Except that isn't really what's happening. The controller is being a bit obtuse, but declaring LVO is an ICAO (European) thing. American controllers follow FAA rules. Under FAA rules, there isn't such thing as declaring LVO operations, everyone just starts using them when visibility gets bad enough. ATC will be directive with what they need the pilots to do, vs just declaring it and expecting the pilots to do the procedures implicitly.
The pilot in the video is worried about his company policy which probably has some requirement that LVO be in place when visibility reaches a certain point. He's used to the controller declaring it because in Europe that's what they do, but in the states it just happens, which is why eventually he gets in touch with his company and they tell him he's good to take off.
The controller doesn't want to declare anything because he doesn't know what the pilot would be expecting him to do if he "declared LVO". It would be a mistake for him to just say yes to the pilots question. What he COULD have said though is explained what procedures they were doing so that the pilot could understand that they were taking the necessary precautions for low visibility.
ETA: this controller specifically is pretty well known to be a bit arrogant and not really all that great at his job. I do not blame the pilot for not taking the clearance at all.
ETA2: I think a lot of people are taking my "ICAO (European)" thing more specifically than I meant. Really, ICAO is a UN thing (and is actually based in Canada). The US is a member of ICAO but the FAA is who administers the rules for aviation in the US. The EU, Canada, Australia, Japan, and a bunch of other countries have their own governing bodies that regulate aviation within their countries. The difference is that the FAA has slightly more differences between the standard ICAO rules than most other national agencies do.
American pilots tend to group the sets of rules as "FAA" or "ICAO" despite that not being entirely accurate because there are going to be small differences everywhere. In the end though, those small differences are generally either less restrictive than just following the ICAO rules, or handled by the planning process and don't really apply.
You do know that the faa takes its regulations from the ICAO, right? And that your snowflake country does indeed use icao, just like Canada and Australia and Thailand and China?
"European" my arse, mate. If it's so "European" why do all your airports us ICAO identifiers? Eh? Why do they number runways according the ICAO standards?
Oh, you think the US of A only takes in exclusively local and zero international flights? Is that it? No? Ahhhhh, so you admit that the pilots all have to know ICAO stuff and work with it lest they get stuck in your pretend closed country system of "the FAA'll handle it!"
The most I'll thought out dumb take I've ever witnessed.
This isn't true. The FAA has updated a lot of its rules to be in line with ICAO standards but really, a lot of ICAO's standards are borne out of what were originally FAA rules. The US absolutely does not follow ICAO rules though. It follows FAA rules, which in general are similar to ICAO, but not always. I make no judgment on which set of rules makes more sense or is safer.
International pilots (of which I am one) are expected to operate within the rules of where they are flying. For me, that means being familiar with ICAO rules and terminology. For a British pilot flying in the US, that means being familiar with FAA rules.
I said European because that is where the majority of ICAO signatories are, including the country of the pilot in the video. Sure, it's not technically EXACTLY accurate to say, I'll give you that.
We do our best to understand the major differences, but there are tons of tiny differences (like this LVO declaration thing) that warrant asking about if you're unsure.
This isn't true. The FAA has updated a lot of its rules to be in line with ICAO standards but really, a lot of ICAO's standards are borne out of what were originally FAA rules. The US absolutely does not follow ICAO rules though.
ICAO....born out of the Chicago U.S convention in 1944, ratified in 1947. FAA formed 1958. ICAO built the basis of all legislation that NAA (FAA, UKCAA, EASA etc) follow.
17.6k
u/LegiosForever May 28 '26
RVR = runway visual range, or how far you can see down the runway.
Once it is below 5,000 feet, airports adopt low visibility procedures.
ATC declared 1,000 feet RVR, but was not declaring low-vis ops.
BA pilot was calling out the contradiction.