Originally Posted by
Youmightsaythat
This is not about bashing a country. Its about common sense .
The problem is that complex systems tend to be more and more counter-intuitive rather than easily analysed in terms of "common sense".
I can easily see how use of more than one language in ATC could lead to
some disasters. What is not so easy to see is what the best way of mitigating that might be, bearing in mind that the solution needs to ensure
other, more serious disasters will not ensue as a result.
Supposing English is implemented as the only ATC language at CDG. A quick Google suggests that a large proportion of flights in and out of CDG are domestic. My guess (and it is a guess) is that many of the pilots in question will be French native speakers flying only or mostly domestic routes (I don't know enough about rostering to be sure). With the best will in the world, it's very difficult to remain fluent in a non-native language when living and working in your native country. Communication in French will always have the edge for those operating mostly in a dominantly French-speaking general environment. Would communication between Sully and ATC have been so fluid in such a short space of time if both he and ATC had been obliged to communicate in a non-native language? I think not.
If I'm flying into CDG with a French pilot up front I'd feel much safer with French being an approved ATC language than knowing it was prohibited. Of course my perception may be wrong, but I'll need some convincing!