Dave,,
Each gage-maker shop has rights & responsibilities to use an appropriate tolerance, typically not exceeding 5% of the overall tolerance applied to the feature being inspected. If I'm making a granite mill grinding wheel then the tolerances would be fairly loose and any gages made for checking it would be looser than if it was for a precision bearing. When people tell you things like "my tolerances are looser than that", you have to maintain a view to the source and their market base; you can't make a blanket statement then that nobody uses the published gage-maker tolerances ... as implied by your comment.
Your reference to 3-30 seems irrelevant; tabulated values of tolerances for feature control frames applied directly to a feature on a drawing seems misplaced in this conversation. As for Fig. 3-29 in '09, which I suspect you meant to reference, please also read section 1.1.4 regarding incompleteness of figures when they are showing a specific concept. This figure is specifically intended to show FCF placement.
As for a general surface profile not considering the function of the part ... well, "decent" does not automatically mean "gross" or "excessive". ISO has traditionally mandated that the general tolerance be the shop's poorest capability. To me, that is rarely known and irrelevant ... I'm not going to put a +/-5mm tolerance on a chamfer just because some supplier in Asia uses a hand-file to break edges. My advice to clients is to use the most common (i.e. frequently occurring) tolerance on their drawing as the default surface profile tolerance; this significantly reduces the drafting time and communicates the exact same design intent as putting individual controls on every feature ... plus, it ensures that every feature IS in fact controlled ... the old +/- system never truly achieved that. The issue that a few people have with using the "most common value" method is making the mental leap; it's just a mental switch that needs to be toggled.
As a participant in a number of Y14.5 meetings, I can assure you that the intent of the standard IS to ensure that the entire part is defined. That means that every feature of size (excepting primary datum fos and secondary datum fos under certain conditions) must be toleranced for location. Junk features such as fillets, rounds, chamfers, etc. are still permitted to have +/- tolerancing, but it adds no overriding benefit to the product definition.
As for supporting the general surface profile philosophy, it is shown well in the '09 edition. Start with 2.1.1.2(b) Basic Dimensions. Check out 3.3.35 All-Over Symbol. 8.2.3 Profile Tolerances as General Requirements. Maybe look at 2.1.1 (e) and 2.1.1.1 also.
The argument about "well, the standard doesn't tell me that I HAVE to do it that way" always arises. In a grossly simplified interpretation, "shall, must, will" are directives rather than suggestions. These are mostly avoided to cut off legal issues except where safety is at risk. "Preferably" is about as strongly worded a recommendation as can be made; i.e. do it another way at your own peril ... not recommended...Danger Will Robinson. "May" is typically a guidance word and probably sends you in the right direction for best practices.
Jim
Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services
TecEase, Inc.