Originally Posted by
ATC Watcher
Now we can continue this very interesting discussion using facts.
Respectfully, at least the first definition posted is EASA IR, not ICAO.
We need to understand without an inferiority complex, US aviation as a whole is the global technology leader in aeronautics. What usually happens is their empirical habits are studied, adjusted, formalised, and later ICAO guidance comes out of it. The world audience then can enjoy a structured regulation package, but the experienced pioneers don't have the imminent need to adopt that word by word anymore.
Indeed, most of the all-weather ops expertise is actually a UK+French-born science and does not really fit the above storyline. However, the main document
https://store.icao.int/en/manual-of-...tions-doc-9365 is built on top of EASA and FAA harmonized practice.
A free copy:
https://www.skybrary.aero/sites/defa...shelf/2983.pdf. Other parts of the world implement accordingly, for example here:
https://www.caas.gov.sg/docs/default...operations.pdf
Among other guidance, EASA issues CS (certification specification, equivalent of FARs with a standalone legal status) for the airborne hardware
https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/docume...cs-awo-issue-2
ATC Watcher kindly check the latest developments
https://www.easa.europa.eu/community...r-Operations-0, notably, LVTO now starts at 550 meters.
But I agree, the feeling of 'hey look guys, really, you don't seem to understand what you are doing' is hard to push aside when reading about how this incident unfolded.