throughout the report to refer to an individual (i.e. they, them and their).) since May this year.
It's interesting, if not instructive, that for two years readers have been blissfully unaware of, and presumably not confused by, this usage and that the matter seems to have become an issue only after its somewhat well established use was specifically highlighted to readers.
Last edited by MickG0105; 7th Jul 2017 at 11:50. Reason: Addendum. Spelling correction.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from my experience in these aircraft, one has a clear enough view of the engine in the -200 to determine if it is blazing away or not....
Thread Starter
It's interesting, if not instructive, that for two years readers have been blissfully unaware of, and presumably not confused by, this usage and that the matter seems to have become an issue only after its somewhat well established use was specifically highlighted to readers.
For the last 25 years I have been writing manuals and reports for the aviation industry. When referring to a human in the sharp end, it was "the pilot," "the flight crew" or in a multi-crew situation, "the pilot in command" or "the co-pilot."
It grates as much as using "guys"
It's interesting, if not instructive, that for two
It annoyed me then and continues to annoy me now.