|
|
Post by McFly on Jul 27, 2022 16:46:08 GMT 12
Announced today by the Chief of Air Force (CAF). Dave will admirably guide and moderate any discussion on the topic to ensure balanced opinions, and hopefully keep the pitchfork brigade in check. Change is the only constant, so don't let the change bus leave without you...   "In recent times, some of you will have heard the term ‘Aviator’ being used as the collective noun that describes people in the Air Force. Aviator has been emerging internationally with the intent of being simple and inclusive – a single word to move beyond terms that are perceived by some to be gendered (Airman), cumbersome (Airmen and Airwomen), or divisive (Officers and Airmen). Aviator has now been introduced as the new word for all Air Force people in countries such as Canada and Australia, and in the world’s first Air Force – the RAF.
It is now time for the RNZAF to become a “fast follower” and to make this generational shift for the same reasons. Some of you will find this an awkward or uncomfortable change – the words we use are part of our culture that we have become used to. Others will adapt quickly – Air Forces usually have a reputation for progressive, future thinking.
Although our shift to Aviator sounds like a simple word change, it will take some time to embed all of the changes that need to be made, including a proposed amendment to the Defence Act 1990. We will make these changes over time without distracting from the major priorities we are currently tending to as an Air Force.
While some in the NZDF are already using Aviator, it will come into general use from today. The first formal change you may soon see is when we call for nominations for Aviator of the Year. In due course you will see and hear more.
Our culture is not static – it continues to shift with changes to our technology, people and society. I invite you to take this next step forward with me.
CAF"Partner Air Forces: RAF - www.unilad.com/news/raf-replaces-the-term-airmen-to-be-more-diverse-in-new-policy-changeRAAF - australianaviation.com.au/2021/04/raaf-revolution-as-airmen-to-be-known-as-aviators/ |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 27, 2022 20:23:37 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by oj on Jul 27, 2022 20:42:13 GMT 12
Surely this is a spoof?
Are we going to blindly follow this woke nonsense like the mask-muppets follow the covid?
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 28, 2022 0:41:18 GMT 12
Surely this is a spoof? Are we going to blindly follow this woke nonsense like the mask-muppets follow the covid? No, and yes. RAAF did this about a year ago. |
|
|
|
Post by tbf2504 on Jul 28, 2022 8:25:00 GMT 12
Of course following a longstanding tradition members of the gentle sex will be know as Aviatrix (such as Amelia Earhart)
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 28, 2022 8:59:26 GMT 12
An aviator, by absolute dictionary definition, is a pilot. Not aircrew, not groundcrew, not support staff. A PILOT.
Why have they chosen this word when it is patently wrong, since 90% of Air Force members are NOT pilots.
This decision is as daft as when they rightly said the "Helicopter Crewman" trade name was too masculine a title because there were now females in the trade. I totally see the reason there for a change. But then they changed it to "Helicopter Loadmaster", when the word master also being a masculine term! Does no-one in Wellington have a frigging dictionary or half a brain any more?
There was nothing wrong with the terms airman and airwoman already in use. If there are one or two individuals in the service who felt they don't fit into those categories, they should just suck it up or get a job elsewhere. Sadly the NZDF has gone soft.
|
|
|
|
Post by McFly on Jul 28, 2022 16:42:27 GMT 12
An aviator, by absolute dictionary definition, is a pilot. Not aircrew, not groundcrew, not support staff. A PILOT. Why have they chosen this word when it is patently wrong, since 90% of Air Force members are NOT pilots. This decision is as daft as when they rightly said the "Helicopter Crewman" trade name was too masculine a title because there were now females in the trade. I totally see the reason there for a change. But then they changed it to "Helicopter Loadmaster", when the word master also being a masculine term! Does no-one in Wellington have a frigging dictionary or half a brain any more? There was nothing wrong with the terms airman and airwoman already in use. If there are one or two individuals in the service who felt they don't fit into those categories, they should just suck it up or get a job elsewhere. Sadly the NZDF has gone soft. FROM AIRMAN TO AVIATOR - FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS - A set of FAQs was published today by CAF in support of the change, and a short snip is included below to try to answer Dave's query... "3. I looked at the dictionary definition, doesn’t the word Aviator mean Pilot?
The term ‘Airman’ was originally coined from the word Seaman in the 1870s to describe those who flew Balloons. This then morphed into use with the arrival of fixed wing aircraft in the early 1900s to describe those who flew on aircraft. Interestingly enough, the history of the term ‘Airman’ in the RAF around the start of WWII was in itself a name designated to those piloting and crewing an aircraft itself. During the mass recruitment drives throughout the war, the terminology slowly changed to apply to all members of the RAF. However, this still did not apply to females as they were part of a separate service called the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force (WAAF). Throughout this time period, the term Aviateur (of French origin) was also used for pilots and aircrew, adapting from the French word to become “Aviator”.
The current definition in the Collins dictionary for ‘Airman’ is: “a man who flies aircraft, especially one who serves in his country’s air force”. It could be said that this literal definition does not appropriately capture how ‘Airman’ has been used in militaries to acknowledge all genders.
The current definition in the Collins dictionary for ‘Aviator’ is: “a pilot of a plane, especially in the early days of flying”. While the literal definition is not entirely accurate for this cultural change, much like the examples above, words, language and culture are constantly evolving to better reflect the society around us. The adaptation of the term Aviator, and its dictionary meaning, is expected to evolve and be recognised differently as time goes on, especially as more Air Forces move to this term.
As we acknowledge, embrace and share this change, over time it will become embedded and considered the norm as an aspect of our identity and culture." |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 28, 2022 17:55:42 GMT 12
So all that tells me they could not find a word that actually works for them so they are bastardising one that doesn't.
As a passionate aviation fan, researcher, historian, writer and editor of aviation, it does not work for me at all.
I have been told in the past by people who know because they live it that there is a real difference between a pilot and an aviator.
A pilot is the type of person who flies a plane to get from a to be, or flies an airliner for a job, etc. Someone who can fly, does, and that is it.
Whereas an aviator is the type of pilot who lives, breaths and sleeps aviation. They cannot get enough of it. Even if they work in aviation they spend their spare time flying for fun, or sharing their deep passion for flight, aeroplanes and aviation people. They want to experience everything, from tail draggers, to gliding, to kitplanes to every mark of Cessna or Piper. They actively seek out all sorts of types to fly and get into their logbooks, so they get a much bigger, all round picture of flying than the "pilots" who only fly a Cessna 172 or an Airbus. This is not meant to be derogatory in any way to the "pilots", only to acknowledge that in the view of many there is a distinction. I know many of both types, pilots and aviators.
If I was still in the RNZAF and was told I was now an aviator, even with my deep passion and experience with aviation, I would consider that a genuine insult to the actual aviators who have spent years and many, many dollars gaining experience to become real aviators.
Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by McFly on Jul 28, 2022 18:08:45 GMT 12
So all that tells me they could not find a word that actually works for them so they are bastardising one that doesn't. FAQs Continued..
Among the numerous options that have been considered were: airperson, air personnel, air people, flyer, air human, air warrior, airman and airwoman, airmen and airwomen. Many of these options were considered clunky, of a gendered nature, and/or not inclusive.
International counterparts have moved in a similar direction utilising ‘Aviator’ as the term for everyone after an exhaustive and circular search. It is logical to align to our like-minded partners."
"8. Have we done this before?
Yes we have, one only needs to look back at the quick and easy transition both in the military and civilian worlds to remove unconscious bias through the use of non-gendered language. Some examples below;
Some Unmanned Aerial Systems to Remotely Piloted Aerial System
Helicopter Crewman to Helicopter Loadmaster
Air Hostess to Flight Steward
Manned and Unmanned flight to piloted/un-piloted or crewed/un-crewed
Repairman to Technician
Fireman to Firefighter"
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 28, 2022 18:23:18 GMT 12
"Air Hostess to Flight Steward" - that is a gender swap. Why not Flight Attendant? Steward has always been male and Stewardess female. Like waiter and waitress.
So do they still have the ranks Aircraftman and Leading Aircraftman?
|
|
|
|
Post by McFly on Jul 28, 2022 18:26:24 GMT 12
So do they still have the ranks Aircraftman and Leading Aircraftman? FAQs Continued.. "9. What will happen to the RNZAF Ranks of Aircraftman and Leading Aircraftman?
In line with non-discriminatory and gender neutral intent, with the aim to have a generic term to correctly identify ourselves, the ranks of Aircraftman (AC) and Leading Aircraftman (LAC) will be amended to a non-gendered alternative following the full consideration of all the presented options. This could be an opportunity for you to contribute to what options are the most suitable." |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 28, 2022 18:28:57 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 28, 2022 18:30:23 GMT 12
Let me guess, are they also planning to allow unfit fatties into/to stay in the RNZAF like the RAF just announced?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mustang51 on Jul 28, 2022 18:51:21 GMT 12
The world is going stupid.......person with appendage, person without appendage.....if we all need to be gender neutral why the need for all female actresses to be known as actors. Everyone's rushing to become nothing...
|
|
|
|
Post by McFly on Jul 28, 2022 18:53:33 GMT 12
Why have they chosen this word when it is patently wrong, since 90% of Air Force members are NOT pilots. There was nothing wrong with the terms airman and airwoman already in use. If there are one or two individuals in the service who felt they don't fit into those categories, they should just suck it up or get a job elsewhere. Sadly the NZDF has gone soft. FAQs Continued.. "1. Why do we need a new term, and why ‘Aviator’?
The term ‘Airman’ has had many meanings over the years and has more recently been used within our Air Force to include people of all genders. It could be said that the term ‘Airman’ has reached the end of its use in a modern and future context as we advance a diverse and inclusive workplace in a contemporary society.
The term ‘Aviator’ accurately refers to aviation and the Air Force purpose of military aviation. Military aviation is what binds the people of our Air Force together and everybody contributes to this shared purpose; no matter what their rank, gender, trade or role is. We are further defined by our trade or the unit/squadron we belong to which contributes to military aviation, Air Force culture and achieving our outputs for the Government of New Zealand.
This has been a dilemma that is shared with our like-minded coalition partners. The Canadian, Australian and Royal Air Forces have recently moved to the term Aviator to describe the people of their Air Force.
This is also about taking a moment to pause, reflect on where we have come from, and where we going. ‘Aviator’ better describes who you all are and factors in the future of the Air and Space domains.
While there are some people of all genders who believe that there is no problem with the term ‘Airman’, the unconscious biases that are associated with a gendered term such as this are not helpful to advancing a diverse and inclusive workplace. Unconscious or implicit bias refers to the associations that are made between different qualities and social categories such as race, gender, or disability and are judgements that are made without conscious awareness. These automatic preferences or stereotypes can contribute to a lack of workplace diversity.
Adaptability has been key to the identity and success of the RNZAF. This change continues to uphold the RNZAFs history of being a progressive, people-focused Force for NZ." |
|
|
|
Post by oj on Jul 28, 2022 20:49:32 GMT 12
Just ignore the wokeness.
Do not comply.
Use the trade definitions to avoid the PC speak.
Technician, cook, firecrew, guard, refueler, armourer, medic, librarian, ....
|
|
|
|
Post by Mustang51 on Jul 28, 2022 23:12:42 GMT 12
Go OJ !!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by campbellbox on Jul 29, 2022 0:03:39 GMT 12
There’s a massive amount of “Old man yells at cloud” action in this thread. The change is not harming anyone, and is likely to have a positive impact on those who feel excluded by gendered terms. Seems like a net win really.
I like telling the youngsters that their music is terrible as much as he next Gen X dinosaur, but at some stage you just have to accept that the world moves on.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcmaster on Jul 29, 2022 0:38:51 GMT 12
I’ve been as cynical as the next person about this change in my workplaces but I think at its core the intention is a positive one. The private sector has already bolted on this anyway. Organisations should keep improving cultures whether that’s ethical, professional, safety or inclusion etc as there is no shortage of cases where people have been let down (or much worse) in the past.
|
|
ex
Sergeant
Posts: 19
|
Post by ex on Jul 29, 2022 14:28:09 GMT 12
Well, having spoken to a number of affected people in the RNZAF, the reply from all was, "what a lot of BS, no one asked the people who will be affected by this name change"
|
|
