Totally disagree with your disagreement I am afraid.
Normally he SHOULD say 330 "degrees"
Normally he SHOULD say descend "altitude 3000ft"
In this instance it is the controllers shortened form that is incorrect, not the verbose, but technically correct pilot version.
As regards the ILS instruction. I believe the pilot version read back is motivated by the difference between the British system, where you are habitually cleared to intercept the LOC but NOT follow the GP until specifically cleared, vs the European norm of simply being cleared for the ILS.
Many British pilots are often reluctant to follow the glide without some specific prompting from ATC (or me
) the extended readback was, I feel, merely a substitute that allowed him to descend on the glide without being specifically authorised as in UK, with at least the "comfort zone" of having announced clearly his interpretation/intention following ATC's instructions.
Edited to say, I see you have edited your post, me too.
I recently landed with QNH 20Hpa/Mb out, due to (among other things) foreshortened ATC when cleared to the first altitude. Giving the QNH when first clearing an aircraft to an altitude doesn't always happen out of blighty, and can be a life saver (or loser
)
As for English, I do not see any alternative to a common language (and do indeed appreciate I am fortunate it happens to be my native one) In a mixed crew scenario too, one must adopt a common language. When you have flight-deck of different nationality, mixed with CC of two different nationality, and no-one speaking all 3 languages ? talking to ATC whose first lingo is yet another. . . what to do ? but I realise I am the lucky one.
To return,briefly, to the thread subject.
Glass houses, and all that, come to mind.
Safety lapses , identified, but uncorrected, in the past are the fault of who ? the failure to stop them in their tracks is the fault of who ?
Your management should answer that one and take a hard look in the mirror before firing from the hip
