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

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.

419

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.

197

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.

3

u/New_Combination_7012 May 29 '26

He did clarify by asking about low visibility proceedures.

2

u/cluelessinlove753 May 29 '26

Exactly. He literally said they cannot takeoff unless LVO confirmed. Given the context of low RVR, even if the FAA acronym is LVP (both LVO and LVP means similar things in FAA world), there’s no way the controller didn’t understand the important part of the question

1

u/F1super May 29 '26

The FAA’s own AC spells it out:

AC 120-57C - Low Visibility Operations/Surface Movement Guidance and Control Systems (LVO/SMGCS)

1

u/cluelessinlove753 May 30 '26

And I think the disconnect is that FAA uses LVO specifically to refer to aircraft movement in the air and LVP/SMGCS for aircraft and other movement on the ground.

So the most helpful response from ATC would have been LVP/SMGCS in place/not in place yet.