Here we go again,
My dear Oluf,
As Danny correctly said this subject comes back regularly , at least once a year since the beginning of this site. With a little bit of research you could find all the answers, but, Oluf, since you took the effort to explain the reasons behind the question, I will oblige one more time :
Let΄s go step by step and in shortcuts (and without xenophobia) :
First, the problem has been debated inside ICAO since 1945 . The current regulations are seen by many as the best compromise one can get. If you are unaware of them , a good start would be to look into the ICAO Annexes dealing with communications, and once you are done, look into the debates on the issue during the last ICAO Air navigation Conference (ANC) in October 2003. All of these are avail on
www.icao.org
Secondly you have to be able to make the difference between phraseology based on the English language which is the ICAO definition and the generic words English language
These are 2 completely different things.
And while everyone (i..e. every Civil aviation authority in each State ) agrees with the ICAO definition, , inclusion of the other is the purpose of a very heated debate.
The current ICAO regulation is that the prime language to be used in aviation on the R/T of a particular Country is a language defined by the authority of the Country overflown. In case of incompatibility, a phraseology based on English shall be made available ( even through an interpreter ) This is currently done in all ICAO member States. Again this is not perfect, but it is the best reachable compromise one can get in this world presently.
There is , during every ICAO ANC, a debate on the issue, but every time the status quo remains . As the ANC meets every 10 years, it is safe to assume that nothing will change until 2014. Since data link will by then , take probably an increasing predominance, I could also safely predict that the language issue is unlikely to be modified even by then. You have to realise that is (very unfortunately ) also a serious political issue.
But everyone also agrees now that phraseology alone is not sufficient to communicate, especially in cases of emergency. For this reason ICAO is sponsoring English language courses awareness for ATM personal through a very ambitious programme, but it remains on request , (i.e for States requesting it.)
It is a very lengthy process , as you have to realise that for instance, the numbers of controllers in South& central America, in Russia and in China alone, are more than the number of controllers in the rest of the world.
Also there are far, far more accidents , let alone incidents , caused by bad (English ) phraseology than caused by the use of two languages simultaneously .
For instance the recently published Final report on the Linate Crash has poor (English ) phraseology in the list of the contributing factors, not the fact hat the controller was using Italian and English simulteanously.
Therefore if you were ICAO you would concentrate your efforts on phraseology instead than on language issues, (where there is anyway little political will to change. )
Most of us, dealing with safety , are also not convinced that this is the most pressing thing to do , seen the limited resources ICAO has. Also , to be fair, one has to admit that speaking native language between pilots and controllers has also safety advantages, especially in areas where over 90% of the traffic is national. Forcing everyone to speak another language from day x would certainly have safety impacts during the transition period.
Many are not really prepared to take that risk .
It does not mean however that this cannot be done, it just need very serious planning and a complex training programme , but, as I said earlier, given limited resources, priorities have to be set and choices to be made.
I am not denying the problem, just being honest with the reality.
Therefore, and as a conclusion : it is extremely unlikely that the language issue be solved .
Finally, do not be afraid of new European states joining the EU in 2 months time, their CAAs are all post communist era and they generally all speak a better English than most US citizens.
Also do not let yourself be fooled by the so called accidents caused by the mixture of 2 languages in the frequency they are generally all overdone to justify an argument. Read instead the accident reports when they are published ,to make your own opinion. You will find that in almost all cases the language is an accessory factor , i.e one that could perhaps have influenced the outcome , but never was a primary cause.
The well know , often used recent case : the CDG accident between a Shorts and a MD87, is such a typical example. Read the final report avail in English at
www.bea-fr.org if you doubt what I say. ( I have just incidentally a few weeks ago discussed the matter with some of the investigators of that accident and they even do not believe that had all the R/T been in English, it would have changed anything. But this is another debate ) Every accident is a complex mixure of many factors, it is extremely difficult to isolate one .
And at last a request to Danny : since I seem to repeat myself every year or so on this subject, could you consider putting this post somewhere reachable on PPRuNe, in order that we can refer to it in the future when someone surely will re-inquire on this issue ?