I agree that there was a miscommunication. More and more places are using RNAV arrivals and departures, which are highly complex and often tax the crews and challenge our automation's ability to handle what is requested of it.
Case in point: Atlanta, USA, RNAV departures require flying runway heading (regardless of wind) until reaching the first fix. I know of several crews who have either been sharply rebuked over the radio for making early turns to a fix (via automation, which tends to cut corners) and/or have been given the dreaded phone number.
If given the instructions Capster was given, I may have assumed ATC was barking at me about not being on runway heading as the SID requires. My policy is "when in doubt, ask." This policy, however, looks better on paper than it sometimes works in real life. Sometimes it is really busy or there is a confusion about what was actually said.
I don't know how it is in other places, but in the US, where I do most of my flying, if you read something back incorrectly, the controller is not liable; you are
!
Consider the following scenario on the way into PIT just the other day:
"XXX1234, cross XXXX at 10000, 250 knots" Almost immediately followed with, "proceed to XXXX, the outer marker for Runway 28L, descend and maintain 10000."
My reply: "Do you still need the 250 speed when we reach 10000."
Reply (in a very flustered tone): "Look, just go to XXXX," then spoke to another aircraft.
I asked: "Please clarify, now you want us to proceed to XXXX, and slow to 250 there?"
The reply (in a very condescending tone): "XXX 1234, proceed to YYY, the outer marker for 28L, descend and maintain 7000, and for your information, you will have to slow to 250 to descend below 10000,STAND BY FOR YOUR READBACK."
Well, we got through it without committing any violations, but I do challenge the notion that ALL controllers are straightforward guys who really do have our best interests in mind.
