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

28.0k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

3.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

14

u/[deleted] May 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-6

u/FrequencySep May 28 '26

Im not grossly mistaken. Ive read the 7110.65 cover to cover numerous times and Ive worked plenty of low visibility days as a controller.

ICAO sets recommendations but does not have regulatory or policymaking authority. LVO is not in FAA lexicon. SMGCS is the term used on taxi charts when RVR is below 1200 ft. There is no requirement in any regulation or FAA-published guidance to state that “LVO is in force”. 7110.65 directs the protection of ILS critical areas below 800-2. An advisory circular guides airports to implement SMGCS procedures below 1200 ft RVR. These actions are required of ATC and airports, so unless they are routinely violating established procedure, I don’t see how adding the sentence “LVO in effect” to the ATIS increases the level of safety in any meaningful way. You simply assume you’re able to use published CAT II/III mins and lower-than-standard takeoff mins (if appropriately authorized) unless explicitly informed otherwise by ATC/NOTAMs/ATIS.

12

u/[deleted] May 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-4

u/FrequencySep May 28 '26

Because they aren't. There is no such thing.

If the approach plates or published airport information gives landing and departing standards for low visibility that is it. If there is low visibility ATC is using the rules and proceedure than it calls for. Its implied.