Originally Posted by
43Inches
I feel the extra waffle was introduced with no intention of increasing safety, more so to apply legal standing to the instruction. "Climb via Sid" "Line up and wait" "Hold short of Runway XX". All tell you what you already should know, however now that it's reiterated several times as well on the radio you can't say you did not understand what is a rule anyway. The rules state that I have to comply with all of SID procedure when cleared via one, why do I need to be told again to comply with the altitudes, I know a line up instruction is not a clearance to taxi or take-off on the runway, so why do I need to be told to wait, I know I can not enter a runway without a clearance, so why do I need to be told to hold short of one until instructed so... The reason, so they can listen to the tapes and conform that you acknowledged your legal responsibility, not one drop of safety in it. These extras are just as bad as the "pending clearance" brigade and guard Nazis.
I partly agree and partly disagree. The “pending clearance” and guard nazis are embarrassing. The former need to engage brain before mouth and the latter need to get a life.
Extra ‘waffle’ may be a pain in the derrière for those of us with English as our first (and usually only) language. But safety is an issue. ATC must deal with many whose licence may state English Level 4, but in reality their English comprehension is often marginal. As far as possible comms need to be kept simple, with repetition as necessary - something like one would instruct an 8 year old.
ICAO update phraseology as lessons are learned. Australia as a signatory to ICAO should adopt their standards, and for the most part, we do.