Bearing in mind that Australia is in a minority that calls vacating an altitude in a radar environment "Vacating" and "passing" seem to work fairly well in other parts of the world with "Left" being reserved for a lateral dirction change and "out of" sounding a bit retrospective.
It is only Down under where it is almost OK if you crash provided you got the poetry (Quacking) right that we are likely to have these sort of debates that often become heated and drawn out.. A false sense of security perhaps. The Tiger 66 accident in KL malaysia highlights flaws in the "To" and "For" brigade.
Here is another one why do people ask for an "airways clearance" where I am yet to see an airway in Australia? Even the regulators get things wrong and whilst we should follow procedures it is also our responsibility to notify any possible errors in our AIP's (latent failures) to those that write them rather than continue blindly following potentially flawed procedures just because they are in the AIP and react after an incident has occured. We have got brains havn't we? and we are supposed to use them out there and the judicious addition of "FEET" or omision of a "TO" or "FOR" to aid clarity in a situation where comunication has been difficult (perhaps a non English speaking country) would display airmanship. Be aware that procedures and even colloqualisms of one country could be fundamentaly fatal in another (where "to's and Two's don't sound the same) and flexibility is often required to achieve clarity and understanding. Perhaps this is why we study and practise good communication skills on our recurrent CRM courses. Some of the worst examples of radio communication that I have heard come from english speaking country's.
Last edited by TAY 611; 25th Sep 2005 at 23:50.