All we seem to hear on this thread is the assertion that people saying the use of one language should be mandatory "don't know what they are talking about". This is in equal parts hypocrisy, complacency and stupidity.
Instead of imploring people to give examples where foreign R/T was in use and it led directly to disaster, equally (if not more importantly) why not try to imagine an example of a scenario where a near disaster, in fact, WOULD have become an actual disaster had ATC been communicating in two different languages?
To illustrate the point, think back to the events of the Runway incursion of a Boeing 757 (United Airlines 1448) on December 6th 1999 in the thick fog at Providence, Rhode Island. For those of you unfamiliar with this case, look it up. Only a marvellous piece of judgement and situational awareness from the Captain of the departing aircraft lined up on the same runway prevented another Tenerife.
Now imagine a very similar set of circumstances only this time at an airport in France with a non French speaking crew lined up on the threshold of the active runway and ATC trying to resolve the situation in French. Sound plausible? It certainly does to me. And cue disaster as one aircraft (completely oblivious to the threat facing them due to the use of a language they don't understand) accepts clearance for takeoff right into the teeth of an aircraft still on the active runway.
The set of events that transpired in Providence are a latent threat just waiting to happen again at an airfield where multiple languages are in use. We know all about Murphy's law.
But no, I have absolutely no clue what I'm talking about do I? My insistence on a single language is pure arrogance and pomposity.
Last edited by Plastic787; 14th Jun 2014 at 18:17.