Standard of RT in USA

[WillowRun 6-3]

Put your R/T where ICAO meets

Well, now, 466 posts only? I read them all this evening. I didn't say 'read closely.'

I'm going to propose three (3) questions, and then a contention, you know, a proposition for policy or reform or action, based on or derived from the central arguments made here. Rather than add more of my words in an effort (probably doomed to failure) to summarize these central arguments, here are three representative posts (IMO), including one from the OP:

deefer dog (post #14). "The point I am making is simply this. In the US the phraseology is completely non standard to that agreed in the convention and bears no relationship to any differences filed. Whichever way you look at it, and as painful as it may feel, your system of not complying with agreed conventions increases the likelihood of confusion, especially when operators whose native language is not English have to disseminate slang. Confusion in a busy ATC environment is not what any of us want."

West Coast (post # 129). "As worldwide air traffic picks up, there's going to be pressure to place more aircraft into the same airspace and airports that exist. Eventually RT will come into the sights of regulators who are charged with making this happen and change will be upon us."

Ace Rimmer (post #172) (responding to post by yours truly about ICAO processes)

"Willow Run: experience has shown that when ICAO moves at sprint pace (and that doesn't happen that often) it takes about seven (yup SEVEN) years to get something adopted as a standard...and even then longer to for Individual States to implement the changes in their national ANO provided they don't decide to file a difference (or ignore the SARP altogether)...

I submit that the solution to this problem (and if the findings of recent IATA/IFALPA/IFATCA Phaseology survey are believed there IS a significant problem) lies more with national CAA/DGCAs actually implementing (and enforcing) the existing SARPs rather than trying push through new ones (at ICAOs blistering pace!)"

I. There is something just plain unseemly about all the sparring. Would not your energies be better directed at forming a unified coalition or partnership as against those nations, whether signatories of ICAO or not, where the compliance with ICAO R/T standardization is rather of secondary importance compared to the given nation's adherence to basic international norms (aww, dunno, let's, uh, checkin' out possible employment of chemical weapons within say 75 minutes at under Mach 2 from Incirilk)? The point is not "politics" but rather "priorities". So very much here is hangover.

2. What happens if there is another "System Perturbation" such as the US ground stop on 9-11 (phrase from The Pentagon's New Map, by Thomas Barnett)? - will closer if not complete adherence to ICAO R/T standards get everyone out of the air more expeditiously and/or safely? Or does the status quo already provide optimum assurance?

3. What about in the case of armed conflict occurring? Assume active hot warfighting in, say, Syria? Are you now more concerned, or less (or unchanged) about ICAO R/T standardization compliance if you are PIC within, let's again say, 75 minutes (U.S.), at under Mach 2, of Incirilik?

Proposition: with due respect to Ace R, the ICAO triennial is next month. 466 posts, and mounting some special agenda item for ICAO merits but a shrug? Well, if so, I'm left wondering what all the ground-pounding was about.

Discuss. Or drink. Probably not both (at the same time, is what I meant).

Sent from my iPad