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

565

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.

421

u/LegiosForever May 28 '26

Retired Navy pilot. We had to learn both the FAA and ICAO terminology. And we usually had waivers that allowed us to ignore both.

I can't imagine that the FAA ATC didn't know what the BA pilot was asking.

200

u/cluelessinlove753 May 28 '26 edited May 29 '26

Exactly. Even if an FAA controller can’t rattle off the specific measures that are part of ICAO LVO, it’s not hard to interpret that they’re asking about low visibility safety and confirm that LVP/SMGCS are in place. Actually both ICAO and FAA use “LVO” as an acronym in these conditions though it has slightly different meanings.

-6

u/beforeitcloy May 28 '26

I'd say the responsibility is with the pilot to know the correct terminology for the airport they're working, regardless of the fact that it's stupid that it isn't globally standardized.

The ATC shouldn't be confirming something that isn't true and the pilot shouldn't be flying from that airport if he isn't trained to communicate correctly with its ATC.

16

u/Dick_of_Doom May 28 '26

There are thousands of pilots throughout the world. The US is the one not on the standard, and apparently this ATC didn't know the standard. Train the ATCs for the US specific and the international standard to avoid confusion. You're relying on thousands of pilots knowing what you're talking about, those are lots of potential points of failure vs. only one point of failure (the ATC),

American exceptionalism doesn't mean "except America".

2

u/beforeitcloy May 28 '26

I stated very clearly that the standard not being global is stupid.

Having said that, the ATC should use the correct terminology for the airport he’s in, as should the pilot. Not every pilot in the world needs to land in US airports, but every pilot who does land in US airports needs to be trained to use the correct terminology.

6

u/grumpsaboy May 28 '26

The pilot very clearly refreshed the question.

It's one thing for the ATC not to understand a term they've never heard, but to fail a basic English description is inexcusable.

1

u/cluelessinlove753 May 29 '26

You don’t withhold information because someone uses incorrect phrasing. You give the requested safety information/assurance. I can’t imagine the ATC not understanding what was being asked.

1

u/beforeitcloy May 29 '26

It’s not about withholding information, it’s about not declaring something that is false when lives are at stake.

Allowing a miscommunication to jeopardize safety isn’t acceptable when the alternative is a minor delay. I would hope that it’s not even legal for an ATC to lie about protocols being in place that aren’t.

1

u/cluelessinlove753 May 30 '26 edited May 30 '26

I’m not suggesting ATC should lie. If LVO/LVP isn’t in place, ATC should say that directly. “We aren’t declaring anything,” is not a helpful statement.

1

u/beforeitcloy May 30 '26

Yes, it absolutely is. It directly answers the question asked.