RYR-738-JOCKEY:
You provided some good examples of how the use of language can affect the quality of communication between pilots and controllers with differing native languages, local speech patterns etc... Of course we must judge the quality of any exchange upon the outcome of that exchange. In other words, did all parties understand the transmitted and received messages to have the same meaning? The goal is of course the clear transmission and receipt of messages between parties for the purpose of safe air navigation. The creation and use of standard phraseology is but a framework intended to provide a common ground for all participants to rely upon in the furtherance of this goal.
The application of sound aeronautical judgment sometimes demands that we get right to the point, using plain or abbreviated language when necessary to achieve a desired result from our communication exchange with ATC. Standard R/T procedures were written with normal and reasonably foreseeable circumstances in mind. They were not designed in such a way so as to foresee some of the circumstances which have indeed come to pass in today's operating environment. Examples are too numerous to cite here, but I'm certain that using your own experience for reference, you know what I mean.
Sometimes the designed procedures are inadequate to the task in situations that were never foreseen during the development of the procedures. It falls to you to find a way to get your point across until such time as the system catches up with reality. During this era of rapid change in the global aviation arena, ICAO, and indeed most countries around the world are struggling to keep pace with the changing times.
None of the above is intended to justify a complete abandonment by aircrew of the procedures currently in place, or to excuse a sloppy, lax or unprofessional approach to radio communications technique. On the contrary. The procedures provide the only common frame of reference we have to rely on.
I merely point out that more than ever before, critical thinking and the application of well considered sound judgment must be applied by aircrew to overcome the increasingly obvious shortcomings of the global aviation communications infrastructure and the procedures which were designed to operate within a system from another era.
And now, a wee peek into the future...
As might be expected, the application of technology to fill in the gaps is available today. And it has been for some time. What is lacking is the economic impetus to employ it. As long as cheaper = better in the minds of the flying public, industry will operate on that premise. As the voice communications frequencies become ever more congested, the challenge will grow. Finally, after the situation becomes untenable, digitization and automation of air/ground communications will become cheaper than the alternative of limiting traffic flow to forestall frequency and airspace saturation and a potential catastrophe. Yes, runways are a limiting factor in some locales, but here in the US, it is already apparent that the ability of certain ATC sectors to handle the present volume of transiting traffic has become the limiting factor. And as you may be aware, US ATC is already pretty well known as an organization that can move some metal! What happens if the projected growth in air traffic indeed comes to pass? I certainly expect to spend much more time sitting on the ground awaiting clearance to depart.
Again, none of my comments are intended to promote a departure from established procedure. Established procedure must be the default action except where it is inadequate to the task, else a kind of radio anarchy might ensue! I just hope it is recognized that established procedures have their limitations and that desired results might sometimes take precedence over adherence to convention. I hope everyone recognizes the distinction I make between the two.
Best regards and a happy, safe holiday to all!
Westhawk