Why is “violated” being used as future perfect with a person as the object?

On Aviation StackExchange, I’ve seen these:

I don’t think you will be violated..

He was subsequently violated…

Pilot […] may now be violated for it.

… pilots have been violated…

It seems in all of these cases “violated” is being used where I would have used “found in violation of regulation”.

This doesn’t match my understanding of the definition of the word “violate”, which means to break a rule or law, or to abuse or harm or sexually victimize.

Is there some idiomatic definition of this word that comes from FAA regulations or US Code or tradition or somewhere else?

Is there a name for this… inversion (?) of subject/object?


This sense of violate is perhaps best known in the context of the parole system:

  1. trans. U.S. slang. To return (a prisoner on parole) to prison for breaking the conditions of his or her parole; to report (a prisoner) for a parole violation. [OED]

This (not alas linkable to general public) was the only definition I found for this sense. By extension, this sense might be generalized to something like “declare or find to be in violation of applicable laws, requirements, or restrictions”—such as those for a pilot’s license.

The bolded verb formation in “I don’t think you will be violated” is future passive.

Source : Link , Question Author : Community , Answer Author : Brian Donovan

Leave a Comment