Transparent to the crew

[JABBARA]

Dear Colleagues,

In some parts of the text of Airbus Operation Manuals, it cites "Transparent to the crew".

What does this exactly means?
Pilot can see or cannot see?

With my simple English, I understand pilot can see.

Later I can give some examples from FCOM texts.

Thanks in advance.

[lomapaseo]

in rule making it typically means not to be noticeable so as to require a crew action or concern

ex, no bells, horns, flags, vibration, smells, or noted loss of performance

[morton]

Don't think so Lomapaseo. I would tend towards the dictionary / thesaurus definition of obvious, easily detected rather than the definition referring to the ability of light to shine through.

[wiggy]

IMHO isn't this an expression that has morphed over the last 5 - 10 years?

AFAIK it used to mean (from computing/IT?) a process that was not noticeable to the user ( wot lomapaseo said)

It now seems to mean, especially when used by politicians, something that is very easy to see.

[Check Airman]

I would take it that whatever the FCOM is describing as "transparent to the crew" takes place without any direct indication or crewmember action.

To use another idiom, you may describe it as being "behind the scenes"...if you understand that.

[JABBARA]

Thanks for replies,
As a non-native English user, a word "tranasparent" imples me, "things going on are easily noticable by pilot".
However, when I perceive this translation in the following texts (extracted from A 330 manual) they becomes obviously incorrect.

IN FLIGHT: the system updates the predictions and the current econ speed, using the
measured wind at present position. It mixes actual wind and forecast winds to compute
the wind ahead of the aircraft but this is totally transparent to the crew

or

If the uplink message contains more data and waypoints than the flight plan, the winds
at extra waypoints are not considered and are automatically discarded. This is
transparent to the flight crew.

Briefly, I understand that, I should comment the word transparent in the texts of Airbus different than (in fact opposite than) daily usage of this word as Lomapaseo, Wiggy and Chk Airman has explained.

I would be suggesting Airbus could be using a clearer wording in their Operation Manuals.

Thanks again

[Capn Bloggs]

I agree with Lomapaseo, Wiggy and CA that Airbus has it right. In the context of the aircraft, the process that occurs to generate the result (instrument reading or control response) is transparent. In other words, the transparent (can't be seen) process is sitting in front of the visible result.

In the polly's example, their use of the word is more confusing; their result (eg budget, costings) is both visible and transparent, revealing the process behind. The process certainly isn't transparent.

Lesson: don't listen to pollys! Your understanding of the English language will become corrupted!

[JABBARA]

CB,
Thanks, now I understand better what Airbus means in the context of Aircraft systems working.

But I still insists it could be better expressed since the different level of English users are reading their documents.

I word searched Boeing Manuals, "transparent" never used in that context.

Thanks again.

[lomapaseo]

as one who has already sat through an international engineer's meeting trying to choose a word that sumarizes what was meant, in my thread above

ex, no bells, horns, flags, vibration, smells, or noted loss of performance

,

(it was late in the day and our Low Beer warning lights were apparant)

I would still be open to suggestions as translated into common pilot language After all this is for the benefit of communicating with pilots