In the days of when PD did use conditionals (few years ago now), some types were often generalised and a member of the A320 family would often be referred to as 'an Airbus' and a E145 or a E190 was often simply referred to as 'an Embraer'. Whilst that in itself would have little safety impact, it is perhaps somewhat different to the conditional phraseology used at larger NATS units. Funnily enough, I never heard a member of the Boeing family being referred to as simply being 'a Boeing'.
CAA ATS seem reluctant to stipulate the use of the aircraft operator in addition to the aircraft type since it can get rather complicated with wet lease ops. However at larger airfields it is often second nature for the aircraft operator to be mentioned in a conditional clearance.
With a number of ATC units now not using conditional clearances, is there anything that could have done by the regulator to make the use of such clearances less potentially unambiguous? After all, if there was no risk of ambiguity, then I suspect that no units would have opted to not use conditionals? Could there be a safety case for the regulator to do away with conditionals all together, based on where we are at present? Perhaps the CAA ATS boys and girls have not done enough in making conditionals more robust?
I would be interested to hear what you controllers think.