Originally Posted by Dash8widget

So much of our interaction with the ATC system revolves around per-defined phrases; cleared to land, line up and wait, reduce speed to, resume normal speed, climb and maintain, etc. All of these have specific meanings. So when a controller issues a clearance using the standard phraseology their intentions should be clear. Now, as pilots, we need to have an internal logic filter - ie. does this clearance make sense? In the case of SLC - if I'm climbing out on a SID that has a restriction to cross a fix at FL230, and prior to reaching that fix the controller clears me to "climb and maintain FL300," I know, by definition, he wants me to climb and maintain FL300. And, by definition, the restriction to cross the fix at FL230 no longer applies. And to me, this clearance passes the makes sense test.

True, the AIM is not "regulatory" but it does define much of what we do in our world. Without it, and other documents like the pilot controller glossary, we would have no common ground with which to communicate with ATC. While controllers are by no means perfect - IMHO their understanding of standard phraseology tends to be better than that of the general pilot population.

I'm not saying there isnt sometimes confusion on both side. But when you say to the controller, "hey, can we delete the speed restrictions?" and he responds "resume normal speed," he hasn't really answered your question, has he.