WUN, TOO, TREE, FOWER, FIFE
NINER can be the confusing one
What is confusing with “niner”? I imagine difficulties distinguishing “..ai..” from “..ai..” (faif from nain)
I’ve come to realize that standards are aren’t always there because they’re the best or the clearest – they’re there because aviation has the progressiveness of the Spanish Inquisition. I give to you:
“Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred Feet”
Or
“One Six Thousand Five Hundred Feet”
Which one is clearer? The first example. It can not be confused with any other altitude. It also follows conversational logic and is easily recognizable by our brains, whereas the second one isn’t. If you get a transmission drop anywhere in the first example, you’ll most likely still understand it. If you get a transmission drop in the “correct” version, chances are it will either be “One -- Thousand Five Hundred Feet” or " -- Six Thousand Five Hundred Feet". Both very close to useless. Yet, the first way is “incorrect”….
Don’t even get me started on hold instructions in an IFR environment. They’re so backwards stupid and convoluted that they should have been scrapped at inception.
the best one I heard of not sure if the story was true is “ready to copy your card details for the payment” ;)
All the repeats of non essential information, instead of Wilco, example:
ATC: GEUGA report field in sign
GEUGA: report field in sight GEUGA
Has the guy just repeated the info or does he have the field in sight?
Noe wrote:
ATC: GEUGA report field in sign
GEUGA: report field in sight GEUGA
I don’t think you can say this is wrong, but clearly “wilco” is a sufficient reply.
Would the readback “G-EUGA will report field in sight” be correct? A literal readback appears dangerous to me. Wilco would suffice, I know, but anyhow…
The pedantic readback would be
“report field in sight G-EUGA” (callsign goes at the end, on a readback)
and the optimal readback would be
“wilco G-EUGA”
The pedantic readback would be
“report field in sight G-EUG
In German language, melde Platz in Sicht/ report field in sight could mean “i am reporting that I actually have the field in sigh”. Is there no such ambiguity in English?
No, for that you would be saying
“G-EUGA field in sight”
You would never say “reporting…” because, ahem, “field in sight” is you reporting that you have it in sight 
