Monarch Man,
part of that is taking a practical approach to a situation, not blind obedience that does nothing to improve SA for a specific set of circumstances.
Please tell me how
using the runway designator
does not add to SA, or how
not using the designator
does add to SA.
Are you advocation only using standard phraseology when it clearly increases SA?
Standard phraseology has a place in this, but taken to the en-th degree does "fife" or "five" contribute to an improvement in flight safety?
That's difficult to quantify. However, I use 'fife' and that's never been misunderstood or mistaken for another numeral. Interestingly, that's the same argument that you're using for utilising non-standard R/T. Ironic really, isn't it?
The recent introduction of an additional "degrees" comment requirement onto radar heading read backs is another classic case of an additional layer of phraseology that serves no real purpose, after all, radar heading instructions are proceeded by the qualifier "fly heading xxx" or "turn left/right onto heading xxx" where does adding "degrees" improve flight safety or SA? All it does is add another layer that gets lost in the fog of 2 or 3 instructions
My argument relates to a practical standpoint, not as you may believe, a disagreement to the basic principles.
Interesting. So all those instances of aircraft being instructed to fly heading xxx and actually climbing/descending to xxx instead were just coincidence?