I've flown there too, and the system even at jet levels often seems to be made up as they go along, with undocumented local procedures everywhere. Surely that's not what we aspire to.
Agrajag,
You must be kidding, I hope you are. Such a statement probably reflects a brief exposure to the system, without ever coming to understand how well, how smoothly, it all works (likewise CA)
Communication (which is not the same as Australian "radio procedures") in US is, in fact, highly disciplined, and ICAO compliant.
But, what it is, is communicating. What it is not is the stilted Australian "radio procedures", which only have an incidental crossover with actually communicating.
No other country has page after page of mandatory radio phraseologies that are found in the Australian AIP.
No other country is proposing to make divergence from the their AIP "radio procedures" strict liability criminal offenses. See draft CASR Part 91.
Where the most important thing is to get all the mandatory words said, so "they" can't pingya. Not ICAO, not anywhere else.
Acquaint yourself with the FAA AIM (or AIP) for the details, or the WW Text of the Jeppesen system.
The country specific pages of the WW Text are telling. Australia has page after page of differences to ICAO. By comparison, US/FAA Comms. differences are limited to a handful of items, three of them defining specific meanings and clearance limits to specific descent clearances --- as far from "made up as you go" as it is possible to be.
If you want another example that is completely removed from the the US, have a look at UK CAP 413, and surprise, surprise, you will find it remarkably similar to the FAA AIM, and again, a very great contrast to stilted and inflexible "radio procedures" in Australia. And it is pleasure to fly in UK airspace.
Or have a look at the NZ AIP, where they seem to manage with a fraction of the "radio procedures" of Australia,just ICAO, just as they manage with a aviation regulations page count of about 15% of Australia (as does USA).
You just don't understand how a friendly, efficient and flexible standardised COMMUNICATIONS system works, as opposed to a prescriptive, inflexible and pedantic system.
And, by the way, my experience there , high level and low, small aircraft through large, goes back to early 1960s, and many thousands of hours, I have seen, heard and experienced the divergence.
How much time have you spent operating in US/FAA of CA airspace? Next time you are there, if there is a next time, be a bit more open minded, as long as your mind is not open at both ends.
Tootle pip!!