Jan 28, 2021 09:30
3 yrs ago
30 viewers *
French term
France
FR/AR-EN, broad range of domains
Native in: English 
Works in: French to English, Arabic to English, Italian to English
mettre à l'équipotentielle
French to English
Tech/Engineering
Electronics / Elect Eng
equipotentiality
These are the instructions for replacing a part of an aircraft.
The first instructions include ensuring the unit is switched off, not touching pins and:
'Mettre l'opérateur à l'équipotentielle avion avant de toucher [à la pièce]'
I wish to check my solution to ensure the operator's safety:
'Ensure that the operator is equipotential with the aircraft before touching [the part]'
My doubts are because most technical literature talks of equipotential zones in which operators can work.
xxx
The first instructions include ensuring the unit is switched off, not touching pins and:
'Mettre l'opérateur à l'équipotentielle avion avant de toucher [à la pièce]'
I wish to check my solution to ensure the operator's safety:
'Ensure that the operator is equipotential with the aircraft before touching [the part]'
My doubts are because most technical literature talks of equipotential zones in which operators can work.
xxx
Proposed translations
(English)
| 4 +2 | bond ... to a/c ground |
Tony M
|
| 4 | potential equalization |
Kartik Isaac
|
Proposed translations
+2
5 hrs
Selected
bond ... to a/c ground
or 'ensure ... is bonded / tied to a/c ground'
This isn't about operator safety when working on live system — on the contrary, it is to make sure the operator is correctly grounded to the a/c, in order to protec the avionics from ESD (electrostatic discharge) — qv for other termnology options
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 8 hrs (2021-01-28 17:35:22 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Asker: no, not really! What betrays the layman here is the use of 'equipotential', in a way that it is not normally used in EN, in this sort of context.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 9 hrs (2021-01-28 19:03:12 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Asker: yes, materially identical to my own suggestion, though I felt my slightly more formal version was perhaps more applicable to the context and register.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 2 hrs (2021-01-29 11:55:02 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Asker: No, no, and thrice no!
The problem here is your slavish and dare I say simplistic instance on wanting to sue 'equipotential', which, although technically accurate, wouldn't normally be used this way in this kind of phrase.
All it means is that the operator must be matinained at the same potential as the aircraft, which will be regarded as a local 'ground'; this is to make sure that the operator does not become charged with static electricity, at voltages where a discharge could easily damage fragile electronic components; this is a very common (and dangerous!) problem in avionics, so much so that we made a special video on this subject for the RAF!
As I said before, the way you are seeking to express it betrays a layman's lack of "feel" for what "sounds right".
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 2 hrs (2021-01-29 11:56:26 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Oh, and by the way, this is not a text about psychology, so we'd probably not say 'bonded with', but more likely 'bonded to' — unless this person has a seriously unhealthy affection for their baby!
This isn't about operator safety when working on live system — on the contrary, it is to make sure the operator is correctly grounded to the a/c, in order to protec the avionics from ESD (electrostatic discharge) — qv for other termnology options
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 8 hrs (2021-01-28 17:35:22 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Asker: no, not really! What betrays the layman here is the use of 'equipotential', in a way that it is not normally used in EN, in this sort of context.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 9 hrs (2021-01-28 19:03:12 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Asker: yes, materially identical to my own suggestion, though I felt my slightly more formal version was perhaps more applicable to the context and register.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 2 hrs (2021-01-29 11:55:02 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Asker: No, no, and thrice no!
The problem here is your slavish and dare I say simplistic instance on wanting to sue 'equipotential', which, although technically accurate, wouldn't normally be used this way in this kind of phrase.
All it means is that the operator must be matinained at the same potential as the aircraft, which will be regarded as a local 'ground'; this is to make sure that the operator does not become charged with static electricity, at voltages where a discharge could easily damage fragile electronic components; this is a very common (and dangerous!) problem in avionics, so much so that we made a special video on this subject for the RAF!
As I said before, the way you are seeking to express it betrays a layman's lack of "feel" for what "sounds right".
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 2 hrs (2021-01-29 11:56:26 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Oh, and by the way, this is not a text about psychology, so we'd probably not say 'bonded with', but more likely 'bonded to' — unless this person has a seriously unhealthy affection for their baby!
Note from asker:
| Chris: surely my 'Ensure that the operator is equipotential with the aircraft' is essentially identical to your suggestion? |
| Dear Tony, would you agree that Chris's suggestion is acceptable? |
| Perhaps then we could satisfy everyone with 'Ensure that the operator is equipotentially bonded with the aircraft ...'? |
| I do appreciate your explanation and attempt to keep me from going astray. |
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
chris collister
: or simply "ensure that the operator is at the same potential as the a/c"
34 mins
|
|
Thanks, Chris!
|
|
| agree |
Johannes Gleim
: 'local ground' is correct for an airplane, but we do not know the kind of electricty a.c. or d.c. This specification is not required and may be wrong. I propose to omit it. // Thank you!
3 days 23 mins
|
|
You have misunderstood: in aviation, 'a/c' stands for 'aircraft' — not the same as 'ac' for 'alternating current'!
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
3 hrs
Kartik Isaac
Switzerland
Switzerland
Native in English
Works in field
Switzerland
The Translating Engineer
Native in: English (Variants: UK, US) 
Works in: German to English, French to English
Related KudoZ points
:
8
potential equalization
I think this is the term used when working on live systems.
https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=...
https://infosys.beckhoff.com/english.php?content=../content/...
https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=...
https://infosys.beckhoff.com/english.php?content=../content/...
Discussion