Planet Express:
Why is it so bad to deviate (even slightly) from the procedures to ensure that a less competent pilot knows what you're doing?
Generally, I'm in agreement with you on this subject, however one needs to consider the impact that the widespread use of non-standard phraseology may have on air safety.
Many of the world's regulatory agencies, investigation bureaux, airlines and ATS providers (as well as ICAO) have identified breakdowns in communications (usually as a result of the use of non-standard phraseology) between ATC and pilots, and between pilots, as being a significant contributory factor in a number of aircraft incidents and accidents throughout the world. Where pilots do not have English as their first language this contributory factor is exacerbated. Therefore, it is in everyone's safety interest to ensure that we stick to standard phraseology wherever possible to minimise the chances of a misunderstanding.
However, I believe pilots (and ATC) should have the flexibility to vary the phraseology to make it appropriate to the current operational situation if they believe safety is enhanced. From my dim memory (which may be wrong), I seem to recall that the old AIP used to have some clause encouraging pilots to adapt the standard phraseology to enhance communication if the circumstances warranted it.
Having said that, when I'm conducting an instrument approach I tend to use a phraseology that is similar to yours eg:
"All stations (place) (callsign) overhead the NDB (altitude) descending to (MDA) tracking outbound to the (direction), will call turning inbound (place)"
This is not strictly standard but I'm satisfied that it meets the information requirements for all other IFR or VFR users.
If anybody else has any suggestions for appropriate phraseology in this instance, I'm all ears.