Originally Posted by
Youmightsaythat
The Italian pilot immediately refused this clearance and informed ATC they would remain at the holding point. ATC queried the reason. The Alitalia commented replied that the KLM had reported a blown tyre and there was likely debris on the runway. Now, can you imagine if that had been a French aircraft that had shead a tyre. If you still can't see there is a problem then there is not much more I can say.
Seeing a problem is not the same thing as identifying an appropriate solution, and may not be the same thing as seeing the predominant problem.
In the case you relate above the first question in my SLF mind is the grounds on which ATC cleared an aircraft for takeoff when they had been informed of FOD on the runway. That issue remains the same however recent another FOD event or the language of the ATC conversation.
On the incident referred to in the OP, I think there's little disagreement that language may have played a role, but a lot more disagreement about how big a hole in the cheese that was compared to the others, and how that particular factor should best be mitigated. Short of requiring all pilots and ATC everywhere to conduct all communications in a given language (would you personally accept any language other than English?), the use of more than one language cannot be excluded entirely, and I'm far from convinced that implementing such a measure would be safer overall than educating those involved about the limits of language-based communication and the need for greater awareness when not communicating in one's native language.
Some of the best-paid jobs I get are ones untangling disputes caused by people believing they understood each other adequately in what was a non-native language for at least one of the parties. Fortunately none of them so far were in the aftermath of situations requiring split-second decisions...