Considering the size and scope of the US ATC system, who do you believe has a better ATC system?
Now, I don't say that the US ATC is the best or better than any other country, but I've just never encountered any that were as good. With the possible exception of London Center, but even they they do not handle the amount of traffic of say New York City Tracon, which handles the traffic for JFK, LGA, SWF, EWR, ISP, HPH and TEB. Same with ORD, ATL, LAX, SFO, DFW, etc.
Of the top 15 busiest airports in the world, by amount of air traffic handled, the top six are US airports, eleven of the top 15 busiest airports are US, London comes in at 12th, after CDG and FRA.
So, why are you arguing against success? I know not of a single accident that can be blamed on the US ATC system involving a foreign carrier due to the language used by the US ATC Controllers. If I am incorrect, please enlighten me and I'll retract that statement.
Con-pilot et al,
Couldn't have put it better myself, base on 35 years of experience covering most of the places mentioned.
With the honourable exceptions of the Scandinavian, UK, Dutch and German ATC systems, most of Europe is pretty ordinary, and the dangers of conducting ATC communication with local carriers in the local language poses a par greater threat than minor differences in interpretations of ICAO SARPS on the matter of communication.
At home base, Australia, a byword for stilted and inflexible "radio procedures" (communications doesn't get a look in), all ICAO to the max, we have any number of incidents involving communications, including one collision between a DC-8 and B727 many years ago.
The US system works, and works just as well for foreign pilots, with only a minor "attitude adjustment" needed.
Tootle pip!!