Well, considering that 8 of the 10 busiest airports in the world by aircraft movements are located in the US, I don't think it would be too much of a stretch. Heathrow is 12th.

Avia..please define "busy". LHR has 2 runways. It has some pretty savage noise abate protocols that ATC have to feed traffic around, particularly on the 27's. I know of no other airport where I have to call DIRECTOR with call sign only. The approach separation distances are absolute minimums and rely almost exclusively on the most prompt of runway exits. I think 'Busy" is a tadge different from traffic density, given the paucity of runways at LHR compared to the other 11.
...and BTW can someone explain again to me why LHR insist on the ATIS readback to include QNH still...and for that matter, why do they need a confirmation of a/c type??..I thought that was on the flight plan, which after all defines the weight of the aerplane and thus the levy of charges??..or am I still in the 80's???

The aircraft type filed on the plan is not always the actual type that is being used. When doing final approach spacing down to the minimums, we need to be sure that the aircraft is the type we are expecting. Happens more often than you would think.

Many years ago I spent some time as an ATC simulator pilot for trainee controllers. I used a whole spectrum of accents and phraseology standards with my “pilot” r/t. Instructors and trainees were amused. I told them that in fact my intention wasn’t to be amusing but simply trying to introduce them to the real world of ATC r/t. Many trainees later came back to me after their first live r/t experiences stating that my r/t “acting” had come in useful.

I like both the British and American phraseology. It really doesn’t bother me at all. Although it is generally getting better these days, the only criticism I have is that some US controllers still need to slow down their delivery rate a little when speaking to certain nationalities.

Indeed, always a pleasure to have British crews also tell me the QNH, the ATIS letter, Aircraft-type and the arrival they are expecting.:} Luckily most of the time they don't do it when the freq. is busy!

I'll try to be less gash next time! :E

Not flown into Amsterdam Schipol then?

Thats how we do it as well.

I´m German, from the formerly (or still?) US occupied part.

Although overweight, I refrain from calling myself 'heavy'...

Sorry if thats wrong.

Pucka, every airport has it's unique elements, but to say that a US controller would have difficulty adjusting to how busy Heathrow is, well that's just something I don't buy.

As I said this is by aircraft movements.

CLT was comparable until they added the third runway in 2010 it has an additional long parallel runway. LAS is also comparable. The busier airports like ATL, ORD, JFK, etc. all have more runways simply because they need them to handle the volume of traffic. LHR would need to almost double it's traffic to approach ATL.

I also don't think LHR controllers would have much difficulty going the other way.

All this talk of ours is busier than yours that's why we are gash is nonsense.

The busier an airport the more important it is to get the message across clearly (and yes that includes to foreigners who haven't got English as a first language), the first time. That's why we have standards and standard phraseology etc.

Avia, Paola if I implied US airports wouldn't hack it at LHR..I certainly didn't mean that in the slightest..it was just to get the definition of BUSY ATC sorted in the aviation context. I am certain that given role exchanges twist LHR and US ATC, the world would be a little more colorful, a tadge less stuck up and a bit less arrogant!
Yes..AMS and this DIRECTOR thingy..strangely after operating in there for a pretty long time..since 1980 ish..I can't recall.."call director call sign only".. Must either be early onset...or I am so gash they don't trust me!!!

IIRC it's in the charts to check in with AMS Approach with c/s only. ;)

I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with spandex, standard phraseology is good. That standard RT needs to change in the future to a less verbose standard however.

We can't tell you, or we'd have to kill you. ;) PS: the folks at LaGuardia sure as hell don't speak with a drawl.

Eclan:
your post full of whinging is noted.

I like clear concise R/T comms, but that may be due to having been an instructor for years and harping on
Who
Where
What
radio call formats to teach newbies why we say things the way we do over the radio, in the order we say them. (PTAPTP ... oh, wait, we are all radar covered now, right? )
"Sir, why do we say niner"
"Because nine and five sould too much alike when the radio is a bit scratchy"
"Sir, why do we say zero instead of oh?"
"Because clarity is important in communication"
"Why do we say .Pan Pan Pan" (Or, as I was once informed, "pan pan, pan pan, pan pan" )
"Because it's Spanish for bread, and when it's in the pan your goose is cooked." ;):cool::E I had a flight student do a double take when I slipped that one in ... we had a good laugh over it.

Keke
An actual Texan drawl/twang if delivered in rapid rhythm isn't really a drawl.
The person well above you who spoke about a "high speed drawl" may have misunderstood what a drawl is ...

Phil
Why do you presume that? Brevity has its own virtues, and traps, in military comms.
Of course it is. Brevity and clarity in communication was also the original point of using terms like "roger" to indicate something, and "out" to indicate something else, and "over" to indicate end of a transmission that expected a reply.

And so on.

Pet Peeve:

Readback of clearance strikes me as a place where there is NO room for paraphrasing instructions. Clearance is a critical part of the pilot/controller interface in terms of safety and 'getting it right' together., whether one is on the ground or inflight.

This includes taxi instructions. :mad:

British ATC is falling apart. Last trip the controllers said "have a nice day". At least twice. Pleasant chaps. Maybe they're married to U.S. women.

Leave off the Yanks, they might be "non-standard" but they're not unsafe.

What's unsafe is how controllers and pilots across many major TMAs and international airports insist on speaking in their native tongue which degrades situational awareness and adds to workload. It's killed before and I'm positive it will do so again. This isn't a business for second guessing.

And I'm not one of these "I speak English so everybody bloody should" types. There's a time and a place.

Is that with or without a snowstorm? ;)

Heathrow has no problem with a snowstorm--airport closed, no planes, no problem. Mind you, it would a snow storm you can see the blades of grass through the snow cover. :}

The folks at DFW, airlines, ATC and airport ops pretty much do the same at the first sigh of an ice storm. Guess its cheaper overall to park 'em for the one a year storm than keep all the equipment in place.

Some may recall that in the late 1940s that there was a proposal made to PICAO ( Provisional ICAO, I think) that Spanish should be the "Language of the Air". I cannot recall which countries made this proposal.

The U.S.A. said ... "NO"

Thank heavens !

An alternative, then, might have been an expanded Q-Code, to be done in Morse Code, just to make it " International...".

Why would Spanish possibly been considered? They weren't one of the four powers that won the war, even the Russians only grudgingly participated in the Chicago Convention. Everything ICAO is in the powers' languages.

GF