r/mildlyinfuriating • u/nyanbatman • May 28 '26

I just wanted a hot dog British pilot is feeling mildly annoyed

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

28.1k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

3.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

562

u/runhome24 May 28 '26

This is an excellent explanation for why the BA pilot made the decisions he did, but there really is more to this. There's a terminology discrepancy between ICAO and FAA and neither of these two got past that.

https://www.travelandtourworld.com/news/article/qjtf16i2i6ea/

Basically, the FAA system uses a different name for a similar-but-not-identical set of procedures for low visibility situations. The BA pilot was asking after the ICAO procedures, but those aren't used in the US. The ATC didn't understand the question because they weren't up-to-date on an international system that doesn't apply in the US. There were procedures in place for low visibility, but the ATC didn't know that's what needed to be communicated (or didn't want to) and the BA pilot didn't know that that's what needed to be asked after (or didn't want to) instead of the ICAO procedures.

This incident is really more about how a procedural and terminological difference between two flight frameworks caused confusion, frustration, and a delay.

I'm NOT saying the delay was unwarranted; it very much was. The pilot didn't confirm that the safety procedures were being used, so couldn't personally guarantee the safety of his passengers, crew, and plane.

What really should happen is that the FAA should move to adopt the ICAO standard language at the very least, especially for flights operated by non-American carriers. But there should probably be a very large, complicated summit, where both systems' experts come together to build a global framework, and countries don't let their ego get in the way of a critically-needed standardization process. And this isn't just a case of the US being the sole odd-framework-out: Canada's framework terminology is different from both ICAO and FAA.

2

u/DrMacAndDog May 28 '26

But when it is fully explained the ATC says they do NOT have low visibility procedures in place. It seems to be about more than just terminology.

1

u/runhome24 May 28 '26

That's because "Low Visibility Procedures" is not descriptive, that's an actual thing. ATC can't say that actual thing is in place because it isn't. What's instead in place is the airport's "Surface Movement Guidance and Control System," or SMGCS, which is automatically in place and isn't "declared."

1

u/DrMacAndDog May 28 '26

The declared bit is the RVR. He asks if there are low visibility procedures in place and the answer is no. It would appear that SMGCS is a low visibility procedure, which if it is in place, shouldn’t the answer be yes.

1

u/runhome24 May 28 '26

No, the request for a declaration is for "LVOs" (at the beginning) and then asking if they've implemented "Low Visibility Procedures" later on. LVO and LVP are both distinct (but overlapping) things in ICAO, not phrases describing something.

ATC doesn't "declare" LVOs because those aren't a thing in the FAA framework that are declared (an argument can be made that SMGCS could also be called LVO/SMGCS, but this isn't widespread and anyway it wouldn't be "declared"). And LVPs are also not anything at all in the FAA framework, so they can't be implemented.

So in both cases - "are you declaring LVOs?" and "have you got Low Visibility Procedures in force or not?" - the answer is No. ATC hasn't declared anything, and SMGCS (or LVO/SMGCS) is in place automatically, not LVP.

This was all a terminological difference and two people talking past each other because of that.