Triadic, the two problems I have with stating that you are climbing to a level in CTA and for which you don't have a clearance is firstly - it often triggers the whole 'remain clear of CTA' spiel and secondly - if comms are subsequently lost and the clearance has NOT come through, it may raise other doubts. Will ATC assume that because you said you were climbing to FL 240 you fully intend to do that? Whereas 'request FL..' tells them what you want but also that you don't intend going there until advised that you can do so.
But yes, I do know what the AIP says. I just wonder whether it was originally written for bugsmashers that are not climbing into CTA but more likely to reach it when level and approaching a terminal area?
Another pet hate is a B737 or A320 having to state it is 'IFR' on initial taxi in CTAF. What else would it be? If anyone hears 'Qantas 10 taxying Karratha' and doesn't realise that it is IFR, that person must be thick as a brick. Whereas a Baron could likely be either IFR or VFR; therefore it would appear that the AIP was originally written more for the G.A. case than the airline RPT case. And spare me the 'Fokker 100 IFR jet' ! Makes me want to counter with the 'Beech Aircraft Company Baron 58 with the big back door, unpressurized, normally aspirated piston propeller twin.'
Although the AIP tries, to make one size fit all results in too many words on the radio at times. But, for the AIP to cover all possible scenarios would make for too many written words in that document. That would be my worst nightmare, as I hate studying for an I.R. renewal as it is.
Concise, clear and plain English works well enough. So can we be allowed to use common sense in what we say on the wireless without the R/T police getting on our case?