I do not believe there is a requirement for protests to be written in English, just in writing.

Mike ... given your answer, how would you proceed if a protest was delivered in writing in a language you could not understand ... or even a foreign alphabet?  

Let's assume that it's delivered within the PTL and it appears to ID the parties and seems like there is some description of the incident. 

Would you as the PC try to translate it yourself? Or would you ask the protestor to translate it and resubmit?

PS: We had a long thread about people adding information to their original filing.  Would the translated submission necessarily be considered a separate delivery and thus has its own time/date?  If so, and the translation comes after the PTL, would the PC need to extend the PTL so that it can be valid?

I would note the time that the hearing request was initially delivered then request that the initiator to produce a translation.
I might use Google translate, or similar to verify the translation.

I would ask if they could produce a translation.

Clearly if they cannot provide one we will have to find a translator,  as the hearing in english will require one. 

Also we have to consider the protestee, he may need an english translation in order to prepare his case. 

In our International events we determine the language of the event in the NoR.  This way the competitors know that they should submit the hearing requests in that language and also if they do not speak the language then they provide their translators to the hearing.

In case there is no mention of the language of the event in NoR, then I would assume both English and the language used in NoR would be ok to submit a hearing request.

Some international regatta venues, notably Alamitos Bay YC, don’t have good cell coverage, and don’t make their WiFi password widely known. This makes it hard to access online translation services, both for competitors and juries. 

I have never seen an English only requirement, and have never had a problem.
Frequently used translators though, either jury members, or coaches.
I have not seen an employed translator.
Generally to be at an event competitors have to have access to language, and if not their own often English.

I have seen an English only requirement a few times, but believe it's an unnecessary impediment to communicating with the officials.  Given the time limits on some requests, I seems better to me to allow the competitor to submit the request in the language of their choice.  Then the relevant official has all the time they need to figure out how to understand the request either with technology or a translator.  Honestly, I have witnessed competitors struggle to understand event documents written in a language they don't understand.  It seems appropriate that the officials can figure out how to understand what the competitor has written if the competitor is able to figure out the event documents.

A caveat here: from professional experience, there’s a difference between a translation and an interpretation, and I would absolutely be wary of an AI version. That’s particularly so given how dialectical some languages can be; I’ve had issues where we had difficulties getting an interpreter for Algerian Arabic, because it’s very different given the amount of French still in it. 

However: the RRS use a very limited, very specific vocabulary, tightly defined, to reduce ambiguity. Given any terms are defined in and and anchored in specific passages, it should certainly be possible to direct the person to the specific rule they say is breached by reference to the numbered rules, combined with the use of diagrams. I wouldn’t then see a need for an English-only requirement. 

In all my years, I have never seen any written requirements for a hearing request to be in specific language. Events that I have done in Europe, the hearing requests have been in various languages. To me, it is just the start of the process the submission of the hearing request. It is there where translators earn their keep to move the hearing forward. 

Aslan re: "if the hearing is a protest from boat to a boat then the protestee boat should also understand the incident not only the protest committee"

Doesn't that fall within "adequate time to prepare"?

You get a protest in Greek and they are protesting a Chinese native-speaker.   Assuming the protestee is ID'd, then why wouldn't the PC accommodate time to translate and locate translators under the banner of "adequate time to prepare"?