Yep fantome
You certainly covered the big issue of that report...

you may heckle (and you have a fair bit) . .. . . .. . . to quote RGM to a heckler . .. "Hire your own hall sir"

Pot, this is Kettle...the colour is black over
Congratulations too on apparently taking over PPRUNE for the airing of your views only
In an effort to stay on topic interesting issues are raised on air show participation and aircraft certification...I find those topics much more interesting to professional pilots than spelling nazis with a vendetta against organisations...not to say I don't have my own criticism off them but on deeper things than a spellcheck

dear captain over react . .. . . . . . . since 1960 I have been a close reader of accident reports from DCA , DOT, CAA, from BASI from ATSB (and NTSB)

rather that a spelling nazi, apart from the main exercise of digesting the content,
when there are errors in syntax and other slips that can at times lead to ambiguities, is it not right to make ones own correction? Or if significant enough get in touch with the author or authors?

p.s.. your absurd assertion about 'taking over pprune' is not worth of a comeback.

Then why did you
Out

I don't know what the fuss is about really. To me the sentence makes perfect sense. Perhaps you could tell us how it should be re-worded to remove some of the life threatning ambiguity?

Well, Fantome is correct, but he must be an English teacher with a compulsive need to correct every grammar failing - or a lawyer specialising in precise definitions.

The wording is perfectly understandable to the vast majority of people, because our brains digest sentence wording and make sense of even jumbled and badly-misspelled words in sentences and paragraphs.

To satisfy Fantome, the precisely correct wording should be along the lines of ...

"Although amateur-built aircraft operated in the experimental category are not required to be fitted with a stall warning device, owner-pilots should consider the benefits of installing such devices (preferably with aural output) as a last line of defence against stalling."

The original paragraph construction places "preferably with aural output" in the same sentence structure that says, "not required to be fitted" - thus making the syntax incorrect.

Ok, so he's grasping at straws and you are correct, not many would pick up on that one.

We are certainly tackling the big issues here on pprune.

Let's eat Grandma! :ok:

Yeah, but to be fair we are dealing with our regulator here, an entity apparently infested with legal types, so I'm inclined to think we can expect better of them.

I'm with Fantome.

I had to read that sentence twice because after the first reading it didn't make sense to me.

After the second reading, I understood, but assumed it was a typographical error. A typical case since computers replaced typewriters. The words in parentheses were likely added as an afterthought and inadvertently inserted into the wrong part of the sentence. It is easy to do, but proof reading should have picked it up.