So "near miss" is redundant if it's an accident, but not redundant if you're actively trying to collide with the other plane? Having different terminology for the two cases seems like a lot more trouble than it's worth. In any case, this doesn't change the wrongness of "A collision is a near miss!"
But they don't far miss or distant miss. They weren't aiming for each other. "Near miss" is the only way you would ever refer to planes almost colliding with the word "miss", so the "near" part is redundant. They missed. If you wanted to say they were close, you could say they almost hit, which is not only more accurate, it's not redundant, because you can't take out either word and still express the same idea.
This isn't just to be pedantic; there's lots of redundant or incorrect language out there which Carlin talks about at length.
Let's not forget about the incorrect ATC terminology. To be fair, X-Plane's ATC was (and probably still is) even worse, it's just weird Asobo chose to deliberately include incorrect phrasing. Is it perhaps the idea to leave some room for 3rd party manufacturers?
Are you implying that the aviation industry has been using this term incorrectly for a century and counting, and that we should believe a layman's dictionary over actual common usage?
Reminds me of the communication misunderstandings around the word "takeoff" that is both a noun and a verb, which led to the Tenerife plane disaster.
The KLM captain said "we are at takeoff" meaning "we are going to takeoff" while the tower understood "we are at takeoff position", and replied "ok". The captain then proceeded to take off without proper clearance.
After the crash, the word takeoff was removed form general usage in ATC communications.
It is not appropriate or ethical for pilots to use euphemisms or other language that may downplay or minimize the severity of an aviation incident or accident. Pilots have a serious responsibility to communicate clearly and accurately about the status of a flight, and to take all necessary actions to ensure the safety of their passengers and crew. Using euphemisms or other language that may mislead or confuse people about the true nature of an incident or accident could potentially compromise safety and hinder effective communication and response.
I am a pilot, and in aviation related topics pilots tend to be almost ridiculously pedantic about stuff.
I want to congratulate you on writing the most pedantic thing I've ever read in my life. Truly a masterpiece. I can't wait to bust this out in my next aviation related discussion.
That’s my point: what happens to be the case in actual aviation is in some sense the opposite of the words‘ connotations. So, they’re very misleading terms. Which becomes problematic when marketing a powerful, but limited technology to the mass market.
reply