Responding to Guidance

[Matthew Kosmoski]

Just like in the real world, you will most certainly run into instructors with varying levels of knowledge.

It's actually fairly amusing to watch some know-it-all CFIs profess to be ultimate authorities and not understand fundamental aerodynamics.  Or, even simpler, I had an instructor tell me I could and should log <50nm xcs as xc time towards my private rating.  Something like that you'd think they'd have down cold.  Or some of the wonderful OWTs floating around in aviation that only perpetuate because people won't think for themselves.

Driving instructors get in accidents, too... and may not know how to use a timing light.

[Reuben Prevost]

However, keep in mind that 7110.65 does not apply to pilots.

Bingo.  There are no phraseology requirements on pilots.  Suggestions, yes, but nothing codified.  Nothing even mandates ICAO phonetics other than ICAO itself... which is non-binding.  Even for controllers, JO 7340.2 says that controller "should" use ICAO phonetics, not even "shall."

"newbie one two three albert baker, not a heavy, just in my cessna lawnmower, want to do the landing thingy where i taxi off the runway to go fly fly one more time" is a legal pilot request.

It's like saying "with you." It's unnecessary. Furthermore, he was a controller. It turns out that he was an I1 (which I didn't know).

Unnecessary? Perhaps. We will never know the context in which it was used.

Remember, we are all just amateurs at this. Very few of us have had any formal ATC education. Just like in the real world, you will most certainly run into instructors with varying levels of knowledge.

That's the point of this thread.

[Jonathan Voss]

That's the point of this thread.

Receiving constructive criticism? I could not agree more.

I just would not chastise them because they were an "instructor". VATSIM training can sometimes be familiarization at best and it sounds like it may have been a good teachable moment for them for when they are controlling/instructing.

In the interest of constructive criticism, myself and others just brought up a few other points.

[Daniel Hawton]

However, keep in mind that 7110.65 does not apply to pilots.

Bingo.  There are no phraseology requirements on pilots.  Suggestions, yes, but nothing codified.  Nothing even mandates ICAO phonetics other than ICAO itself... which is non-binding.  Even for controllers, JO 7340.2 says that controller "should" use ICAO phonetics, not even "shall."

"newbie one two three albert baker, not a heavy, just in my cessna lawnmower, want to do the landing thingy where i taxi off the runway to go fly fly one more time" is a legal pilot request.

JO 7110.65 instructs to use phonetics. Not should, it's written plainly as an instruction. So good luck in the FAA trying to win that argument... It won't work.  The contractions manual doesn't define rules for ATC.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

However, keep in mind that 7110.65 does not apply to pilots.

Bingo.  There are no phraseology requirements on pilots.  Suggestions, yes, but nothing codified.  Nothing even mandates ICAO phonetics other than ICAO itself... which is non-binding.  Even for controllers, JO 7340.2 says that controller "should" use ICAO phonetics, not even "shall."

"newbie one two three albert baker, not a heavy, just in my cessna lawnmower, want to do the landing thingy where i taxi off the runway to go fly fly one more time" is a legal pilot request.

JO 7110.65 instructs to use phonetics. Not should, it's written plainly as an instruction. So good luck in the FAA trying to win that argument... It won't work.  The contractions manual doesn't define rules for ATC.

You're right -- I just went and looked again and found it.  I'll place the blame here squarely on my PDF reader's find feature :-)