30W's documentation has muddied the waters
Apologies if it has, it was not the intention.....
RMC asked for a source document on this issue and so I quoted the Pt1, and to make life easy, what it contained.
I fully agree with your sentiments Zonoma and for what's it's worth I always continue to ensure I make the initial abeam restriction or very close to even though it hasn't been restated. In 30 years of flying it's always stood me in good stead and avoided any confusion, incident or embarrassment for either party......
I'm sure someone can correct me if I'm wrong but the clarification and entries were introduced to the Pt1 some years ago now on the basis that this was a continuous point of confusion and mis-understanding.
The fact is however what's quoted is what the Pt1 says. If a LoS occurred in relation to it I'm sure the incident investigation would make reference to it and the ATCO would be found at fault if the RT instructions had not been compliance with the Pt1 criteria?
Everyone on both sides is working extremely hard, traffic levels growing, RT can be fast and continuous. Again I fully agree that the extra RT demanded by the Pt1, to ensure compliance with what an ATCO is sensibly expecting is unwelcome and crams the frequency even further. It's an ATS document, so if it doesn't work for ATCO's perhaps it's time to push for internal discussion/review of this specific content?
Brgds
30W