would also have been key in ensuring

[Maybo]

The role of the airport's fire crews on the ground - who, according to Prof Braithwaite, aim to get to any fire within two minutes - would also have been (1) key in ensuring there was time to escape.

"The fire service focus will absolutely have been on protecting the exits and making sure there was a clear path for people to evacuate," he said. The larger fire, he explained, would only have been dealt(2) with after the last person escaped.

Source: Japan jet crash: How crew pulled off flawless evacuation from plane inferno by Kelly Ng & Flora Drury

I'm trying to understand the use of "would have been" in the text.

1. "would have been" is the past form of "would be"
2. "would have been dealt" is the past form of "would be dealt"

Am I right?

 

[jutfrank]

1. "would have been" is the past form of "would be"
2. "would have been dealt" is the past form of "would be dealt"

Am I right?

The perfect infinitive part (have been) gives a past meaning, yes. I wouldn't call it a past 'form'.

I'm trying to understand the use of "would have been" in the text.

This is not easy. You have to understand the way the whole text is written.

Here's my advice on how to proceed with this. Take the very first sentence of the piece first:

The simple act of leaving their valuables behind would be a "major factor" behind the speed of the evacuation, with the last person escaping just before the aircraft was engulfed in flames on the runway of Tokyo's Haneda Airport on Tuesday, aviation experts say.

Ask first why the writer uses would be instead of 'was'.

 

[Maybo]

The simple act of leaving their valuables behind would be a "major factor" behind the speed of the evacuation, with the last person escaping just before the aircraft was engulfed in flames on the runway of Tokyo's Haneda Airport on Tuesday, aviation experts say.

Ask first why the writer uses would be instead of 'was'.

“Would be” implies uncertainty. The experts aren’t 100% sure about their speculation.

 

[jutfrank]

“Would be” implies uncertainty. The experts aren’t 100% sure about their speculation.

Where did you get this answer from? Is this your own answer?

 

[Maybo]

Where did you get this answer from? Is this your own answer?

Yes. I thought you asked me why the writer uses would be instead of 'was'.

 

[jutfrank]

Yes. I thought you asked me why the writer uses would be instead of 'was'.

Yes, I did ask you that, but your answer didn't sound to me like your own words. It sounded like an AI answer. Was it? I'm just curious.

 

[Maybo]

Yes, I did ask you that, but your answer didn't sound to me like your own words. It sounded like an AI answer. Was it? I'm just curious.

No. It's my answer. It seems that my English has improved.

 

[Tarheel]

It really happened, right? In that case, why say "would have been"? Despite that phrase, it's easy enough to understand as long as you know they are talking about a real event.

 

[Maybo]

It really happened, right? In that case, why say "would have been"? Despite that phrase, it's easy enough to understand as long as you know they are talking about a real event.

I don't get it. Which one are you referring to?

 

[Tarheel]

The fire on the airplane. That really happened, right?

 

[Maybo]

The fire on the airplane. That really happened, right?

Yes.

 

[emsr2d2]

The writer didn't witness the events personally. They are saying what they are pretty sure would have happened. This will be based on previous similar events.

 

[Maybo]

They are saying what they are pretty sure would have happened.

They are saying what they are pretty sure would have happened (if there had had a similar situation as XXX event)? <---Is what I think correct?

If it's correct, can I apply that into the following examples?

(1): The role of the airport's fire crews on the ground would also have been key in ensuring there was time to escape. (If the passengers had been able to escape)

(2): (If there had been a larger fire) The larger fire, he explained, would only have been dealt with after the last person escaped.

 

[jutfrank]

No. It's my answer. It seems that my English has improved.

Very good.

“Would be” implies uncertainty. The experts aren’t 100% sure about their speculation.

Good guess (and nicely written), but no, that's not right.

 

[jutfrank]

It really happened, right? In that case, why say "would have been"?

Yes, it really happened. Yes, that's the question here.

I think would is a kind of future-in-the-past. Going back to the time of the evacuation, the future conclusion of the investigation will be that leaving valuables was determined to be a major factor.

 

[Tarheel]

Wow! That's complicated! The writer is, essentially, predicting the future.

 

[emsr2d2]

The first post says that the information was being provided by someone called "Prof[essor] Braithwaite". I assume that he is neither part of the fire service nor someone who works at the airport. He was being interviewed in his role as some kind of expert but not as one of the people directly involved. We hear this use of "will" and "would" a lot in news reports when experts are being asked to provide their view on a recent event.

 

[Maybo]

The first post says that the information was being provided by someone called "Prof[essor] Braithwaite". I assume that he is neither part of the fire service nor someone who works at the airport. He was being interviewed in his role as some kind of expert but not as one of the people directly involved. We hear this use of "will" and "would" a lot in news reports when experts are being asked to provide their view on a recent event.

I have questions:

"The fire service focus will absolutely have been on protecting the exits and making sure there was a clear path for people to evacuate," he said.

I. The speaker used “will have been” instead of “would have been. Is he more certain in that part?

II. Then, in the same sentence he used “was” instead of “will be or will have been”. Is it because he was referring to this Japan air crash?