standard phraseology

[iskyfly]

but is it jargon, slang, or CB chatter?

Yes, it's slang,

Who says that abbreviating your altitude report to save radio time is not good phraseology?

See previous replies. In addition, I don't think the time saved is significant.
Also;

http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/184499-1.html

Communicating Clearly
...spoken English is full of ambiguities and homonyms that are easy to misinterpret; for example, "to" and "two" or "for" and "four".

The most important tool we have to ensure that our communications are received correctly is strict adherence to standard FAA radio phraseology as set forth in the Airman's Information Manual. Studies have shown clearly that the use of non-standard and improvised phraseology is a major contributor to miscommunication, particularly the "hearback" problem in which the recipient of a transmission hears what he expects to hear rather than what was actually said.



Altitudes below 18,000' should always be stated in hundreds and thousands of feet: "four thousand" or "seven thousand five hundred" or "one seven thousand two hundred." Higher altitudes should be stated as "flight level one niner zero". It is more and more common to hear other non-standard methods of communicating altitudes. We often hear decimal altitudes ("leaving two point five for eight point five") or implied-thousands ("out of two four oh for one eight oh"). Occasionally, we hear such non-standard phraseology from an airline crew. This doesn't make it right or acceptable. If a controller used such phraseology, he'd be written up and given remedial training. Too bad pilots aren't held to a similar standard.


Frequencies should always be stated using decimal notation: "one two six point eight" or "one one niner point zero five". In cases where the integer portion of the frequency is obvious, it may be omitted: "ground point niner".
.
.
.

The beauty of standard phraseology is that you can hear a number out-of-context and immediately know what it is. For example, "three five zero" is clearly a heading, "one three five point five" is obviously a frequency, and "one three thousand five hundred" or "flight level three five zero" are unquestionably altitudes. Once you start using "point" in altitudes and dropping it from frequencies, it becomes easy to get confused. Don't do it.
.
.
.
Handling a Handoff
Perhaps the most frequent radio transmission pilots make is the initial callup following a handoff from one controller to the next. Keep these short, sweet, and minimal. Avoid throw-away phrases like "with you" or "checking in" that convey no information. To many controllers, such phrases sound like fingernails on a blackboard.
Your basic post-handoff transmission should include these four elements:


ATC facility name

aircraft callsign

CLIMBING, DESCENDING, or LEVEL

.
.
.

It properly conveys the right information, doesn't it?

No.

Also, when a controller tells you to contact ground .9r does that mean that he is lazy or complacent?

See above.
Also;
http://www.cast-safety.org/pdf/SpecialEditionRW.pdf
and
http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/awp/media/education/RS%20A%20Pilots%20Guide%20to%20Safe%20Surface%20Operations.pdf

Runway Exiting
You are expected to exit the runway at the first available taxiway, or as instructed by ATC. You should remain on tower frequency until advised to contact ground control.
Example:
Controller: Continental Thirty-Two, turn right on
Taxiway Golf Two and contact ground
Point Niner.
Pilot: Continental Thirty-Two, right on Golf
Two, ground Point Niner.

[comperini]

Just so everyone knows... I believe this thread was created to continue a discussion that started here:

http://www.liveatc.net/forums/atcaviation-audio-clips/'where-in-god's-name-are-you-going'/

ISkyFly...are you the pilot who once told Boston John that "We speak english here"? (from this thread)

Just kidding.. this should be a good thread

[iskyfly]

Haha. Negative. That comment from the pilot was uncalled for.

[StuSEL]

I get the whole argument for using standard phraseology, and frankly I use it myself, but to suggest it is confusing for a controller to hear a departure say "Climbing out of 3.8 for 4" is a little much. This is pretty standard by airline crews. Unless the FAA wants to implement a regulation that imposes penalties on pilots for using improper phraseology, controllers should be aware (and are aware, really) of the common phraseological practices of airline crews, correct or not.

The reference material cited here (believe it's "Communicating Clearly") is incorrect when it says "if a controller used such phraseology, he'd be written up and given remedial training. Too bad pilots aren't held to a similar standard." New York Approach uses "Descend to X,000" when things get really busy. Every controller says "nine" instead of "niner" on a rare occasion. "Six from the outer marker" instead of "Six miles from the outer marker." The list goes on and on. If the FAA were to impose mandatory remedial training on controllers for random omissions and speech disfluencies, controllers would be going through a lot of remidial training. They're highly trained humans, not hard coded robots.

On another note, if you fly somewhere that doesn't have any traffic moving about the airspace or airport for extended periods of time, slowing down the initial call up and, in doing so, perhaps adding "with you" or something of the like may give the controller a chance to refocus on the radio frequency and hear your entire transmission without asking you to repeat it. Then again, you could just give a courtesy call with your callsign and wait for a response before you proceed with your request.

This is certainly not a black and white issue.

[JNanu]

Let me preface this reply by saying that I'm not a pilot and have very little experience on these matters compared to most people here.

Having said that, I just wanted to summarize what I'm reading.

There are regulations in the AIM that recommend (by the use of the words "should not" rather than "will not" or "must not" a certain phraseology be used. Documents such as the AIM are written very explicitly. They are checked and double checked and triple checked by many people in the industry and are constantly being reviewed and revised. Words don't make it into documents like this unless they were explicitly meant to be there. Making the choice to use "should not" was very intentional and in my mind represents an understanding that there exist scenarios in which the standard phraseology that is recommended is not the safest/most efficient given the circumstances.

Further, I'm reading from a lot of people that this practice is very widespread and has limited if any impact on the safety of the aircraft. The fact that this is a widespread occurrence and continues to be a widespread occurrence indicates to me that no major problems have arisen because of it. I'm confident in the FAA that if safety were severely compromised by something so common that they would take steps to ensure it didn't continue being so common. It seems to me then that those arguing for strict controls and limitations on this "casual slang" phraseology are basing their arguments on the principle that all rules/regulations/recommendations must be followed at all times in the exact same way that they are written. That's a very narrow and at times dangerous way to look at this situation.

[iskyfly]

The reference material cited here (believe it's "Communicating Clearly") is incorrect when it says "if a controller used such phraseology, he'd be written up and given remedial training.

Wrong.

You would not hear it from controllers because part of their performance ratings is whether or not they use the officially approved phraseology.

[beechsundowner]

From a "simple minded" single engine instrument pilots point of view and not here to make judgemet on anybody here or even the clips.

I keep my calls professional.  Using decimal points is common and very understandable.  I see no problem with using that but I don't myself.  I myself have used the word "for" but I fully understand why it shouldn't be used as it can be confused with four just as to can be confused with two. 

The problem is that I have to fly a plane.  This is first priority (Aviate)  Second priority is Navigate.  Third priority is Communicate  So you can see, in the chain of importance ATC is least in importance when I sit in the left seat.  So whatever comes out of my lips is what it is, "Memphis center, Cessna 12345, climbing through 4500 for 7000. 

The rules for pilots is three WWW's  Who you are, Where you are and What you want.  The above sample call meets that requirement.  It's that simple and while I am using words "not recommended", I have yet to have a controller not understand my call.  It's easy to nit pick communications but in the real world of flying as demonstrated above, from a pilots point of view, it is the least amount of importance.  I do want to communicate the three WWWS

I have missed calls and even have one where I mistook an instruction as a clearance (link has been posted in these forums).  I got my chops busted on the air and rightfully so.  Was it preventable.  NO.  I am human and humans will be mistake.  Will it happen again.  Possibly as I am human.  ATC same thing.  They can have equal brain mishaps in giving headings.  Is it preventable.  NO.  ATC is just as human as the pilot on the other side of the microphone.

The trick to communications is clear, CONCISE speech.  If you are clear and concise on what you say, miscommunications will be held to a minimum.  Again, flying a plane and talking on the radio seems simple enough but it is not. 

I have a couple of videos on my Youtube channel where I took a center controller and an approach controller (different flights) up to see the "other side" of the microphone.  These two flights was probably the most informative flights I have had in learning the ATC system as they could explain the "whys" of why I was being handled the way I was that I didn't understand.  They could see why calls were missed because of the multitasking environment a pilot endures.  These flights made the controllers more compassionate to understanding the noisy multitasking evironment the airplane provides.

Bottom line, easy to desktop fly and nitpick using AIM and FARS but when the rubber meets the road in the ATC facility and airplane, all the book knowledge goes out the window and on the ground and it becomes street wise knowledge that gets me through the skies. 

One has to do what they need to do to make a flight safe and it is a team effort between ATC and pilots that makes the system as safe as it is now.

[iskyfly]

here is another one that is a no-no

"any traffic in the area please advise"

 

[w0x0f]

Don Brown, a now retired Atlanta Center controller, wrote an excellent series of articles on Avweb.

http://www.avweb.com/news/sayagain/list.html

He is real big on using standard phraseology.  This particular article discusses the pitfalls of using non-standard phraseology.

http://www.avweb.com/news/sayagain/182636-1.html

w0x0f

[iskyfly]

Good stuff.

I think the excuse that "i hear non standard phrases being used all the time so it must be alright" is a poor excuse. Bad habits breed bad habits. Since this forum are frequented by student pilots and those who are in their beginning phase in aviation I would think that we would not want to condone bad habits. Whats next- "oh i don't use the before landing checklist because i've done it a thousand times and have it memorized."

[StuSEL]

The reference material cited here (believe it's "Communicating Clearly") is incorrect when it says "if a controller used such phraseology, he'd be written up and given remedial training.

Wrong.

You would not hear it from controllers because part of their performance ratings is whether or not they use the officially approved phraseology.

The reference said they get written up. I'm saying they don't get written up. You came back with a random quote from I-don't-know-where saying their performance reviews include scores on use of official phraseology. While true, it is completely irrelevant to anything I just said.

I think the excuse that "i hear non standard phrases being used all the time so it must be alright" is a poor excuse. Bad habits breed bad habits. Since this forum are frequented by student pilots and those who are in their beginning phase in aviation I would think that we would not want to condone bad habits. Whats next- "oh i don't use the before landing checklist because i've done it a thousand times and have it memorized."

That, sir, is a distortion of the whole argument. Nobody in this split thread or the original thread that it was "alright" to use the phraseology. All I and others have said was that it is a standard practice. As to the conclusion of the above quote, that's also completely irrelevant and is a slippery slope fallacy that I will not entertain.

[iskyfly]

The reference material cited here (believe it's "Communicating Clearly") is incorrect when it says "if a controller used such phraseology, he'd be written up and given remedial training.

Wrong.

You would not hear it from controllers because part of their performance ratings is whether or not they use the officially approved phraseology.

The reference said they get written up. I'm saying they don't get written up. You came back with a random quote from I-don't-know-where saying their performance reviews include scores on use of official phraseology. While true, 

Hang on.... you said they dont, several sources say they do and then you say its true. Which is it?

I think the excuse that "i hear non standard phrases being used all the time so it must be alright" is a poor excuse. Bad habits breed bad habits. Since this forum are frequented by student pilots and those who are in their beginning phase in aviation I would think that we would not want to condone bad habits. Whats next- "oh i don't use the before landing checklist because i've done it a thousand times and have it memorized."

Nobody in this split thread or the original thread that it was "alright" to use the phraseology.

I'm glad!

[StuSEL]

Hang on.... you said they dont, several sources say they do and then you say its true. Which is it?

It appears you're not reading my reply correctly.

"Performance reviews include scores on use of official phraseology." - YES.
"If a controller used such phraseology, he'd be written up and given remedial training." - Assuming we're not talking about a training scenario, NO.

Sources: Numerous controller friends; experience flying with controllers who make phraseological errors.

Are you a pilot or a controller?

[iskyfly]

Are you a pilot or a controller?

I don't think that makes a difference to the topic at hand. So far all referenced documentation from the FAA, NATCA, AOPA and air traffic controllers that has been supplied in this thread and the previous thread clearly state the phraseology that should and should not be used for numerous reasons including safety. I have yet to see any supporting credible evidence to the contrary.

[beechsundowner]

I don't think that makes a difference to the topic at hand.

It establishes real world credibility as I wondered the same thing myself...   So yes, if you plan to voice an opinion on ATC or piloting an airplane telling the readership your experiences allows the reader to pay attention to what you say or discard it from no real world experiences.

Read my response on real world experiences....  You keep quoting the PCG and AIM  Guess where my AIM is.  Not in the plane.  So if you think I have time to look up proper phraseology while flying a plane, you are very sadly mistaken.  Even more important is that you are failing to acknowledge the human aspect of flying   We don't have a teleprompter to read from while flying a plane.  I don't know ALL the formal phraseology, and I don't even try to.  My job is the three WWWs and clearly communicate that to the ATC controller.  For the record, I have over 1000 hours PIC time of which probably 3/4 of that I have documented on my You Tube channel.  So StuSEL's question on your real world experiences is a very reasonable question 

Again, AVIATE, NAVIGATE, COMMUNICATE.  It's that simple.  With communicate low on the list of safely flying a plane, clear and concise talk is what makes us safe in the skies.  As long as the pilot and controller are reading out of the same playbook, if they spoke pig latin, the skies will be safe.

[kumara6]

Compared to others on this form, i am a low timer...only been around aviation for about 2 years. So part of my question could be from some ignorance, for which I apologize.

But it seems like for my life in aviation, the push for standard phraseology has been very aggressive topic as of the last year. Is this accurate or have I just become aware of it in the last year? If the latter, how long has this campaign been going on?

[iskyfly]

I don't think that makes a difference to the topic at hand.

It establishes real world credibility as I wondered the same thing myself...   So yes, if you plan to voice an opinion on ATC or piloting an airplane telling the readership your experiences allows the reader to pay attention to what you say or discard it from no real world experiences.

  For the record, I have over 1000 hours PIC time of which probably 3/4 of that I have documented on my You Tube channel.  So StuSEL's question on your real world experiences is a very reasonable question 

No, its willy wagging.

I (and others) have posted numerous references that stress the importance of using standard phraseology.


Just the other day an expressjet pilot, while on final transmitted the following;
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/481979-air-controller-during-emergency-landing-i-know-thats-bs.html

"Emergency, smoke in the cockpit, roll trucks, please."
A controller in the tower responds, asking, "Who was that?"
 
The voice responded, "5912."
 
The controller responds, after about 10 seconds, asking, "United 12, what's your position?"
 
After no response, more time elapses and the controller asks someone, "Did you hear that? I know that's BS. I know it is."

The resulting discussion focused on the pilots use of non standard phraseology;

Emergency, smoke in the cockpit, roll trucks, please

is pretty far away from standard phraseology.

Completely agree with captain prop. It seems that the lack of professionalism and radio discipline caused the problem, if it had been a routine pan call then the message would have been conveyed first time.

 

Again, quite clearly - most of it due to the usual cowbay phraseology.
As for the comments regarding the increased time required to process said phraseology to do it properly, that's PRECISELY why it should be trained and used correctly in everyday circumstances - so that little or no thought is required.
 
Of course, then the cowboys wouldn't be able to sound so cool!

In my experience, when you get to the Comms part of Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, it should be executed as professionally as the first 2. It's not an optional extra - but a big part of airmanship, especially in congested airspace. Standard phraseology is the only way we can ensure things are done properly

Advocating non standard practices (especially to those new in aviation) is dangerous.

[beechsundowner]

No, its willy wagging.

Call it what you want.  If you won't share your real world experiences then no point in having any dialogue with you and hopefully the readership will see right through your fluff and follow right along.

You lost any credibility with me since you won't answer direct questions with regards to your real world experiences in the ATC system.  I think my credibility with regards of flying in the ATC system stands on it's own.  Don't believe me, search the forums on my posts.

Cya later alligator.

[RV1]

"You lost any credibility with me since you won't answer direct questions with regards to your real world experiences in the ATC system.  I think my credibility with regards of flying in the ATC system stands on it's own.  Don't believe me, search the forums on my posts."

How about my credibility, I've controlled for over 24 years, and had a pilot's license for 25 years. I have been on here before about poor phraseology. I have trained many controllers, and one area that I am a stickler (among many others) is phraseology. We have rules to follow. We are required to. We will be given extra training if our phraseology isnt where it should be. It used to be that phraseology was a factor in whether or not we were 'fully successful'. Listening to poor phraseology makes most of us cringe. It is a lot easier to say the stuff correctly, than it is to fuddle as you go. When you are busy, you dont want to have to think about what you are going to say, and the correct way to say it. If you've learned the phraseology as per the .65, it frees up more of your time to make a plan or two. You may not understand how vital that is, but when there are numerous targets headed towards your airport, every second to free up brain cells is important. There are areas that we 'mush' phraseology, like 'traffic 12 o'clock, 3 miles, out of 3 for 7. However, on one tape talk, where your supe reviews a random tape pulled and out of 49 transmissions, the ONLY error you made was that one: 'out of 3 for 7', you see the importance. 

Additionally, when, after an accident, a lawyer has you on the witness stand and he starts to microscopically take apart your phraseology, you will have wanted to be 'by the book'.

I know that pilots aren't held to the same standards we are, but as pilots, we ALL need to understand the importance of good communication, and how it is preferrable to stick to the correct way to say things.

[beechsundowner]

How about my credibility, I've controlled for over 24 years, and had a pilot's license for 25 years.

Thank you for not being afraid to posting your real world experiences.  Much easier to have dialogue with a person not afraid to share what they been through and also easier to tailor my responses accordingly.  Please note, when I say "you" it's is not you personally...

. If you've learned the phraseology as per the .65, it frees up more of your time to make a plan or two.

Not a standard reference.  .65 of what?  PCG, AIM, FARS?  Just bringing this out as a point as an example how assumption can cause miscommunications.  Hopefully you have read page one of this thread where I spell out my experiences as I don't need to rehash it.  Only thing to add to it just to be clear is I am NOT a CFI.

Stay with me please on the following

I know that pilots aren't held to the same standards we are, but as pilots, we ALL need to understand the importance of good communication, and how it is preferrable to stick to the correct way to say things.

Absolutely correct on the above with good communication.  I call it the three WWWs as described previously.   Clear and CONCISE speech on the radio.  Again stay with me.

Jackson approach Southwest 1108 climbing through 1.4 for 6.0
ATC - Southwest, radar contact, climb and maintain 6000.

Jackson approach Sundowner 1943 Lima climbing through one thousand four hundred feet for 6000 feet
ATC Sundowner 1943 Lima, radar contact, climb and maintain 6000.

Both initial callups contain incorrect phraseology yet ATC response was exactly the same.  Both callups contain the three WWW's.   Both calls represent that both pilot and ATC are on the same page since ATC gave climb instructions . Is safety being compromised because of the incorrect phraseology?  If your experience is like mine from the pilot side, the answer is NO.  Both planes and ATC are reading out of the same play book.  Now again to save you looking back on page one of this thread, I don't use decimals myself but I am not against it AS LONG AS BOTH ATC and PILOT are reading out of the same play book.  If there is any misunderstanding by either party, the safety net is requery the pilot / ATC and get clarification.

As with your instructions on a reference to me being not clear.  I posted a video where I screwed the pooch.  It wasn't phraseology, it was a complete misunderstanding.  It is misunderstandings that make the skies dangerous.  If something is being said such as non standard phraseology and not being understood, that's where two planes have a high likely hood of sharing the same airspace unless big sky theory prevails.  Not sure if you have seen it, but the thread is http://www.liveatc.net/forums/atcaviation-audio-clips/vor-alpha-into-kmbo-approach-with-plate-overlays-and-atc-coms-video/msg40105/#msg40105

Lastly...

Being honest with yourself and me.  In your training as pilot, just how much formal training did you get in ATC phraseology when compared to your current ATC job?  If your pilot training in ATC COMS was like mine (I had part 91 training), it was how to key up, talk the three WWW's and unkey the mic to listen.  I am sure you understand there is a vast difference in training and why your pilots you handle in your job may not be as proficient in phraseology.

Again, I appreciate your honesty and candor on your experiences.  That only makes the forums more valuable when one can put the books down and actually talk to each other.  There are street smarts and there are book smarts.  I will take street smarts over book smarts because when the rubber meets the road, all the books in the world will not land that plane.   If it means talking plain English to ATC to get me through the flight, I will do so

[martyj19]

When a controller says .65 they mean the national standard for how traffic is controlled

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAA_Order_7110.65

the relevant parts of which we see in the Pilot Controller glossary and scattered through the AIM as procedures.

I guess they aren't required to say seven one one zero point six five in referring to it  

Another area where readbacks take the shortcut all the time is "tower on thirty three two"

[RV1]

Sundowner, my reason to enter this topic was because there are some parts of ISKYFLY's arguments that I side with, and there are some that I don't. I just wanted to provide some backing to some parts of his arguments with my background. Let me explain:
 Within the last year, at my last facility we had to watch a training video, (the FAA actually has a production crew that  makes a number of videos in order to make their point!) about the dangers of non-standard phraseology, like using 'descend to 220'. There were others, but that one comes to mind. Most of them had all of us cringing because we saw what was about to happen as the pilot misunderstood what the controller said, and either climbed or descended into traffic, or the call was ambiguous as to whether he meant speed, altitude, miles or heading. As a comical note, when I worked in a center, we had one controller who asked if he could tell the pilot to 'descend, fly and indicate 250'!        IMHO, the FAA doesn't make videos, send out refreshers, come up with Computer Based Instruction programs for us about phraseology, unless it is very important.

For the most part, shortcuts in phraseology like 1.8 for 9 doesn't get people killed, but on our end, when there is a mishap, even if the planes never touch, ALL of our transmissions will be scrutinized, written out, and not only shown to us, but if we're lucky, become next months facility training lesson on what not to do. That can get humbling! (As of yet, I have not had that experience...) Even when we have a deal; a separation error, we will get to read what we said. Next to that will be the section in the .65 (7110.65) that refers to what we should have said. I have trained supes who sucked at phraseology, yet they will be giving me MY tape talk and bringing to my attention how I didn't say 'November or aircraft type after the third transmission to the same aircraft'! Even during an interview I had for a supes job, one of the questions was 'you are in the tracon and you hear a controller using poor phraseology, what would you do?'
  So, does poor phraseology make for a poor pilot? Not always. Does a poor pilot have poor phraseology? Not always. Are there areas where we can all improve? Absolutely. Does the busyness of the sector mandate the use of non-standard phraseology? Usually the opposite is true! The busier I am, the more transmissions I will be making, the less I want to repeat myself. Therefore, I will try to be as exact, concise and spot-on with my phraseology as I can be. I would appreciate it if the pilots did the same. I can't tell you how many times, in the middle of a massive workload, I would get one pilot that wanted me to know what color airplane he was flying and what he had for breakfast. (yes, some times I need to know the color!).
  I would also have to say that, for most U.S. controllers, if you ask us about phraseology, it's importance, and whether or not we need to be exact, then we would have to ask what was wrong with 'Taxi Into Position and Hold'?!
We now have to say Line up and Wait, yet when we pass traffic to the next inbound, we say that there is a plane HOLDING POSITION on the runway...

   I don't know if I've cleared anything up, or made it muddier.  
Is our pay based on whether or not we use correct phraseology? It used to be when we got rated. Not so much anymore. We still get a performance rating twice a year, and we can get told to read up on the phraseology and use the right stuff. We also get random tapes pulled to see if our facility, as a whole, is using the correct phraseology.
Can we receive remedial training for poor phraseology? Yes, and many have.
Are controllers allowed to use shortcuts when their traffic load is high as compared to when it isn't? There is NO difference in the rules concerning when to use proper phraseology, at all, especially not based on workload. THERE IS, however the ability to use non-standard phraseology should the situation require it.
Do we know what you mean when you say 1.8 for 3? Yes.
Do you know what we mean when we say 'traffic out of 3.3 for 8'? Probably, but we still shouldn't be saying it!
Do controllers like donuts? Probably as much as police officers.

 

[JNanu]

Are you a pilot or a controller?

I don't think that makes a difference to the topic at hand. So far all referenced documentation from the FAA, NATCA, AOPA and air traffic controllers that has been supplied in this thread and the previous thread clearly state the phraseology that should and should not be used for numerous reasons including safety. I have yet to see any supporting credible evidence to the contrary.

Of course it makes a difference. What you're doing is analogous to an individual suggesting that it's unsafe and wrong to drive 61 in a 60 without having ever driven a car. Simply citing the law doesn't mean in practice the law must always apply. I'm neither a pilot nor a controller, but based on my observations - i.e. this is common practice and no regulatory body has done anything about it, I can conclude that it at worst doesn't reduce safety and at best actually improves efficient and safe operation of aircraft in certain conditions. Unless you want to suggest that the FAA or NTSB are unaware of this practice you can't deny the fact that they made the choice not to address it. Given what's at stake in aviation in general. Given the strict regulations in place in many other areas of aviation. Given how quickly regulations are changed in response to an accident. The fact that this practice has been and continues to be common without any interjection from any regulatory body is evidence in its favour.

[beechsundowner]

 I would also have to say that, for most U.S. controllers, if you ask us about phraseology, it's importance, and whether or not we need to be exact, then we would have to ask what was wrong with 'Taxi Into Position and Hold'?!
We now have to say Line up and Wait, yet when we pass traffic to the next inbound, we say that there is a plane HOLDING POSITION on the runway...

I **believe** the history behind this change was to get the USA to match the rest of the world's (ICAO?) phraseology when it was changed from position and hold to line up and wait.

As far as standards and phraseology, I keep emphasizing one needs to consider the human aspect of flying as you have students pilots, you have ATPs and you have me that falls in the middle, I agree a standard  (phraseology) is important, however the most important thing to me is that the team of pilots and ATC controllers read out of the same page.   

If you have a pilot with mic fright because he is worried about not meeting phraseology standards or fear of getting chewed out by ATC for not being responsive enough or quick enough, you have a communication problem.  You will be waiting longer for the pilot to stutter out the right words and everybody is frustrated.   

I would think from a non ATC point of view (pilot) if I can communicate something quicker to you without worrying about did I miss a standard that you would work with that then focus on the fact that I messed up and didn't use standards.  You would be amazed at how something simple like one instrument giving a caution indication (not necessarily a reportable issue to ATC) can rock my world.  My thoughts go rampant thinking, ok, what else is going on?  Here I am flying a plane at 110 knots, worrying about an indicator light, in IMC, and I have to worry about conforming to phraseology?  I don't think so.  Aviate, Navigate Communicate.  This may be an extreme example but the point I am bringing out again is we are human and while it would be wonderful that everybody act and react the same, it's just not going to happen.   

IMHO your average GA pilot doesn't fly enough to stay proficient in phraseology much less fly in the IFR system more complicated than GPS direct.  He (or she) is already behind the curve just staying upright in IMC.  Add in mic fright, "Sundowner 43L, amendment to your clearance, ready to copy" Houston, we all have a problem.   My take, if it takes non standard phraseology to read out of the same page, so be it.  Clear concise communications is the key to success

Based on the above, you as an ATC controller have my highest respect.  I only deal with one controller at a given time so it's pretty easy to establish a rapport. You on the other hand, I cannot imagine what you go through to "switch gears" from a student pilot that has troubles holding the PTT and speaking clearly, to somebody who has deviated from a clearance, to somebody like me that will pop up with "Jackson Approach, request please".  Doing all of this while maintaining professionalism is nothing short of amazing to me.

Off topic to this thread.....   Being a retired federal government employee myself, I feel your pain on certain things you are encountering and describing in your post that non government employees would never understand.  Brought back nightmares

Pass me a donut please, I'm hungry this morning 

[iskyfly]

No, its willy wagging.

Call it what you want.

Thanks, but I don't need your permission.

If you won't share your real world experiences then no point in having any dialogue with you and hopefully the readership will see right through your fluff and follow right along.

Opinion.
Please show me, with credible citations (ie- FAA, FAR, AIM), where the use of non standard phraseology is condoned.

You lost any credibility with me since you won't answer direct questions with regards to your real world experiences in the ATC system.  I think my credibility with regards of flying in the ATC system stands on it's own.  Don't believe me, search the forums on my posts.
Cya later alligator.

Willy wagging and name calling. Real professional!

Relax and calm down. This is a discussion forum, used for, among other things, to share information. You disagree with me on the topic of non standard phraseology then you disagree with the FAA. Take up your argument with them if you wish to have things changed. That you have used non standard phraseology in the past and may do so frequently, does not make what I have cited wrong.