An interesting link about ICAO language timeline since the 50's.

Aviation English, A History of - AviationKnowledge

Well, if you do it at a French airport you should be ok.
If you want to do it in Manchester, then you are not allowed, but you can use the local language: English.

Exactly like you can use Italian in Italy, Spanish in Spain, German in Germany and so on.

Local language or English, as per ICAO

Here we use english for all IFR flights, and danish for VFR if initiated by the pilot.

Often most VFR pilots will use english anyway, and for the normal daily routine we're never really experiencing any problems.

Sure a few "not so well" english speakers come by now and then. They're allowed to be here as well, and I don't mind helping them if need be by speaking slower/more clearly/staying away from non-standard.

Wonder how you manage to keep track of who speaks what langauge in a bilingual airspace? And I could see problems if you had to deliver a message rapidly, avoiding action as an example, and in the heat of the moment lost track of who spoke what langauge?

So I can speak English in England, English in France, French in France, but not French in England ? Spot the small problem!

No, I do not spot any problem.

As the rules say, you can use either the country's official language or English.

In England you can either use English or English.

Have England to change the official language to French and then you will be able to use it doing circuits.

Easy

I have noted that, presumably because of their mixed nationalities Vueling Airlines (Spain) crew do all their r/t in Spain in English, including the Spanish pilots. No attempt by ATC to speak to them in Spanish either.

I dare you! Post this in the Latin America and Caribbean forum and see what replies you get!

Oddly (not), the use of English R/T only is mainly supported by monoglots and it is usually directed at France. Another way to vent one's francophobia. Those people demanding English R/T only simply (want to) ignore that English is NOT the only language used. Those claiming safety ignore facts posted by ATC Watcher and like to point out the accident at CDG. Once again, the crew did NOT maintain sterile cockpit. Doesn't matter if it is in English-only and dual language airspace. The report on the accident in Yugoslavia also pointed out that one of the BEA crew members was working on a crossword puzzle. But it is always easy to point the finger at ... France.

Finally, here's some food for thought that hardly anybody likes to comment on:

1. Eyes - you should have two. If something doesn't look right, act. Don't wait for ATC to tell you what to do.
2. TCAS - gives you situational awareness in the air and on the ground. Should make this hate-thread obsolete.
3. Military aircraft - usually on UHF and in the same airspace. You won't hear a beep.
4. Multiple frequencies - even in English-only R/T environment you do not have the entire picture.
5. Monitoring frequencies and situational awareness - Since this is one of my pet peeves, I have watched F/O to training captains when I flew contract in the UK. Even the biggest defender of English-only R/T did not monitor or cared to monitor ATC for situational awareness (in UK airspace), but were very judgmental on those frogs when crossing the channel.
6. The CAA term "provided the risk is low" - There are no studies suggesting permanent higher risk due to dual language ATC.
7. Act professionally - Keep 1-5 in mind when you fly into foreign airspace, adjust accordingly and accept that things can be different not worse in other countries. If you can't, well don't fly internationally.

And so do many of the Air Europas. In Madrid you here more English - English among Spanish controllers and pilots.

How does this work in countries with more than one official language?

Canada ? English & French - not too bad I'd guess, just more of the same argument as above.

Kazakhstan ? Russian & Kazakh but no English (officially) - or does eastern bloc not count?

In Quebec or Ottawa area, ATC is bilingual. They will reply in whatever Language you started your com with.
To keep track of who's speaking what, for the French one they will highlight their flight progress strip in yellow.

While I'm pro English on RT, I had few instances where reverting to local language (French) in unusual situations greatly raised safety while shortening the amount of talking and misunderstanding.
This was in Algeria and Mali for instance.

You cannot expect to hear perfect English in every corner of the globe.
Same, you cannot expect to speak every language of everyplace you will end up flying.

And Plastic787 while your example of situation awareness is admirable and certaily saved the day (united 1448) a common language didn't for this one.
US Air flight 1493 ground collision with a metroliner in LA

Kazkhstan, I do not know, but yes English(again is local + English language) and probably Russian.

Canada, as ehwatezedoing wrote, English, + French in Quebec and Ottawa.

Switzerland, English + Italian in the south, English + German in the North and English + French in the west.

Other countries more of the same.

I already mentioned that one to him/her and got flamed by him/her for it. He/she doesn't seem to care much for others' opinions.

Because it's a total red herring that's why. Trying to argue that - because in one instance one crew did not have good situational awareness - means we can extrapolate from that that we needn't bother to provide crews with all the best tools in order to heighten their SA (a single language is certainly one) is complete and utter garbage.

Yes, you are right.

Thing is, if this particular accident (US Air ground collision in LA) had happen in a bilingual airport, it would be shoved down our throat that single language RT would have saved the day.
And it did not...Not at all.

The point being made is that a single language is not a tool to better SA as it increases the risk of misunderstanding between Ground Stations and crews who share a common local language.

This is why ICAO continue to mandate the primary language to be used is that of the Ground Station, with english when requested.

ehwatezedoing, exactly what my point was all along. Plastic's argument is that single language improves SA, I'm just saying not necessarilly so. I have been in FDs where SA took a surprising back seat regardless of language.

hec7tor,

That's true. But the risk is not as great as when all communications are deliberately obscured by unnecessarily switching to a completely unintelligible language for everyone else. Every time.

One is a tiny and rare risk. The other is a huge and omnipresent risk. Geddit?

A German aircraft and a French aircraft fly together all the way across Europe to CDG. All the way, all comms is done in perfect English.

As soon as you switch to CDG, the French controller and the French aircraft speak French, and the French controller and the German aircraft speak perfect English. Now the French and German aircraft cannot understand the instructions between the other parties - purely because of French pride. NOTHING ELSE.

National pride before safety of pax is not acceptable in modern aviation, however proud you are. That's the point.

The Dutch have it about right. Any chat at Schipol is done in Dutch. But all safety critical comms (clearances and so on) are done in perfect English.

What is your situational awareness regarding the tens of aircraft around you that you cannot even hear because on a different frequency?

Ground, tower(sometimes more than one), approach, radar, military, etc. All aircraft that could be "few" feet from you and do not even hear.

Flydive,

Missed the point again.

Yes, it might be better to know movements further away than those in your immediate surroundings.

But that does not justify the deliberate and unnecessary removal of SA concerning those near to you by deliberately and unnecessarily speaking a local language when both parties are quite capable of speaking good English.

It's a pathetic argument (to deliberately diminish safety just because something unrelated may be less than perfect), just bolstering the opinion that it's all driven by national pride.

There's no excuse.

But a French controller at CDG wouldn't try talking to a UK reg in French nor to a D reg in German, English would be the best option, even though ICAO Annex 10 Vol 11 para 5.2.1.2 stipulates French, with English on request.

What you are trying to balance here is an improvement in SA for aircraft on the same frequency against an increased risk of misunderstanding between local language speakers where in the event that an instruction to a particular aircraft needs to be given quickly and accurately it is better done in the local language rather than translated twice.

eg. an immediate instruction to prevent an accident or incident, while nice for others to understand, would be better for the crew to which it is addressed to be clear and unambiguous and in the language that both they and the controller understand best.