Originally Posted by
oggers
Leadsled, can you cite an instance where anyone in Oz has been convicted for using a pleasantry on any frequency they were allowed to communicate on?
I agree with you btw that CAA CAP413 is a good publication. Having said that, it doesn't help much in North America.
oggers,
In short, no, but that doesn't change the situation one bit ----- the idea that "Well, that's the law, but they will never use it" --- is not OK, because it will be used.
I have played a part, so far successfully, in keeping recommended phraseologies from being ad hoc declared "mandatory", which would ease the current path to such enforcement actions. But-- I am very wary of parts of Part 91 and what might be in a final MOS.
Nevertheless, it appalls me to see flying schools requiring students to "read from a script" --- head down in the cockpit ---- just in case they get a sequence out of order ---- these are the same schools who work on the "pingya" system of instruction, whereby a pilot makes ALL the possible calls in the circuit, not just the ones matched to the situation --- so that : "They can't pingya".
I, personally, have received a letter of reprimand, threatening future more punitive action in the event of further "offences". for saying "Good night, thanks" to the tower at the end of a session of circuits at night.
Tootle pip!!