Sorry Big Iron, I didn't realize it was HAL that said my post was bull shit and I was misinformed. I was clarifying my position and the backing I have from an Air Traffic Controllers POV. I'm not trying to ruffle any of your feathers. I realize HAL's name and his career, I've paid attention to many of his posts and I was respectfully disagreeing with him. My point is that ambiguity in lingo is a bad thing, no matter who's fault it is. The job of the controller is to minimize it as much as possible. My first post simply pointed out that after this controller recognized this guy had problems understanding, he made things more difficult by asking a question in an ambiguous way and then asking it again the exact way. If that guy rolls and collides with another aircraft, whose fault is it? Does it matter? There was still a breakdown in communication. It doesn't matter how things "usually are done", it's how they are supposed to be done. Our textbooks are the operating procedures. We aren't learning theory. It's cut and dry, do this, don't do that, direct from the FAA. What individual controllers do once fully certified and on there own is one thing, but when an accident/incident occurs, you're judged by the tape and how you did your job based on what the manual says to the T.
That's correct BigIron, ground doesn't control the ramp so I understand the NEED for the question and the answer he needed. If he didn't get it then he'd have to be sent to the penalty box to wait for things to clear. Perhaps it'd be best asked, AirChina do you have a gate available? AirChina is your ramp clear? We take for granted intonation and word emphasis in English here in America, but a Chinese person that knows ATC communication but little else english will obviously have difficulties, as seen here. If that controller wants to say that to an American pilot fine, that works and it's very likely he'll understand it. Otherwise, it can be misleading, and that was the intent of my post.
v/r,