Help: I fear I have beome a "with you" snob

FastEddieB said:
Minor terminology issues...

FAA prefers "non-towered" over "uncontrolled".
Click to expand...

The FAA should come out and witness some of the antics at a "non-towered" airport I sometimes fly out of, I suspect they would revise the terminology from non-towered to uncontrolled ... or maybe I should say "out of control"....:rolleyes:
 
denverpilot said:
And we care about their political-correctness that sounds better in the accident report, because?
Click to expand...

It's a tiny thing, but...

1) As a flight instructor, I like to use correct terminology, because,

2) Overall, consistent terminology aids communications, and,

3) Stop and think what the preface "uncontrolled" may convey to a non-pilot.

Many passengers are nervous enough about flying not to have them further imagine that part of the flight will be "uncontrolled".

But, as I said, it's a tiny thing and pilots (and people in general) can be very resistant to change, so...

...if "uncontrolled airport" pleases you, by all means be my guest!
 
Now that we have this kinda settled..... my next question is.... What does the thread topic mean ?:dunno:

And what the hell is a BEOME..:dunno::)

Re: Help: I fear I have beome a "with you" snob


:dunno:;):D
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
The FAA can say it their way, and I'll say it mine. :yes:
Click to expand...
Non-towered and/or pilot controlled became favorable since the media started implying there was something sinister with uncontrolled. For us pilots, any work as we know what is going on. For the great unwashed and said media, Non-towered or pilot controlled should be preferred.
Goes right along with EVERY NTSB report that includes "no flight plan was filed". We know there is not a sinister thing about it but said F'ng media grabs on to that like a starving dog to a bone.
Said media includes those so called aviation experts who, either because directed or deliberately omit key facts or explanations just to hype an event.
 
FastEddieB said:
It's a tiny thing, but...

1) As a flight instructor, I like to use correct terminology, because,

2) Overall, consistent terminology aids communications, and,

3) Stop and think what the preface "uncontrolled" may convey to a non-pilot.

Many passengers are nervous enough about flying not to have them further imagine that part of the flight will be "uncontrolled".

But, as I said, it's a tiny thing and pilots (and people in general) can be very resistant to change, so...

...if "uncontrolled airport" pleases you, by all means be my guest!
Click to expand...

The up-front assumption that one or the other is "correct" terminology is a logical fallacy. Both are accurate.

Your statement should read that you like using FAA terminology for the reasons you stated, not "correct" terminology.

As far as what "uncontrolled" conveys, it's accurate. No sense in lying to the noobs. That leads to threads like we saw this week where someone asked what the "active" runway is, and we have to explain that they ALL are "active".

There's the world where weasel words are needed to calm the unknowing sheep (TV/Press) and the real world. I'm not an FAA PIO so I will use the term that most accurately conveys what's really going on and the risks involved.
 
denverpilot said:
As far as what "uncontrolled" conveys, it's accurate. No sense in lying to the noobs..
Click to expand...

Is not "non-towered" equally accurate?

I mean, we're being asked to come up with a term for an airport with no tower, right?

So in what possible way is saying "non-towered" lying?

I'm kinda new here, and had heard this could be a contentious site.

But this seems kinda silly.
 
I've heard "All traffic in the area be advised".

As in, You guys better watch out!
 
silver-eagle said:
Non-towered and/or pilot controlled became favorable since the media started implying there was something sinister with uncontrolled. For us pilots, any work as we know what is going on. For the great unwashed and said media, Non-towered or pilot controlled should be preferred.
Goes right along with EVERY NTSB report that includes "no flight plan was filed". We know there is not a sinister thing about it but said F'ng media grabs on to that like a starving dog to a bone.
Said media includes those so called aviation experts who, either because directed or deliberately omit key facts or explanations just to hype an event.
Click to expand...

Thanks. That's the first sensible explanation I've seen of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top