Do Words Matter?...Cockpit vs Flight Deck

Written by Madison Dooley 

The Flight deck versus cockpit debate has arisen from organisations promoting gender-neutral terminology. In 2006, NASA took the decision to ensure the space program used gender-neutral terminology with other organisations following. The Federal Aviation Administration advisory committee has followed in NASA’s lead, recommending airlines shift to gender-neutral language also. The main words in question are the replacement of ‘airmen’ to ‘aviator’ and ‘cockpit’ to ‘Flight deck’, but is this a warranted replacement or should we be free to use whichever terminology we like? We’re going to delve into the discussion of Flight deck versus cockpit.

Initially, let’s investigate the word itself. Language is always evolving; transforming to reflect our lives, cultures, and experiences and the word in question has certainly had a varied background. The word ‘cockpit’ was originally used in the 1580s as a pit or enclosed space used to fight domestic fowl. In 1706, the term is then sighted in a nautical context, relating to the compartment below the deck of a ship. The word is later transferred to aviation in 1914 and racing cars in the 1930s. But what does the word denote now and what is its new meaning?

The Collins English dictionary defines the cockpit as, ‘the compartment in a small aircraft in which the pilot, crew, and sometimes the passengers sit’. In comparison, Flight deck is defined as, ‘the crew compartment in an airliner’. Various other sources define a difference between the two, stating a cockpit is an area where you are unable to leave your seat for the duration of the flight and a Flight deck is where you can leave your seat and walk behind it. With this in mind, is it reasonable to suppose word choice depends on context? When discussing smaller aircraft, cockpit should be the preferred word choice and when an airliner is the aircraft in question, Flight deck should be used? It may not be as easy as this. Many deem the words interchangeable, referring to the area from which a pilot controls the aircraft only.

Naturally, this leads to quite a reasonable suggestion from many. Given the word’s history is not rooted in gender, nor its definition, should we be free to call the place where we control an aircraft whichever word we like? Certainly, this is a very logical conclusion, and if one person wants to call it a cockpit, why not? Conversely, if another prefers to call it a Flight deck, this should be acceptable too. The word cockpit unquestionably has a following of aviators eager to continue the use of the word owing to its long reign of use, and why shouldn’t they? Its vital aviation history is acknowledged and not erased. So why have NASA, other organisations, and individuals painted the word in such a negative manner?

The answer here lies in what makes us human. Human communication has 3 elements, body language, voice, and words, with the percentage split being 55%, 38%, and 7% respectively. This surprises people as it is often assumed it is the word itself that is the dominant element, often leading to the earlier suggestions, that as there is no gender implied in its meaning, the word is acceptable. However, it has been noted at times the word cockpit has been used by male crew members to exclude and undermine female crew members, with this suggested through tone, pitch, and volume of voice, alongside body language, making up the other 93% of human communication.

Admittedly, any word could be used to suggest something different from its actual meaning, but females are repeatedly suggesting it is this particular word that is used to make them feel uncomfortable. If female colleagues are telling you they feel excluded or uncomfortable with this word, shouldn’t their opinions be respected, and whether it is used in this way or not, is it an inconvenience to make a small change to the word Flight deck, a word we already use anyway? Given that pilots pride themselves on their ability to adapt to new situations and the changeability aviation encounters, it shouldn’t be a difficult ask, in the least for aviation professionals.

So, what about we take the human approach instead, that we use the words we feel are appropriate, whichever that may be, cockpit or flight deck, and if we sense the person we are talking to doesn’t feel comfortable, we change it. The same as we do in any conversation, we adapt to the person we are interacting with. No hard and fast rules as to whether the word is acceptable or not, just whether it is acceptable to the person we are talking to. This way we can maintain a balance, the word and its history are still acknowledged and used, but for those that find it excluding, their opinions are respected.

Again, however, there is more to the debate, gender stereotypes must be brought into the mix and studies have shown that relatively harmless words can subtly perpetuate stereotypes. Linguists work to discover what words and phrases can influence us unknowingly and it seems cockpit is one of these words. The idea behind the change to Flight deck is to put inclusion at the fore. Research has shown gender neutral terminology leads to a more inclusive environment, one in which more people are drawn to the industry and stay there.

So, which is more correct? Cockpit or Flight deck? The question is shockingly simple, yet extremely complex topics are concealed within it. Are we really asking how do we make women feel included and valued in an industry where only 4.7% of pilots are female? How do we encourage a more diverse mix of aviation professionals? And how, even with good intentions, do we steer away from saying the wrong thing?