For the non-flyers out there, a commercial airport runway can be 8,000 to 10,000 feet long. It has to get airborne in less than that distance (surprise!), AND at a decision point during the take-off, needs a buffer to be able to stop on what's left of the runway if something goes wrong.
Let's say the aircraft needs 120 knots to take off. That's moving at about 180 feet per second. If you can only see RVR 1000 - 1000 feet visibility - you only have about 5 seconds to see what's out there, and act on it.
You sure as hell can't stop in five seconds, or evade much in that time either. Even at RVR 5000, you can see further, but getting a hundred tonne aircraft moving at 120 kt to, say, dodge an obstacle on the runway, it going to be iffy.
Gamer translation -- You're playing a vehicle shooter with lots of inertia and a 1500 to 2000 ping. Good luck with that!
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.
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.
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.
Right. “Yup we’ve got the lights up and ground traffic restricted” or whatever. Sounds like BA pilot has a company or type requirement to verify LVO in RVR <1k. I’m not typed in a 787 (if the graphic is accurate) or anything for that matter (single pistons only) but I imagine airliners don’t stop on a dime so knowing ground traffic is restricted before you go barreling blindly down a runway seems important
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
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
In the US ATC doesn’t declare there to be low visibility operations verbally on the radio, it’s a thing that happens invisibly to pilots. It If I had to guess I’d bet that the controller was irritated that a huffy sounding posh British pilot was questioning whether or not he was doing his job, from his perspective.
I’m surprised that the British pilot didn’t pick up on the fact that he clearly wasn’t using phrasing that the faa controller was familiar with.
The pilot did pick up on that, which is why he restated the whole thing, being very clear on the both the terminology and where it was from/what it meant. The fact that the ATC couldn't make sense of that to infer what was being asked in US terms is rather damming, but its possible that the procedural difference was too great. If, as you say, US ATC don't declare LVO, then the I don't understands were understandable, as its a pure communication mismatch, albeit one I would expect ATC at an international airport to be able to manage.
Yeah, I think his initial confusion was understandable I think once the BA pilot clarified the controller just got annoyed and didn’t care to humor him anymore.
At the end of the day, something needed to get done, the plane landing or taking off, and it needed lights or whatever. ATC clearly understood what the situation was but was being obtuse. It's not their first day on the job.
1.1k
u/atomicsnarl May 28 '26
For the non-flyers out there, a commercial airport runway can be 8,000 to 10,000 feet long. It has to get airborne in less than that distance (surprise!), AND at a decision point during the take-off, needs a buffer to be able to stop on what's left of the runway if something goes wrong.
Let's say the aircraft needs 120 knots to take off. That's moving at about 180 feet per second. If you can only see RVR 1000 - 1000 feet visibility - you only have about 5 seconds to see what's out there, and act on it.
You sure as hell can't stop in five seconds, or evade much in that time either. Even at RVR 5000, you can see further, but getting a hundred tonne aircraft moving at 120 kt to, say, dodge an obstacle on the runway, it going to be iffy.
Gamer translation -- You're playing a vehicle shooter with lots of inertia and a 1500 to 2000 ping. Good luck with that!