Re: Reading "Approved" back
JEP
I can't argue with you on the Danish procedures -- I can only say that the ICAO rules require a clearance to enter a class B/C/D CTR and that Denmark does not appear to have filed a difference. The idea of a clearance being "embedded" is somewhat alarming!
On the issue of reporting instructions, there is no doubt that reporting instructions should be "acknowledged". However, reading back reporting instructions is, IMO, bad practice for two reasons:
1) A single word misinterpretation can cause a critical failure in the ATC system. Consider the following exchange:
"G-ABCD report passing FL50 in the descent"
"[bzzt] passing FL50, G-ABCD"
"G-ABCD thank you, break, G-EFGH descend FL60"
In fact, G-ABCD is still in a gentle descent through FL65, and was just reading back the reporting instruction. But the readback was misinterpreted (by the omission of a single word) as the report itself. So now we have a loss of separation.
2) By contrast, the failure to make a report can never be critical. If a report doesn't arrive, ATC must assume that it is possible that a comms failure occurred, and that the aircraft has in fact passed the reporting point or level. The report can only act as a release for other aircraft.
ICAO Doc 9432 (Radiotelephony Manual) gives a number of examples:
"G-CD report when ready for departure"
"G-CD wilco"
"Fastair 345 cleared for take-off report airborne"
"Cleared for take-off wilco Fastair 345"
"G-CD report final"
"G-CD"
"Fastair 345 report passing FL70"
"Fastair 345 wilco"
"Fastair 345 report outer marker"
"Fastair 345"
(To my horror there is one example where Fastair does say "will report leaving FL350" but the vast majority indicate that reporting instructions should not be read back.)