jnmeade wrote: OK. It's your turn. This is your site and you get the last word.
It's not really my site, Jim; I'm just the moderator. But, I will respond, because:
(1) it's fun discussing these matters with someone as knowledgeable as you
(2) this might be instructional for others on the forum
(3) often, these discussions are instructional for me.
However, this will probably be my last word on the topic, only because we're both guilty of thread drift.
As for FCC, the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, gives the FCC the authority to create and issue licenses, create rules
applicable to licensees, and to enforce those rules. Case law has held that the FCC is empowered to enforce those rules
only on licensees. In the case of the pirate radio operations you mention, enforcement can't be done by FCC, but rather has to be pursued by the US Attorney's offices. FCC typically turns those cases over to federal marshals, if they are serious enough. Ham operations out of band are prosecuted by FCC because the perpetrator holds an FCC license. Bootleg operations in the ham bands by non-licensees are prosecuted not by FCC, but rather by the US Attorney.
With respect to aviation radios in particular, there have been a few cases of deliberate interference that were considered safety of flight issues, that were then successfully prosecuted not by FCC or FAA, but by the FBI, under a completely different set of rules. (Shining laser pointers at airplanes also falls within this area, I believe. It's a safety issue, but not an FCC or licensing one).
As for terminology, I know the pilot-controller glossary is supposed to be binding upon ATC personnel, but I doubt that it is applicable to pilots, and I know of no cases where a pilot was ever cited for improper terminology. These guidelines are intended to ensure clarity and understanding, and thus promote safety. Yes, "looking" is not in the glossary, but it's generally understood, and indicates safety awareness. "Tally ho" is military terminology for "traffic in sight", is not official, but is generally understood (as are "bingo fuel" and a bunch of other militarisms). When we cancel IFR, the controller usually says "squawk VFR, frequency change approved, good day." That "good day" is not in the glossary (neither is my usual response of "thanks for the service") but is polite common practice, and does nothing to compromise safety. No controller ever got reprimanded for saying "good day". No pilot ever got cited for "looking".
So, getting back to the traffic pattern at non-towered airports, is "blue light sport on downwind" wrong? According to the pilot-controller glossary, probably. Does it promote safety? I maintain that it does. Does it reduce frequency congestion? Probably. Will the FAA or the FCC cite you for improper procedures? I rather doubt it.
International flight: yes, ICAO requires radio licenses. Sport Pilots can currently fly LSAs to the Bahamas (but not to Canada or Mexico), but need a radio station license and operator's permit to do so. The Bahamian government is happy to have you, and glad to sell you their $12/gallon avgas. Does anybody ever check radio licenses? Well, I was only ever asked once to produce mine. That was on a trip into Mexico in 1984. (Since the person asking was wearing a big sombrero, twin pistoles, and crossed gunbelts, I didn't argue with him...) Neither FAA nor FCC seems to care, but if the federales do, you'd better have them aboard.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread topic. Frequency change approved. Good day.