Spot on Hold_Short, there's a reason for the myriad of pages in AIP/Jepp so really no excuse for getting it wrong.
The problem I see is with enforcing the standards. An ATO/checky is going to come across as a real hard-a$$ if they start nailing people for spitting out a slightly-incorrect phrase while they're under the pump - after all the aim of the game is aviate/navigate/communicate. This puts the onus on the individual pilot to maintain (or get!) the standard that everyone expects.
However, in a busy radio environment I can justify the use of "ABC, departure" etc. - the amount of times I've heard ATC require a repeat because of the length and detail of the calls (no ones fault, they're just full of pretty important information). Like everything, it comes down to common sense/airmanship to know when to jump in and when to wait. My way of (nearly) complying with AIP/Jepp in that scenario would be to say:
- IFR Taxi: "ML CEN, ABC?"; and
- Departure Report: "ABC, departure".
In those scenarios (while it's busy) the controller has your callsign for your flightplan and also has the chance to request that you standby. If it's quiet then go for whatever AIP/Jepp says - after all it's ASA that writes the publication; if they want it changed they can.
So how do we fix it? I'm a believer that, although all CASA/ASA publications can now be downloaded for free online, the hard copies should all be substantially cheaper. This way, the cost burden will be significantly less on a new pilot (including RAA); and they can learn everything the right way from the beginning.
So, for:
- RAA/GA pilots: All instructors should face a grilling in FIR initials/renewals/upgrades for incorrect phraseology because they're the ones that set the standard; and
- RPT pilots: Sim/route checkies should be all over the standard their pilots are either maintaining or ignoring. I know on my check forms you either meet the standard or you don't.
You'll see that I've left AFRs out of the list there for GA pilots. The standard I've seen set by at least half of AFR applicants (mostly PPLs) has been SO low that nailing them on R/T procedures is only going to drive them away and make them adverse to being reviewed every two years. In this case, if it's not blatantly unsafe then it's probably better to let it go and concentrate on the major items.
In the big picture, there are plenty more unsafe acts that require everyone's attention but this one is an easy fix. You can't hardly change a pilot's hazardous attitude towards their everyday flying
BUT R/T procedures can easily be fixed by sitting down and reading the appropriate AIP/Jepp. Unfortunately, people think once they sit and pass the RAA/GFPT/PPL/CPL flight test(s) the study stops!