TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
In response to the "Are these words being used?" thread, Tony Markatos
wrote:
>
> The key is STANDARDIZATION. ...
>
> I used to be a air traffic controller (tower and radar approach control).
> Grammer wise, many controller-to-pilot communications are poor. I was
once
> (while a trainee) severely chastised for telling a pilot: "The wind
> [direction]is two-one-zero degrees at seven nautical miles [per hour]."
My
> boss told me that I should have said: "Wind: two-one-zero degrees at
seven."
> -- not a word more.
>
> Clear and concise air traffic controller-to-pilot (technical)
communication
> does consistently occur. Believe me, if it did not, you would soon here
> about it on the news! The key is standardization. Controller-to-pilot
> communications are very highly standardized. In the above mentioned
example,
> "Wind: two-one-zero degrees at seven." is the standard way of conveying
wind
> direction and velocity information to pilots. All parties concerned know
> exactly what this means, and any deviation from this standard is a
potential
> source of (deadly) confusion.
Usability guru Bruce Tognazzini has another take on the conventions of
flying.
