Ridiculous gender political correctness in ATSB reports
 

Reading the latest ATSB short investigation reports got right up my nose. It is difficult to concentrate on the investigative narrative when every now and again one's reading is brought short by the gender neutral official use of the word "they" to hide the gender of the pilot.
Example today:

Pilot comments
The pilot of NTQ provided the following comments:
• They were well rested and fit to fly prior to commencing the day’s duties.
› 2 ‹
ATSB – AO-2016-075
• Prior to departing Horn Island, they were well nourished and hydrated.
• While conditions were not perfect, they elected to conduct a visual approach as large head movements exacerbated their symptoms.
• They had no pre-existing conditions which may have contributed to the incident.
............................................................ .................................

Yet read the newspapers or listen to the media when they discuss criminal acts by individuals every day and the gender is used correctly rather than this absurd affliction of "They" by ATSB. OK so there may be a legal aspect to using "they" instead of she, he or it. That being so, why not simply say "the pilot"? :ugh:

I didn't realise there was anyone left, with a modicum of knowledge of matters aviation, that took ATSB reports seriously any more.

You may well be the last, Centaurus.

Unfortunately it is the way all levels of government are required to write these days. I suppose because governments and the associated departments, GBE's and all manner of qangos are populated by gender neutral incumbants rather than people.

CC

If gender was not the prime cause of an incident then why is it an issue ?

I'm fine with 'they', and prefer to see 'they' instead of the cumbersome 'he/she'.

It adds to the pilot's anonymity, which is an important protection for the reporter, although we all know most pilots are male.

Kaz

Hey, hey, hey!
Please read Centaurus' post #1 again.
In that, he asked that, if we must be gender-neutral, what is wrong with simply, "the pilot"?
Please pay attention.

Just as a p.s., how's your "wellness"?

.

Who the hell cares?

It's not about political correctness it's just that it sounds more professional. Why include the gender of the crew when it doesn't pertain to a factor of the crash? It's just like a novel, don't mention it if it doesn't mean anything in the bigger picture. Like the brown paper bag for groceries in movies.

Stanwell

Please read the report. It is full of references to "the pilot". eg:

Good. Thanks oggers.
I couldn't help noticing, though, that "the pilot felt tingling in their hands and and fingers".
Just how many personalities did the pilot have?
That's a worry for a start.

I guess my point is that I'm a little annoyed with semi-literate PCers trying to muck around with the language.
As a wise Professor once said to me .. "Son, you must first know the rules before you can break them".
.

Well, you can't say 'felt a tingling in his or her fingers' without sounding like a total goose, so maybe it's forgivable in that instance!

Perhaps 'the pilot reported feeling a tingling sensation of the fingers' might be appropriate? I think the ATSB should employ someone to sort this out ASAP, on $200 k per annum.

AOTW,
There might be a position for you as a consultant to CAsA as well. :ok:

As AOTW states above, there are many ways of structuring sentences to avoid the dreaded "their" when used for the singular possessive.

All it takes is a good command of the language we speak and some intent.

Use of "their" when applied to a single person would be (or used to be) marked incorrectly at high school level. It's lazy, incorrect and a disgrace at government publication level.

"Their" is now considered a gender neutral pronoun, thus its usage here is correct

Languages evolve, if it didn't we would still be saying things like: "O brother, where art though" or to the extreme, "GRUNT"

Language is no different to technology.

Oh c'mon, Square Bear..
Evolution is one thing - pig-ignorance and attitude is another.

Not so long ago, I was taken aback when a spotty-faced, 'cap on backward' employee, whose communications made
no sense to anybody, got in my face and told me .. "That's how it is now - Get used to it!"
Oh? said I. .. School playground rules, is it?
I must remember to put my hat on the other way, I thought.

BTW, he was looking for another job very soon after.


.

The report mentioned 1 pilot.
Then it described how they became ill. I thought I had misread now many pilots were onboard!
Certainly a distraction when trying to understand what was going on!

Curved ball here. A pilot father of a current RAAF instructor pilot [male] tells me that in the gender world the return of service for a female is 50% that of an equivalent male and that Pearce graduate female pilots have the option of their choice of first postings/types vs. the dream sheet and lottery for the males!

Stanwell
Hi,

as horrifying as might be to some, there are around 1000 new words added to the English Dictionaries every year.

To put it in an aviation sense, whilst I might gaze nostalgically at a DC3, l sure as sh*t don't want to travel to London in one, a 777 for me thank you very much.

In the words of a most recent Nobel Prize winner for Literature: "Times They Are-a Changing".

And that was written in 1964!!!

(PS: when I went to school one was not allowed to start a sentence with AND, as I just did....liberating times now eh). :ok:

There's a difference between evolution of a language and outright errors.

The entire population could start using: "Would of got the job", and the entire population would be in error. The entire population could start using: "The Blues are versing the Maroons", and the entire population would in error.

You're free to start using: "Your free to start using", but you'd be in error.

Mistaken usage is not evolution.

Grammar: It's the difference between knowing your **** and knowing you're ****. :ok:

singular they
 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/us...he-versus-they

Don't mention the misuse of myself

Love those pathetic phrases..
"it's increasingly common" and "now widely accepted".
So are certain other stupid things like drugs - but that doesn't mean they're a benefit to society as a whole.

I hear there's a protest rally happening next Sunday..
Something to do with the semi-literate demanding a louder voice, I believe.
Appropriately worded signage is being prepared for the event.

Suggestions as to how we might best assist this challenged sector of our community will be welcomed.
.

What is alarming about the recent ATSB "reports" is the one about VH-TAK (Investigation: AO-2016-082 - Engine failure and forced landing involving Piper PA-28, VH-TAK, 3 km NW of Bankstown Airport, NSW, on 21 July 2016)
This was an engine failure out of BK yet :

Engine and fuel system inspection

The ATSB did not conduct an inspection of the engine and fuel system as part of this investigation.

The aircraft insurer elected to write the aircraft off without conducting an investigation to determine the cause of the power loss.

Yes, seems a bit strange that the cause of the power loss wasn't mentioned - why bother putting out a report at all if you don't tell people what actually happened?

Seeing as we're on the subject of grammar, this excerpt from the report sounds somehow wrong - perhaps 'power reduced further' might be better.

Still, we're probably all comfortable using the term 'total loss of power', so on a scale of zero power loss to total, there must be increasing power loss on the way, I suppose!

Yes, AOTW.
".. the power loss increased".
Like the brat I quoted earlier ... "That's how it is now - get used to it!"
I think I need to go have a good lie down.

I wonder what the late Mac Job would think if he was aware of the depths to which the ATSB reports have descended.:sad:

Anyone who has read articles published in the old ASD would have noted the high standard of grammar etc used in that now sadly missed publication.

I think the work experience kid must have written that "Investigation" report. It is meaningless drivel.

I hope "they" have gone back to school now to learn how to write English. "the power loss increased" would have had my old English teacher coming at you with a long ruler.

Your tax dollars at work, people.

Meanwhile a report I put in three weeks ago about a caravan who decided to do a low level left hand orbit on final on 24R and then flew over me on parallel final on 24L 100 feet above and in the opposite direction never even got acknowledged.

Reminds me of a report in an RAF Air Clues flight safety magazine which I read countless yonks ago. Seems a Vampire (single seat fighter) reported to ATC his engine was vibrating badly and he asked for a GCA (Ground Controlled Approach). He was vectored in IMC to final then transferred to the GCA frequency where the radar controller started to talk him down.

In the event, he crashed well short of the runway but survived. At the Court of Inquiry the ATC controller said he asked the pilot if the heavy vibration was still present during the GCA. The pilot replied the vibration had now ceased.

The ATC told the Court that he assumed from that news that everything was OK and the approach would be normal. He added "the pilot told me the vibration had ceased but he didn't say that was because the engine had actually stopped."

Exhibit L in a long list of grammatical crimes - 'literally' Majority misuse rules!

Literally unbelievable.

They/their has been used in this fashion for far longer than the PC brigade have been to the fore. I suggest that if it seems wrong then your education might be lacking.

I don't like the "misuse" of words like "literally" either, but like it or not the language changes. If educated folk from the 1600s heard us speak they would think it was full of mistakes that we think are perfectly correct. The only difference is that we are old enough to know how it used to be, we've seen it evolve, and we get upset because we "know" it's wrong. To people in the year 2100 though, it will just be how english is, and the fact that "literally" used to mainly be used to denote that something was not exaggerated will be a quaint fact trotted out at pedant's parties.

The one that really gets my goat is the increasing use of "aircrafts" as the plural of aircraft. I see it more and more in professional publications and can see that it's only a matter of time before it becomes mainstream.

It's a shame that English doesn't have a genderless singular pronoun, which leads to the use of "they" and "their" when talking about a single person. That said, it always annoys me, and sometimes confuses me when it is done. I think it's better to construct sentences to avoid it, and if that requires "he or she" then so be it?

We all understand that PC, not Personal Computer but Political Correctness, has gone mad. If anyone is ever able to find a copy of "Voices from the Swamp", a collection of articles written by South China Sunday Morning Post journalist Peter Sherwood between 1987-1989, I would highly recommend the publication. Unfortunately it does not have an ISBN and may be difficult to find outside Hong Kong. If found, I am sure the reader will consider the effort worthwhile.

Yes gender political correctness seems trivial when you have a dick.

What IS this forum? Surreal - first post since joining in 2003???
Finally a topic you thought you'd share your two bobs worth???

I thought you might have known, joseph.
They're out there, lurking, just waiting for what they think is the right moment.
Be afraid ...

I am!
I might work with them! :eek:

I'm just looking forward to 2029 when Surreal delivers their next sentence. ( the use of 'their' is not lost on me)

Reminds me of the old joke:

Some Aussie parents adopted a German toddler who was apparently normal in all respects, but showed no signs of developing the ability to talk.
A couple of years went by and they took him to all kinds of specialists to see if they could find out what was going on, but to no avail. After a while, they resigned themselves to the fact he was never going to be able to talk.
On his fifth birthday, the had a little party, and the boy's adoring adopted Mum made a lovely cake. After he'd blown out the candles and tried a piece, his mother, who was in the habit of talking to him as if he'd answer even though she knew he never would, said "How did you like your cake, darling?"
"Oh, I'm sorry to say it was a little dry, mama."
Disbelievingly, the parents looked at one another. Their baby boy had finally spoken, and in a perfect sentence, although he had a strong German accent.
"Oh, darling, if you could talk, why haven't you done it before now?" said Mum, tears in her eyes.
"Vell, everything was perfectly acceptable up to now."

Dear Josephfeatherweight (you chose the right name there didn't you?),

I have have commented on PPRuNe many times since 2003, but used another handle.
I now can't find the password and discovered I had another one.
Hope that helps out your sweet little brain.
(You might recognise my old posts because they usually contain the word DICK in them).

For those that are actually interested in why government bodies choose gender neutral language in official documents - there is plenty of information available online which explains the very good reasons to do so. But hey, most people are not interested in using their brains and understanding; most people just want to throw their own ill-equipped opinions into the ring and have a whinge at the world about political correctness. Those poor privileged white men being ignored again. Diddums.

I can see why your other posts usually have the word DICK in them somewhere.......:rolleyes:

There used to be a term for the obsession manifested by that habit, but it's probably now politically incorrect.

Don't worry: White male pilots will slowly be culled from the gene pool, due to an inability to glean anything useful from ATSB reports.