To the respondants to this post: I salute you.
I hate to repeat myself, but a good healthy discussion is what I'm seeking. ( and it seemes it's what I'm getting)
There are a lot of references to ICAO, but what is essencial in my view is common sence. What do the professionals in the sky believe to be prudent. We can all refer to the scriptures but does it make sence.
As ATC watcher says, this has been debated since 1945. It will probably be debated for the next century.The main target should be finding a soution. If pilots feel better as a whole with one language beeing utilized, shouldn't that set the standard. In the USA there are continuing efforts to strive towards a common phraseology in an effort to increase safety, they only have one language to deal with. I know it's not popular to highlight the USA in these matters, but it is probably the the nation in the world with the most flying.
The referal to the Linate accident made in other posts: Maybe the use of multible languages did not cause the accident, but is it possible that a common language could have made a difference??
As to the argument made that local language is used to enhance the understanding for the needy, that is in my view appropriate, but don't leave the rest of us in the dark.
Confirmation is what we seek, if in doubt, don't take anything for granted, and hopefully you will be safe.
As for the discussion about English not being the the best solution as pilots may not be comfortable or secure in that language concider the following:
If one knows that the operative language is, then one should make one's best effort to learn it sufficiantly.
The higher the understanding the less misunderstanding.
This discussion is turning in to a war between English and French which was not my intention, What does a Russian pilot with limited english knowledge do when encountering a greek controler with no english knowledge do on approach to a greek island. ( Put there for effect)
Î hope the discussion will continue.
Oluf
