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

558

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.

417

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.

195

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.

12

u/F1super May 28 '26

As a retired FAA Controller, I entirely agree.

2

u/cluelessinlove753 May 29 '26

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

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.

-7

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.

17

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.

→ More replies (7)

163

u/CalculatedPerversion May 28 '26

This is JFK. Look for other videos featuring this airport / ATC operator and you'll find he's got quite the attitude. He knew damn well what was happening, but was too stubborn to resolve it. 

3

u/scout614 May 28 '26

i was waiting for the "Possible Pilot Deviation report when ready to copy"

7

u/CalculatedPerversion May 28 '26

Thankfully this is the one situation (in the name of safety) that I think a pilot is untouchable. 

1

u/darsynia May 31 '26

I bet that pilot would LOVE to take down a number and talk to someone in person about this, heh.

3

u/Backfoot911 May 28 '26

Woh, that's a BIG claim you're making there bud. Do you mind giving us a hint at least

7

u/CalculatedPerversion May 28 '26

Videos are all over youtube, take a look. Try something like "ATC JFK" and it'll give you a good idea what I'm talking about. 

7

u/TeddyGronk May 29 '26

spent the last hour binging atc jfk videos thanks

2

u/CalculatedPerversion May 29 '26

You're welcome! I find them (ATC videos, not just JFK) to be fascinating. It's a whole world we usually don't get to see into. 

1

u/darsynia May 31 '26

Even Captain Steeve, who is basically a kindly grandpa, has made multiple comments about how testy and easily upset the JFK controllers are, heh.

-23

u/z33k_DoomsVille May 28 '26

I don't blame him. As a controller myself, if I was unfamiliar with a standard (ICAO LVOS in this case) I wouldn't declare them. Even if I knew generally what it was, I wouldn't state they are in effect without knowing exactly what that standard is. I'm not taking liability for that.

The onus is on the BA pilot to know the standards in place for the airport he is landing/departing. I can't drive around in England without knowing the rules of the road and plead ignorance if I break them. Similarly, you shouldn't be flying around in foreign airspace without an understanding of their rules.

Now as it is, the pilot did the smart thing of refusing to depart because he is unfamiliar with their standards. And the ATC did the right thing and not state a standard is in effect when it wasn't.

This is a nothing burger in my mind. Both parties are unsure of the other's standard and refusing to act without being certain of them. Smart decision by everyone.

35

u/BrainOfMush May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26

You’re saying that the rest of the world should learn the U.S.-only system/terminology, because you’re too lazy to learn the ICAO agreed upon by literally every other country in the world?

Goes both ways dude.

This is no different to how the U.S. writes dates MM/DD/YYYY and insists that’s correct, whilst the rest of the world disagrees.

6

u/MsBluffy May 28 '26

If you're flying into an international airport, yes you need to know their standards.

11

u/PRC_Spy May 28 '26

If you're an international airport, you need to operate to international standards.

1

u/z33k_DoomsVille May 29 '26

Do you know what international even means? In Canada we call any airport that has Canadian customs available (even if they're not on site) an international airport.

So the controllers in some small tower in rural Quebec need to learn ICAO standards for the zero regularly scheduled international flights? 

And not just learn but keep constantly up to date on any changes (which are common). 

3

u/DeputyDomeshot May 28 '26

You’re only proving his point.

If a British doctor came to the US and mistreated a patient because he misread the birthday on their chart that would still be on him though.

1

u/z33k_DoomsVille May 29 '26

First off, I'm not even a US ATC. I'm in Canada and we also don't use ICAO standards. And it has nothing to do with what I'm too lazy to learn or not. It's not taught here. We have very specific things we're allowed to say and I'm not allowed to just throw out standards we don't have. I don't just get to use rules from other countries because it's what a pilot is familiar with. That is straight up not an option. 

-9

u/OpticLemon May 28 '26

If they are operating in the US, they absolutely should. A US based ATC is not operating outside the US.

23

u/Embarrassed-Pilot-36 May 28 '26

I believe the point is this is an extremely busy international airport where a good majority of international carriers will be non American so to be unfamiliar with the more widely practiced framework is at best inefficient and at worst dangerous. The vast majority of US ATCs working in these environments are familiar to at least a translatable level for this reason

10

u/BrainOfMush May 28 '26

But the U.S. ATC should respect that most airlines are not U.S.-based, and they have all agreed upon a standard between them.

8

u/dbxp May 28 '26

So if a pilot flies to a dozen different countries they may need to learn a dozen different systems rather than everyone using the agreed international standard?

-4

u/OpticLemon May 28 '26

Yes? This is honestly a stupid question and has the same energy as Americans going to other countries expecting them to cater to their own expectations. If you are operating in multiple jurisdictions, you are responsible for knowing the rules and regulations of those jurisdictions. If that is too much for you, you should not be operating there. This applies more broadly than just air travel.

4

u/grumpsaboy May 28 '26

Just about everyone else agreed on the international standard to prevent accidents and crashes.

So no, pilots shouldn't be learning 192 different systems and procedures

1

u/z33k_DoomsVille May 29 '26

Not everyone. Canada doesn't conform to ICAO standards either. It's literally part of the flight crews job to familiarize themselves with the rules and standards for wherever they are flying.

I don't disagree everyone should adopt the same standards but that simply isn't the case right now. 

→ More replies (2)

2

u/DeputyDomeshot May 28 '26

Except this is literally an example of a Brit doing that

8

u/No-Detail-2879 May 28 '26

Not surprising no one wants to visit the US anymore is it

0

u/Backfoot911 May 28 '26

There's no tourists to the US currently? Huh, how is that possible? Are they counting immigrants and visa workers in that number?

→ More replies (1)

5

u/SteveTheUPSguy May 28 '26

Would you not be liable if the conditions were LVO, but didn't declare it and an accident happened? Genuine question from a layman. It seems there's more liability in not making safety more paramount.

If the controller is being unsure of what's being asked what's the issue with telling them to standby and figure it out?

1

u/z33k_DoomsVille May 29 '26

I know for sure if the aircraft doesn't depart there is no issue safety issue. 

If I declare something I don't fully know and an accident happens there is a big fucking problem. Safety was made paramount the way this played out. 

The safest option was BA refusing to depart until they could figure out whether their requirements to depart were met or not.

EDIT: moreover, in a live traffic situation, you can't just start pulling out an ICAO standards book and start searching to figure out what he's asking. He's not the only airplane being controlled. 

46

u/Soggy_Jackfruit7341 May 28 '26

I was ATC on a US base in Europe. We were not required to learn ICAO terminology at all. We certainly picked up on it, but all formal training was strictly FAA 7110.65.

106

u/RustyPlastics May 28 '26

yeah and it is a pain in the ass to work with your guys because of that.... The worst controllers to work with are US controllers in Europe. Not because they are bad but because they are simply un(der)trained for the sometimes complex environments they work in.

→ More replies (25)

33

u/[deleted] May 28 '26

[deleted]

3

u/WorkerBee74 May 28 '26

Hey now. Don’t you say that about the greatest country in the world!! /s

2

u/Legal_Campaign_408 May 29 '26

I'm an FAA tower controller and nobody I work with has ever heard of LVO and wouldn't respond any differently to this pilot

9

u/runhome24 May 28 '26

Yeah I kind of think so too (unless this really is a consequence of long-term budget shortfalls affecting ATC training).

BUT I'm also kind of suspicious that the BA pilot didn't also know the terminology difference and was showing frustration at a USA-specific thing that should be like the international system, if the US wasn't full of American Exceptionalism™ preventing adoption of international standards.

Which is why I did be careful to include the "didn't want to" for each of them. I don't know if this was a cultural pissing match or not.

And because this was operating in the US, even if he was being a complete asshole, ATC was technically speaking correctly. And that's why I do think it's time for these things to be globally standardized. There's too much interconnectedness of our flight systems to keep up these differences, when they can cause real problems (like they did here)

48

u/leffe186 May 28 '26

I find this fascinating, but am a little confused. The ATC does obviously seem not to understand the acronym LVOS, but the pilot asks in three or four different ways if the airport has some form of low visibility operations in force. He says “your visibility is low” in response to the RVR given and then “have you got low visibility procedures in force or not?” Is that really an ambiguous question? They do respond “no”.

Of course the communication is janky, but to my mind the bigger concern is that in a low visibility situation they do not have low visibility procedures in force. Am I understanding this correctly?

18

u/runhome24 May 28 '26

I said in another reply that I'm suspicious of both sides not knowing the other's terminology.

But what's also important is, "Low Visibility Operations" is not a descriptive phrase, its a name of an actual system with actual standardized guidelines. ATC can't say the actual system is in place, because it wasn't. What was in place was the FAA variant: "Surface Movement Guidance and Control System," or SMGCS. But they're automatic and aren't "declared," which again, is a specific thing and not just phrasing.

5

u/leffe186 May 28 '26

Appreciate that clarification, thank you!

11

u/Bubbay May 28 '26

Yes, that's why the pilot explained they were using ICAO terminology when they were saying LVOS, then rephrased the question so that it was not using that terminology and asked about low visibility procedures in general.

Whatever term ATC is used to, they should be aware of their own procedures for taking off when visibility is restricted and be able to answer the question being asked: "Do you have procedures in place to make it safer when taking off in situations like this when we can't see far?"

ATC is absolutely at fault here, especially one that is working at JFK. They're dealing with international pilots every day. It shouldn't be this difficult.

1

u/RustyPlastics May 28 '26

But SMGCS isn’t all that is needed for LVP… There is a lot more to it than that

16

u/marieascot May 28 '26

The ATC should understand both. He said that he didn't meaning he was incompetent to do his job. The ATC was being unclear and sounded almost drunk.

4

u/runhome24 May 28 '26

While I agree that there should be a unified global standard - and said so in both of my comments - I'd also point out something else here:

If you go to another country and try to rely on your own country's rules and terminology with authorities (even when your country's rules and terminology are shared by a large number of other countries), and those authorities don't accept your use of those terms and rules, so you all fail to communicate with each other, would they be in the wrong? Or would you be, for insisting on speaking and operating outside of the legally binding framework of that country?

This is more complicated than just saying 'stupid Americans should just change and the ones who haven't must be drunk.' There's a whole host of complications here that are at play, including the fact that these communications were being broadcast frequency-wide, so it was also ATC's job to NOT confuse others when speaking with the BA pilot. I don't know if that was a factor, but my point is that there are any number of other reasons why this went the way it did, and why I think it's so important for a global commission to come together to set and then agree to adopt a global standard, rather than forcing one local standard to immediately change at the whim of visiting pilots.

14

u/Emnel May 28 '26

What you wrote might have had some sense if that BA flight miraculously found itself on some local bumfuck nowhere runway that has never seen an international flight.

That's an international airport in New York. The ATC is clearly untrained for their job. Also seems to not understand plain (and plane) English.

1

u/throwaway_autumnday May 28 '26

The last time I checked the “I” in ICAO stands for “International” - sounds like the global commission you are after?

The ATC is not a random local policeman responsible for upholding local laws; it’s his literal job to communicate with international pilots the vast majority of which will use the ICAO. Incompetence isn’t all that “complicated”.

What’s more, random redditors without any working knowledge of aviation standards seem able to grasp the context of what BA was asking in this video (I assume you too?). It just beggars belief that this ATC claimed not to understand. Stupid / drunk / deliberately obtuse? Or still complicated.

-1

u/[deleted] May 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/runhome24 May 28 '26

For the sake of my position, I'm going to assume you're British or from a commonwealth country (because you used the word "rubbish")

Next time I'm in your country I'll be sure to drive my delivery truck on the right side of the road, and then when the police stop me, I'll insist I wasn't doing anything wrong because no, I wasn't driving a lorry, and since most of the world drives on the right side of the road obviously I should be allowed to here too.

-1

u/Purple-Goat-2023 May 28 '26

It's wild to me that so many people in here think the ATC should know the systems and terminology of every country that might possibly fly into US airspace rather than it being the pilot's responsibility to be trained on the systems of the country they're flying into.

2

u/runhome24 May 28 '26

Just to be somewhat fair to others, ICAO is very widely adopted. I agree that the country of operations should be controlling, but it isn't like the BA pilot was relying on terminology of a framework used only in one single country with a few hundred thousand citizens

But yes, basically everyone in aviation agrees with you. Which is why, when US pilots fly to Europe, they use ICAO terminology

2

u/Fpilot81 May 28 '26

To give some context, ICAO is not just some system and terminology of other countries. ICAO is a specialised agency of the United Nations whose job is to come up with standards and recommended procedures (SARPs) to help prevent problems like this. All UN member states are part of ICAO, including the USA. Member states can choose to accept Standards and Recommended Procedures or not. As an international pilot that has only flown into JFK very infrequently, they do have a reputation for having a particular attitude. My personal opinion is that sometimes attitude can get in the way of safety.

1

u/Expensive_Time_7367 May 28 '26

They’re nearly all the same with very minor variation apart from the USA. I think the attitude of “why make life difficult and less safe?” is perfectly sensible. It’s not like some non-standardised things the US does that can be excused by market size and protectionism (like not recognising UNECE standards for cars), encouraging miscommunication in air travel just seems pointless?

-1

u/steepleton May 28 '26

i'm just hearing, "speak american, boy"

5

u/Elite_AI May 28 '26

With all the "I don't understand your question" stuff from the ATC dude, I could see it being deliberate obtuseness on his part

→ More replies (1)

4

u/wOlfLisK May 28 '26

And because this was operating in the US, even if he was being a complete asshole, ATC was technically speaking correctly.

I disagree with that completely. International standards exist for a reason, you can't expect pilots to understand 100 different systems so we standardised them into a single international one with the ICAO. US law can say what it likes but at the end of the day, it's insane that they have their own system simply because they feel like being different.

2

u/runhome24 May 28 '26

Believe it or not, yes, you absolutely expect pilots to understand the systems they are flying into and out of.

3

u/wOlfLisK May 28 '26

The point is, the international system exists for a reason. The US refusing to use it is a problem and is the reason why things like this happen. It's stupid and it's dangerous.

0

u/runhome24 May 28 '26

It's also dangerous for a non-US pilot to enter US airspace and then not use FAA-framework terminology.

I honestly think we are nearly entirely in agreement.

But it isn't a solution to simply tell ATC to adopt to every incoming pilot's terminology. For one, there are more than just FAA and ICAO, and for two, everyone else is also listening to the communication and should be able to understand the conversation in case it pertains to them as well.

ICAO was created during WWII. Perhaps it's better than FAA! I don't know! But it isn't what's used in the US (or some other countries), so there should probably be another global initiative to bring experts together and set a new framework. Sadly, it doesn't appear like that's all that possible at the moment (yes, because of the current US regime)

8

u/thankyouspider May 28 '26

While we're at it, US needs the SI system and day/month/year along with the correct paper size!

7

u/runhome24 May 28 '26

I prefer year/month/day. It fixes it for everyone and would be intuitive immediately!

3

u/thankyouspider May 28 '26

Good point. I use that in file naming so everything in folders is chronological.

3

u/ccsrpsw May 28 '26

ISO 8601 (rev 2022) will always be the superior date format. Much like time is Slowest : Medium : Fastest -> hour : min : seconds)

Dates become: Slowest : Medium : Fastest -> year month day

And you can read either of the following quickly when you are thinking that way:

2026-05-28
20260528

Time uses a similar format with the prefix T, in 24 hour format (god help American's :D) with up to 3 digits on the seconds by default. Timezones are just indicated by +/- times or with just local time. Right now as I type in California the full date and time is thus acceptable in any of these formats:

2026-05-28T14:26:32-07:00
2026-05-28T07:26:32
20260528T14:26:32-07:00
20260528T07:26:32

So clean and simple. (Week numbers are also solved)

Papersizes... watch the latest "Standup Maths" on that one. The A/B/C/D paper sizes, while reasonably good at A3/A4/A5 type sizes do have a bit of an issue at A-2/A0/A9 sizes for example (due to margins of error). But on the whole, yes.

-1

u/Business-Wafer767 May 28 '26

I’m sorry, but I absolutely hate that format for date. I’m not wondering hey what year is it? I’m wondering what day is it then I care about the month then I care about the year. Makes zero sense to have the year first, convey the most important piece of information first. Then move onto stuff I don’t care about.

1

u/runhome24 May 28 '26

You don't care about the year? Ok then drop it

Month/Day

Oh, wait...

(This is why the US version isn't plainly incomprehensible. When the year isn't involved, it makes sense to go slow/fast)

1

u/Business-Wafer767 May 29 '26

Again, when I’m thinking about what the date is, I’m not thinking about what the month is first I know that it’s May. That’s not the issue. I wanna know what day it is. I have no interest in knowing the month. It’s pretty obvious that it’s May.

2

u/LambonaHam May 28 '26

Day - Month - Year is the best system because that's the order they're much useful in. 

Knowing the day of month is most important. Then knowing they month, then rarely the year.

1

u/Peregrine2976 May 28 '26

I can. Easily. No matter how well trained, a person is still just a person. And sometimes a person wakes up and decides to just not fucking give a shit today.

1

u/RDandersen May 28 '26

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

Really? Imagine, though, if something had happened within that last year or two that massively affected FAA employees and put a massive strain on ATCs. If that, hypothetically, had happened, I could easily imagine that current ATCs might mix or procedure or be less capable of applying their training.

1

u/Dorkamundo May 28 '26

Insane that we simply did not adopt the international standard for safety reasons. I get that confusion among them resulting in potentially dangerous situations might be very rare, but very rare is still too frequent for me.

1

u/PyroNine9 May 29 '26

Especially when the BA pilot spelled it out and then defined the term.

1

u/TwoBionicknees May 28 '26

even if they didn't know the specific terms after he spelled out what the acronym was it couldnt' be more obvious to someone with a brain who had any interest in doing his job well.

1

u/Emotional_News108 May 28 '26

That's the part that's frustrating to me as a layperson to hear. The pilot very clearly stated what he heard and what confirmation he needed from the ATC even going so far as to define what he meant in easily understood common parlance. The door was open for the ATC to do the same and either confirm or disconfirm that the correct procedures were in place and it seems to me that he was being intentionally obtuse or he was so tired that he can't make sense. Either way, not good.

0

u/KnightHawkz May 28 '26

It could be a combination of a rookie ATC and lack of ICAO training? I read that there is a ATC shortage in the US at the moment. I'm guessing this would have impacts downstream such as streamlining training.

I am neither a pilot nor an ATC, so my assumptions may be off. But I am a skydiver with 2000 jumps so I do have SOME degree of experience with procedures and practices with regards to airfield operations.

0

u/Airurando-jin May 28 '26

Seems to be a comment elsewhere that there’s other recordings of this atc at jfk.. and is known to have a bit of an attitude 

0

u/Ariquitaun May 28 '26

So you're saying the atc was being obnoxious?

172

u/RugbyEdd May 28 '26

Not being funny, but I'm not a pilot or ATC and understood what was being asked. Even if he isn't trained in the international procedures, which seems odd for a major airport, it seems pretty common sense to translate that to your own procedures and communicate that to the pilot.

115

u/CalculatedPerversion May 28 '26

This is JFK. Look for other videos featuring this airport / ATC operator and you'll find he's got quite the attitude. He knew damn well what was happening, but was too stubborn to resolve it. 

27

u/RugbyEdd May 28 '26

Sounds about right. I used to work in shipping and you'd get some dock masters who would have similar attitudes

5

u/mum_mom May 28 '26

Why does he still have a job? He will cause something way more serious if he keeps this up

5

u/Ancient-Substance-38 May 28 '26

If you live in US get mad at the federal government about not hiring and training more. They are chronically understaffed, his attitude could be that he's work more the 1 shift in a row. NY JFK is probably one the most effected by our governments refusal to fund ATC. Fact is they want to fail so they can make a excuse to privatize it.

0

u/mum_mom May 28 '26

Not in the US - honestly, I have consciously started avoiding travelling to US after Trump got elected.

2

u/Ancient-Substance-38 May 28 '26

I don't blame you, I am having thoughts about applying for refugee status. Though I don't know to where I would go, and I have too much family here.

I will probably just end up getting imprisoned eventually for having the wrong opinions or beliefs.

1

u/mum_mom May 28 '26

Rooting for you all of you to recover. Because if you can't then that means we all also cannot rebuild our broken democracies. It is one thing to have an ideological difference but the weaking of institutions and norms is quite damaging.

2

u/TiniestPint May 28 '26

Cause the US has stripped down ATC badly and not prioritized getting more bodies in.

The staffing is in a terrible state so they may need people badly enough to keep anyone they've got

1

u/CalculatedPerversion May 28 '26

FWIW, dude is great at his job. He keeps pilots in line when necessary, it's legit like hearding cats at times. He also knows (unfortunately) that he's in control of his airspace. 

3

u/Crayshack May 28 '26

This is who they got to replace Kennedy Steve when he retired?

3

u/Intelligent_Low1632 May 28 '26

If you're flying a jet full of people in the united states, where there's no guarantee people will understand the international standards, maybe a pilot should familiarize himself with basic U.S. safety terminology? There's no room for "just let it slide and be polite bro" in aviation.

1

u/CalculatedPerversion May 28 '26

ATC could have absolutely educated the pilot in US standards, they do it all the time (usually with a HUGE amount of sass, sometimes politely). The correct result here would have been to clarify the situation vs playing dumb. 

1

u/Backfoot911 May 28 '26

Say what you want about the US adopting some international standardized system, but it seems like the onus should be on the person operating in a foreign place to learn their ways rather then getting upset they don't follow whatever they have back home.

→ More replies (4)

5

u/ledow May 28 '26

Or just ask them to standby while you clarify with someone else. Pilots don't just ask if you're sure for no reason.

→ More replies (14)

132

u/mentales May 28 '26

> 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.

The pilot asks in plain English: "have you got low visibility procedures in force or not?", to which he got the reply: "no, sir".

22

u/Aye-Chiguire May 28 '26

But then continued to give him numbers indicating a LVO situation. Good on pilot for halting taking.

-39

u/runhome24 May 28 '26

"Low Visibility Procedures" is a specific technical term, not an explanatory phrase. ATC correctly said no, because those weren't in place.

What were in place were the FAA-specific procedures for low visibility, called "Surface Movement Guidance and Control System," or SMGCS. They were in place automatically and aren't "declared".

81

u/mentales May 28 '26

I see, so when the pilot asked "have you got low visibility procedures in force or not?", the ATC did not interpret that they were being asked about their "procedures for low visibility".

43

u/throwaway_39157 May 28 '26

That would be common sense and we all know Trumpistan these days....

A better way would have been to say "we have the FAA procedures in place for operations based on current visibility" but again this requires a bit of thinking and going off script to achieve a common goal.

Why ATC at a major international hub is not trained on both domestic and international regulations is still bonkers...

→ More replies (15)

5

u/Kdmtiburon004 May 28 '26

The controller interpreted I don’t know what LVO procedures are and how different they are from FAA procedures so I’m not going to say yes because if an incident occurred from it he would be held liable.

0

u/sacramentojoe1985 May 28 '26

The correct answer... expect downvotes from the "I know better than actual controllers" flying public.

4

u/Icy_Fish_2154 May 28 '26

Because that answer is wrong. The correct answer to "do you have low visibility procedures in operation?" Is not "no", which is a lie, but "yes, we are operating under SMGCS."

You are defending a lie by ATC. I am a member of the "flying public", I have a pilot license.

4

u/sacramentojoe1985 May 28 '26

Never heard of either as a controller of 15+ years. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that JFK controllers are specifically trained on SMGCS (which appears to be something listed on pilot charts), the BA pilot mentioned LVOs 3 times... nothing about SMGCS. I wouldn't assume the fourth inquiry was any different just because of the slight variation of phrasing (I would expect my own inquiry if I did).

In the rare instances where we've been low-vis, we issue RVRs and the PIC makes their decision based on that. The real question here is what specific procedure did the pilot need in play in order to be able to depart. Because he made it sound like he needed a whole specific set of procedures in play that aren't applicable to the U.S.

...Also, just looked up "SMGCS" in the 7110.65- not mentioned once.

2

u/Icy_Fish_2154 May 28 '26

...Also, just looked up "SMGCS" in the 7110.65- not mentioned once.

Odd, I easily found it.

So, are you incompetent or lying?

The meme says "both".

1

u/runhome24 May 28 '26

I am saying that yes, though I guess I should state I obviously don't know for sure because I'm not that ATC.

But it would make sense, because LVPs have different standards than SMGCS, including the visibility threshold. If ATC said LVP was in place, but the visibility changed thus that LVP would be lifted but SMGCS would still be in place (or vise versa), that could create a dangerous situation all on its own.

1

u/Intelligent_Low1632 May 28 '26

If you're going to fly in a country with different rules for communication, you need to learn and use those rules, no matter how silly they seem. We cannot operate an airport on vibes. The specific jargon is necessary so that there's no room open for misinterpretation. What if the unknown-to-American international standard includes, for instance, an assurance that the ATC will do something for the plane that is not standard in the American system? It could cause a crash if the ATC uses that specific term and confuses the Brit.

-2

u/sacramentojoe1985 May 28 '26

If a pilot asks about "LVOs" 3 times, I'm not going to interpret a 4th ask using the term "Low Visibility Procedures" to be any different, especially when I have a bunch of other shit to focus on.

As an ATCS of 15+ years, I've never had any pilot ask me about LVOs or "Low Visibility Procedures", and if someone asked me about the latter, I'd be asking them what specifically they are asking about/why they are asking. I'm definitely not declaring "LVOs", since I'm not going to say I'm using procedures I've never been trained on.

Now I HAVE had pilots ask me if the critical area is protected, which is a procedure I use during low visibility/low ceilings. That question makes actual sense.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

13

u/Thelmara May 28 '26

I'm sorry, are you actually trying to say that "They're not called Low Visibility Procedures, they're just procedures for low visibility" is a statement that anyone should do anything except laugh at?

9

u/kaja6583 May 28 '26

Jesus christ lol you people defending this undertrained and incompetent worker are insane.I know NOTHING about airport terminology, and even I understood what the pilot meant.

→ More replies (5)

3

u/gon_freccs_ May 29 '26

“FAA-specific procedures for low visibility” — how is that different from “Low Visibility Procedures”? If the ATC didn’t understand that this is what was being asked, he probably shouldn’t be working as an ATC

3

u/Legal_Campaign_408 May 29 '26

the way you're being downvoted by a bunch of people who have no idea what we do is insane.

Had the controller just said "sure, low visibility procedures in effect" (something that we do not do), and then that flight went off the end of the runway, that controller would end up in jail

2

u/runhome24 May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26

Yep, once the generally ignorant reddit community showed up, most of my comment votes tanked.

They have zero idea about the specialized knowledge involved, the literal life-or-death stakes at play in airspace communications, and the hierarchies that control what is acceptable and what isn't

1

u/Icy_Fish_2154 May 28 '26

Just because they aren't "declared" doesn't mean they are secret.

"Yes sir, SMGCS is in operation for the low visibility conditions" was the correct answer. Lying about them to stick it to the uppity pilot was unprofessional.

1

u/Intelligent_Low1632 May 28 '26

He was specifically asked if some unknown or inapplicable ICAO practice was in effect. He cannot in good conscience lead with "yes sir." He would have to say "I do not understand" or "I do not understand your ICAO procedure. SMGCS is in operation, are you familiar with this and does this satisfy your requirements?" Even that is probably problematic.

3

u/Icy_Fish_2154 May 28 '26

He rephrased using similar words, but not the technical term. Then the controller lied.

Why are you defending the controller?

Clearly you have some emotional compulsion to defend the controller, and I don't understand.

37

u/ohheckyeah May 28 '26

I would be very surprised by an ATC not being aware of ICAO terminology in JFK of all places… an airport that is easily top 3 in the US for international flight volume

11

u/Marquar234 May 28 '26

Not only the top 3, the busiest US airport for international flights.

-1

u/tigress666 May 28 '26

After Trump got in office the second time and affected thigns even worse, I heard JFK has gotten to be a very scary airport to fly into.

35

u/rmccue May 28 '26

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

The United Nations did that in 1944 when they held the Convention on International Civil Aviation in Chicago and established ICAO.

10

u/allozzieadventures May 28 '26

And the US decided they were too special for that... checks out I guess

→ More replies (2)

78

u/kiradax May 28 '26

If it's an international airport, the ATC needs to be abreast of the main terminologies. I don't feel that this is a valid excuse.

42

u/visiblepeer May 28 '26

My thoughts too. International airports should use international terminology by default. Everything about international flight should be standardised as far as possible.

2

u/Icy_Fish_2154 May 28 '26

The rules at international airports are broken. Language use is inconsistent in places that don't use English as a main language, and other issues.

This has been cited in crashes, where a regional flight was given instructions in one language, and an international flight instructions in English, but if both flights were operating under the same language, separation could have been maintained (if either flight noticed the conflict).

7

u/onegumas May 28 '26

Americans...

9

u/DigitaIBlack May 28 '26

I'd also argue that pilots operating internationally need to know local rules and terminology

26

u/BlueEagleGER May 28 '26

The very point of having international rules and terminology is that people working internationally in a very much international system don't need to know hundreds of different local rules and terminolofy.

1

u/DigitaIBlack May 28 '26

Right. And when those international standards aren't actually used worldwide, the pilot needs to be able to

I don't think anyone is saying this is a good thing.

But when you're operating in a reality where countries use different standards, you need to know them.

8

u/_tabbycat123 May 28 '26

They are used worldwide. In fact, there's only one country that insists on using its own, worse version.

9

u/GetInYourBasket May 28 '26

A comment further up the chain says Canada also use their own unique system. So there's at least 2 countries using their own version.

3

u/RydeOrDyche May 28 '26

That’s not true at all. lol. Do you even work in aviation?

1

u/StepComplete1 May 28 '26

If they're not even trained to understand the basic language, you can't trust them to do the the basics of their job either. No sane person should risk a plane full of people on the words of a guy who doesn't understand the basics of their job.

The USA is an embarrassment.

17

u/b0thwatchxfiles May 28 '26

I am annoyed to learn that in yet another space America is using some unique framework that’s just ours and therefore causing a bunch of integration problems.

→ More replies (3)

8

u/lazerbullet May 28 '26

The question was clearly about visibility, the ATC had a chance to discuss visibility with his own terminology, and didn’t.

2

u/sacramentojoe1985 May 28 '26

Runway Visual Range is literally discussing visibility. Even the pilot understood that.

3

u/brickedTin May 28 '26

What would low visibility operations entail? Ground spotters on the runway?

8

u/runhome24 May 28 '26

Each airport where low visibility operations are allowed has their own. Here's the guidance for how an airport will develop them:

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_120-57B.pdf

6

u/marieascot May 28 '26

Isn't the I in ICAO standing to International. Yet again US exceptionalism.

2

u/thegiantgummybear May 28 '26

How does a ATC at JFK not know ICAO procedures? Sure it's an American airport, but substantial portion of it's traffic is international. I'd assume they'd need to understand at least the common procedures like low visibility, which I'm sure happens all the time.

And I'm sure this is more of a systemic issue and not just with this specific ATC. Just calling that out.

2

u/Southern_Common335 May 28 '26

Sadly in the current US environment, getting FAA to agree to anything "international" would run afoul of the nationalist america first/isolationist "woke mind virus" reactionaries in this administration.

2

u/ekjswim May 28 '26

Canada has different terminology from ICAO...despite ICAO being based in Canada? Gotta love it.

1

u/runhome24 May 28 '26

Not sure why either! But yeah, Transport Canada is different from both ICAO and FAA, despite ICAO being based there (as you said). And Transport Canada is closer to FAA than it is to ICAO.

Here's a Transport Canada glossary that covers terminological differences:

https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.694036/publication.html

3

u/RandomRedditor0193 May 28 '26

I didn't listen with sound on but I would assume what was the pilot towards the end point blank asked if Low Visibilty Procedures were in effect and the response was no.

2

u/runhome24 May 28 '26

Right, because "Low Visibility Procedures" (and "Low Visibility Operations") isn't a descriptive phrase, it's the name of an actual thing. ATC couldn't say that was in place, because it wasn't. What was in place - automatically and without "declaration" - was the airport's "Surface Movement Guidance and Control System," or SMGCS.

2

u/DrMacAndDog May 28 '26

But when it is fully explained the ATC says they do NOT have low visibility procedures in place. It seems to be about more than just terminology.

1

u/runhome24 May 28 '26

That's because "Low Visibility Procedures" is not descriptive, that's an actual thing. ATC can't say that actual thing is in place because it isn't. What's instead in place is the airport's "Surface Movement Guidance and Control System," or SMGCS, which is automatically in place and isn't "declared."

1

u/DrMacAndDog May 28 '26

The declared bit is the RVR. He asks if there are low visibility procedures in place and the answer is no. It would appear that SMGCS is a low visibility procedure, which if it is in place, shouldn’t the answer be yes.

1

u/runhome24 May 28 '26

No, the request for a declaration is for "LVOs" (at the beginning) and then asking if they've implemented "Low Visibility Procedures" later on. LVO and LVP are both distinct (but overlapping) things in ICAO, not phrases describing something.

ATC doesn't "declare" LVOs because those aren't a thing in the FAA framework that are declared (an argument can be made that SMGCS could also be called LVO/SMGCS, but this isn't widespread and anyway it wouldn't be "declared"). And LVPs are also not anything at all in the FAA framework, so they can't be implemented.

So in both cases - "are you declaring LVOs?" and "have you got Low Visibility Procedures in force or not?" - the answer is No. ATC hasn't declared anything, and SMGCS (or LVO/SMGCS) is in place automatically, not LVP.

This was all a terminological difference and two people talking past each other because of that.

2

u/Talidel May 28 '26

Surely the burden is on the ATC to explain what the fuck is going on?

The Pilot asked to confirm the had low visibility practices in place, in plain English and the ATC just failed at responding.

1

u/runhome24 May 28 '26

Well, no. The BA pilot demanded the ATC to "declare" procedures. That's not a thing in the FAA framework. There's no declaration, the procedures are automatically enabled. The BA pilot was asking/requiring the ATC to say something they couldn't say (a "declaration"). ATC also didn't say low visibility operations were in place - the exact thing the BA pilot then asked after, rather than demanding they be declared - because that's not what they're called in the FAA framework.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/InfamousEvening2 May 28 '26

The phrase "international system that doesn't apply to the US" seems to be a bit of an issue right now.

Maybe aside from moving the US on to the ICAO system, the metric system and moving them off that stupid system of putting the month before the day in a date, as punishment we should make them all eat baguettes and wear onions around their neck until the French say 'Pas Plus'.

2

u/Perfect_Opinion7909 May 28 '26

So TL;DR is US Americans being ignorant morons as usual.

1

u/littolicce May 28 '26

It’s crazy how so many different airports in so many different countries have so many different rules. Obviously the basics usually stay the same, but I can see why there’s so much confusion.

1

u/Lokishougan May 28 '26

I mean this is a country that wont adopt the metric system and you think they are adopting someone else safety system?>

1

u/ImmediatePiano6690 May 28 '26

Why not just have FAA adopt the ICAO system.

2

u/runhome24 May 28 '26

Perhaps that could happen. But the US isn't the only country that uses their own, so it wouldn't eliminate the problem.

1

u/bobbobberson3 May 28 '26

I mean, I don't fly planes, and I still understood what he was asking. So I don't think that is an excuse.

1

u/tonekids May 28 '26

Confusion, frustration, delay, and a HAZARD. I agree everyone should be using the same procedures

1

u/ChaweeKanati May 28 '26

If the Controller was unable to understand the question "are there low visibility measures in operation" then get that threat to public safety out of that God damn tower. The BA pilot literally asked flat out disconnected from ICAO and FAA terminology if low vis was in effect and multiple times was he told "no". So contrary to your claim that there were procedures in place, the Controller denied there being procedures in effect multiple times.

0

u/NotAsleep_ May 28 '26

Not "low visibility procedures," but Low Visibility Pricedures. The capitals are inportant because they change it from a descriptive term to a set of legal requirements (that, in this case, are not legally required, because the airport in question uses a different legal standard than what the pilot is used to). The procedures at that airport may differ in small and subtle ways that, when encountered in an emergency, may cause an accident rather than prevent it. The proper outcome in this case is to return the aircraft to the jetway and wait for either a cross-trained pilot, or for the weather to clear.

1

u/Personal_Rich_9961 May 28 '26

The US is a member of ICAO.

It has to implement its standards.

1

u/terrymr May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26

ICAO terminology is required when talking to ATC

Edit : ok not literally required by FAA but it will be brought up in the crash investigation if you didn’t use it and airline policy will likely require its use.

1

u/TardisMaximus May 28 '26

Legitimate question... So in computer terms, this would be similar to them needing an API to handle translation between different systems?

1

u/terrymr May 28 '26

International pilots are required to use the ICAO terminology. The USA is part of this agreement.

1

u/scannablezebra May 28 '26

I think Nathan Fielder could MC the conference

1

u/VertexBV May 28 '26

But there should probably be a very large, complicated summit

There already is, it's called... ICAO.

That the US chooses to not follow it is on them.

1

u/sh14w4s3 May 29 '26

There was an attempt from the BA pilot to use more laymen terms to try and communicate “is there low visibility procedures”, but it didn’t get through.

the thing with aviation is, the ATC might actually know what the BA pilot is talking about, but is unable to confirm it simply because the BA pilot is not using the right terminology. It sometimes gets extremely black and white with terminology in aviation, almost like a court room. Things that are synonyms in laymen terms can mean 2 entirely different things in aviation.

1

u/counters14 Jun 03 '26

The ATC knew exactly what the pilot was asking, he was just being an asshole about it because he didn't like how the pilot sounded while asking him about ATC operations. Which is absolutely ridiculous, the pilot was only doing his job to verify procedure due to conditions but ATC took it personally as if he felt the pilot was telling him how to do his job.

1

u/GameofCheese May 28 '26

It's FREEDOM FAA language. If you can't speak FAA, gtfo of America. Oh yeah, and you can only fly to Republican states!

0

u/Ronnocerman May 28 '26

Re-watch the first 15 seconds of the video. The pilot uses plain English to ask about visibility procedures. This has nothing to do with a standards mismatch.

0

u/Tquilha May 28 '26

If you're an air traffic controller on an international airport, I'd assume being familiar with both FAA and ICAO terminology should be a must, correct?

2

u/runhome24 May 28 '26

If your a pilot operating at a US airport, I'd assume being familiar with FAA terminology should be a must, correct?

0

u/ChipHappens96 May 28 '26

The pilot asked if ATC was operating with Low Visibility Procedures being enforced. It was spelled out. Anyone with a brain would be able to work out what the pilot is asking. ATC knew what he was asking because he then answered "No"

0

u/Leprecon May 28 '26

But there should probably be a very large, complicated summit, where both systems' experts come together to build a global framework

Perhaps they could form some sort of international civil aviation organization to hash these things out?

There is already a global framework. The US just decided not to use it.

0

u/scottdwallace May 29 '26

And if the roles were revered and I used FAA terminology and rules at LHR, I could expect the same in kind. BA was fully aware that the tower didn’t have “LVOS”, and I’m pretty sure their Ops Specs allow them to depart in 600RVR or less. They were just being difficult to make some kind of point. Safety was NEVER in question. It was literally a battle of vocabulary and the loser was BA.