And more for the Londoners among us…
Or the US it appears, god I love a good online argument ;-)
Use of the term in the US
Edit
Generally speaking, the US government classifies contract personnel under one of three headings:
Expatriates – those personnel who are of the same nationality as the contracting government. (In Iraq, foreign nationals working as a member of a US contractor are regarded as Expatriates)
TCN or Third Country National – those personnel of a separate nationality to both the contracting government and the AO or “Area of operations”.
HCN’s (Host country nationals), LN’s (Local Nationals), Indigs (Indigenous Personnel) – those personnel who are indigenous to the area of operations.
Source —>. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_country_national
Peter wrote:
[first, second, 3rd person in grammar] Never heard that one…
I heard it when I was about 12. It was taught in every British school when teaching English grammar (and also again when learning French, and then again when learning Spanish, even though I learned Spanish informally). As such ‘third country’ instantly made sense to me when I first encountered it, it was not at all opaque. It’s similar enough to the term ‘third party’ (also a widely used phrase here) that even those who forgot their school grammar lessons should easily be able to guess what third country means.
Silvaire wrote:
Indeed, and making up new and ‘clever’ uses of the English language for use by non-native speakers is the opposite of good regulation.
So it’s not “new nor clever”, IMHO. It’s immediately understandable to pretty much anyone who went to school in the UK and almost any other EU nation (in the local language equivalent). There are differences between British and US English, so it may have a different term (e.g. ‘alien country’) in US regulations. But ‘third person’, ‘third party’ are common enough terms in British English (so much so everyone utters the word ‘third party’ at least once a year when they renew their car insurance), so ‘third country’ is pretty obvious to a speaker of British English (and equally ‘tercer país’ would be obvious to a speaker of Spanish Spanish, who would have learned about ‘tercera persona’ in school as a pre-teen).
alioth wrote:
There are differences between British and US English
;-)
LFHNflightstudent wrote:
Third Country National – those personnel of a separate nationality to both the contracting government and the AO or “Area of operations”.
That completely different US definition makes sense – because there are three nations involved not twenty nine including the one that is outside the EU or EASA. Same with third party insurance because it likewise involves three parties. I speak and understand both American and UK English, having attended school in both countries, and the use of ‘third country’ where 29 countries are involved is not a feature of either.
I don’t believe this silly EU ‘third country’ definition has anything to do with US versus UK English, but that said there is one case in UK English applicable to aviation that I think is better and that is the distinction between License (verb) and Licence (noun). ‘Finals’ is however completely dumb, and that makes up for it 
Also FAA doesn’t actually issue anything called a pilot licence, mine is a certificate, and so the issue is not relevant to aviation in the US.
Silvaire wrote:
That makes sense – because there are three nations involved not twenty nine including the one that is outside the EU or EASA. Same with third party insurance because it likewise involves three parties. I speak and understand both American and UK English, having attended school in both countries, and the use of ‘third country’ where at 29 parties are involved is not a feature of eithe
Well, you may not like this, but there is such a thing as EU citizenship and EU nationals. Not 29 (27 actually) but 1 EU citizen…
alioth wrote:
I heard it when I was about 12. It was taught in every British school when teaching English grammar (and also again when learning French, and then again when learning Spanish, even though I learned Spanish informally).
I must have heard it the first time when I started learning English in fourth grade (age 11).
Qalupalik wrote:
And more for the Londoners among us…
OMG, YES! hilarious !!!
From here
The ultimate irony, in why we have hundreds of posts in threads debating this, is that any police officer who picks you up for breaking some rule (which you could not find) is – outside the UK at least – going to be carrying a 9mm (9mm seems to be by far the most popular calibre) so he will always know the law
The gun argument is moot in my opinion
In most of Western Europe, a police officer will need to have a good reason to even point his gun at you. They likely won’t be able to shoot at you even if you are fleeing – you’d need to poss a threat to them / public. A policeman shooting someone will likely make the evening news, and is not lightly tolerated, unlike in other parts of the world.
In the UK, if you get to a point where an officer from one of said other countries would have trained his gun on you, you’re probably in big trouble already.
That said, I think the UK has the best gun policy!
