Don’t look for those answers, especially definitions, in google, look in the FARs…CFR Title 14. Many definitions are Chapter 1, but those that are context sensitive may be found in the initial paragraphs of the chapter in which their definition is relevant. The definitions may be quite different from that in the English dictionary.
If it interests you,
Why is this important?
I learned something from the 737 MAX grounding charade 6 years ago… when someone attempts to learn some detail within a complex subject with a knowledge foundation of only common sense instead of the advanced education needed to properly understand it, the human mind will reshape the details to “fit” within that framework of knowledge to the point that they can be understood. By reshape I mean distort, disregard, fill in blanks with stereotyped concepts or invented details, etc., any of which could (likely) result in a warped understanding of those complex details. Some day you may stumble upon the correct meaning, but there are two dangers involved: 1) the human mind is not designed to consciously forget ANYTHING, even “known wrong” information. Attempting to do so simply recalls the data and recall is the brain’s way of embedding the info even more firmly in memory, from where it may be recalled when fatigued, overloaded, in emergency mode, etc. and the brain is too tired to remember that it is wrong. 2) If you should convey that flawed understanding to someone else who also has only common sense as a knowledge framework, the flawed understanding will make perfect sense and seem quite plausible especially in the absence of anyone expressing skepticism or presenting contradictory info. And what is understandable and plausible is easily accepted as true. There appears to be another phenomenon related to #1… some people who have learned a lie are reluctant to accept the truth when they come across it, even when accompanied by irrefutable foundation and logic; perhaps the presence of the truth and a lie in the mind simultaneously causes too much cognitive dissonance. Thus the news informed populace now has a very distorted understanding of what “single point of failure” means and how much power a flight control surface apparently has, just two of an incredible number of misunderstandings that arose when news reporters undertook an investigation and analysis of two air crashes.
Ref above to understand why so many actually DO reach the same conclusion, or more accurately: guzzle it and then agree with it.
Hopefully you impressed on your students the critical need to vet the sources and establish their validity and that of their data. In the MAX grounding fiasco many people were asked for their opinion in areas well outside of their competence and they didn’t shy away or decline. See above for the effects—and so techno-nonsense was published as news and accepted as valid analyses. Congress had plenty of “findings” in their report, and many findings had footnotes indicating the supporting “Analysis: …” or “Evidence: …” which consisted of a link to a news article! Pilots gave invalid analytical opinions of the airplane’s design. One Senator, with arms outstretched implored a surviving family member of one of the crash victims to help them design a safe airplane… he did, as an educated and experienced financial analyst. All of it would be amusing if it wasn’t so wasteful and paradoxically serving to compromise safety.