Rajay wrote:
... As I have "ranted" here before, ...
Indeed you have, and it's been ignored before. There's something for you to think about there.
As I like to try and be helpful, there's a point (or 'precision') beyond which demanding precision is of no use and import.
Also, your assumptions about how aircraft are classified outside the US (in this case in the UK and Commonwealth) are wrong, and you're using the wrong terminology - that's not critical, but it illustrates why that degree of pedantry is usually self-defeating, and as here, isolating.
Rajay wrote:
You need to stick with either what is absolutely correct regardless of the civil aircraft registration requirements or just what is acceptable to the civil aviation authorities.
Nope. Newsflash - no one 'needs to' at all.
And the
fundamental point you keep missing is that it's all basic set theory. People use the term that's good enough to define the subject that's comprehensible to the user and audience. Excess precision, outside technical contexts where that precision is required, is usually dispensed with, because it's as misleading as being too vague. There are times that greater precision has a point, or merit, but that time is never
all the time.
Please consider this as some constructive feedback.
Regards,
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
