From here
Peter wrote:
I agree about the “third country” being a strange title. It is IMHO intended to show the moral superiority of Europe over the by far most likely candidate for the description which is the US, within the context of the anti N-reg regulation.
With respect to aviation regulation its an excellent example of nonsense non-communication, where short and unambiguous is required to achieve respect, efficiency and real world effect. The phrase seems to be non-specific to aviation or the US e.g. Link
Peter wrote:
I agree about the “third country” being a strange title. It is IMHO intended to show the moral superiority of Europe over the by far most likely candidate for the description which is the US, within the context of the anti N-reg regulation.
I don’t know the context you and Silvaire are thinking of, but to me the term “third country” has no negative connotations whatsoever. It is simply a term for countries not party to a particular treaty or relation. E.g. with respect to the EU, your own country is the “first country”, other EU countries are “second countries” and non-EU countries are “third countries”.
The usage of the term is certainly not limited to Europe. Is there perhaps a confusion between “third country” and “third world” which mean very different things?
Yes, just like 3rd party. Only “Third World” can have a bad connotation. Silvaire, for complaining about “nonsense non-communication”, you are certainly confusing some of us!
“Third country” in EASA rules is the same as “Alien country” in FAA rules ;)
Airborne_Again wrote:
I don’t know the context you and Silvaire are thinking of, but to me the term “third country” has no negative connotations whatsoever. It is simply a term for countries not party to a particular treaty or relation. E.g. with respect to the EU, your own country is the “first country”, other EU countries are “second countries” and non-EU countries are “third countries”.
There are 20-something countries in the EU, not two. Maybe it’s a logical phrase in some language, but that language is not English. If the intent is to describe countries that aren’t in the EU for the purposes of aviation regulation, “non-EU Countries” or “non-EASA Countries” would be clear to the regulated and would also avoid indicating the source is a pretentious, inept and/or illiterate bureaucracy that takes sophomoric joy in being obscure.
Silvaire wrote:
There are 20-something countries in the EU, not two. Maybe it’s a logical phrase in some language, but that language is not English. If the intent is to describe countries that aren’t in the EU for the purposes of aviation regulation, “non-EU Countries” or “non-EASA Countries” would be clear to the regulated and would also avoid indicating the source is a pretentious, inept and/or illiterate bureaucracy that takes sophomoric joy in being obscure.
In grammar, the terms “first person”, “second person” and “third person” are used — and the first and second can both be plural! It is no different from the first/second/third country usage. Frankly I don’t think it is the people who use these terms who should be accused of being illiterate.
Competent regulation is written to be totally, unambiguously clear to everybody who is subject the regulation. This is obviously one reason why people everywhere choose to be regulated by FAA, because FAA regulations are written clearly. “Third country” being used to describe a country outside of a group of 26 or whatever countries, for use by people across and within that group of 26 countries, is quite obviously an inane practice if the intent is to communicate clearly.
In grammar, the terms “first person”, “second person” and “third person” are used — and the first and second can both be plural! It is no different from the first/second/third country usage
Never heard that one…
Peter wrote:
Never heard that one…
Indeed, and making up new and ‘clever’ uses of the English language for use by non-native speakers is the opposite of good regulation.
Literacy is the ability to communicate clearly, not the ability to impress the other kids in EU government with non-productive ambiguity. Regulation is serious business, not theater.
As I understand it from Airborne_Again
1st country: us
2nd country: you
3rd country: them
