JW411:
For example, if your callsign is "XXX 160" this would be spoken as "XXX One Sixty". We could learn from this on this side of the Pond.
Except, of course, that many of the same folks will descend to FL 'Two Sixty', so it doesn't really help. Standard english RT phraseology exists because lessons have often been learnt the hard way - what if, in your example, there had been a aircraft with C/S "XXX 116"?
XXX One Sixty and XXX One Sixteen are a little too close for comfort, and we then have the same problem again!
Some thoughts:
ALL Communication consists of four basic parts:
The Sender
The Message
The Receiver
The Feedback
Fail to consider any one of those and there is a high risk of misunderstanding and miscommunication. Of course lots of that 'consideration' is done for us by development of standard RT and SOPs, so we don't have to re-invent the wheel every time we PTT.
Allow me to use your examples, RYR-738:
The Sender: RYR-738 - someone with an idea that foreign ATC may have trouble with non-standard phraseology, so...
The Message: is constructed to use standard RT and not too much information (I would personally used one Tx to confirm level, and another for routing, for the reason you illustrate, but we know what a hurry you folks at RYR are in!
). Therefore...
The Receiver: hears something which they are able to understand and provide
The Feedback, which RYR-738 then uses to satisfy his or herself that the communcation was understood. In this case the ATCO didn't do that to RYR's satisfaction, so we need to go through the process again (perhaps learning something from the first failed attempt and trying a different technique, not necessarily just louder and slower!)
Now imagine of any of those steps had been done badly - not considering the recipient's circumstances, wording your message poorly (non-standard RT), not providing sensible feedback...it is easy to see how ambiguities and misunderstandings can arise, and how they can be potential fligth safety hazards.
Summary: Always consider those
four parts of ANY communication, whether over the RT or indeed within the flight deck; if you spot
any part that has been done badly then step in and make sure it is resolved.
Different cultures may have different expectations of what is required over the RT, but all have the common goal of flight safety and none are stupid. You may have to adapt your personal RT habits to account for these differences (..think about "The Receiver"), but:
1) use standard RT
2) if in doubt, CHECK IT OUT! Don't allow ambiguities to persist, whether arisen from differing national RT standards or from poor RT discipline.
Happy New Year
GL