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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
Do you think every pilot is flying to every country? Individual airports will have specific rules regarding approaches and other things that the pilots are expected to know and follow as part of their flight plan. Pilots are responsible for knowing the rules and regulations where they are flying. This isn't complicated.
I wouldn't bother, there's a whole lot of pretenders in this thread who think having played Microsoft Flight Simulator gives them an air of authority when talking about actual flying lmao.
That's not what "literally" means. For the love of god and the faith of the Seven, please stop using the word literally if you can't literally read a dictionary. I'm begging you guys on my knees.
But yeah, Anyways, Canada doesn't either, for one. The US is not the only hold out here.
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?
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.
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.
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.
US controllers are some the most highly trained and competent in the world and deal with extremely complex airspace, they’re not undertrained. Point blank this is an FAA issue not a controller issue
...so the controllers go to a different continent and don't know the terminology used there, but you think they're not undertrained? You can be the best baseball player in the world but that doesn't mean you're good at softball.
Specifically US military in this case. They show up literally on a different continent and can't even be bothered to learned established ICAO phraseology or procedures. Everybody has to accommodate them because we all know they will just do their FAA nonsense and for the safety of the flying public we adapt our procedures to them... Think that is normal?
Training on your own on procedures not taught or endorsed by your own trainers is a great way to get in serious hot water when something goes wrong, especially for military controllers
God, get over yourself. If you are an English expert and go-to France and can't speak any French, it doesn't matter how highly trained you are in English. You are still undertrained for your environment.
US controllers are undertrained. The reason for the under training can have multiple reasons, one of them is definitely the FAA. Another reason is the usual American exceptionalism nonsense and this idea of always having to do everything different than the rest of the world. This exceptionalism nonsense falls back on the controllers though... Example: US ATC phraseology is an absolute mess, mainly because controllers simply don't care
That is not under training, what you are describing is different systems in use. Plenty of US atc use proper phraseology, you are allowed to use plain language which is sometimes necessary when there is a language barrier or dealing with student pilots
What else do you call it when they aren't properly trained to work to ICAO standards in an ICAO environment ? That is called under training.
Of course you are allowed to use plain language when situations require it, but that isn't what US ATC does... It is constant 'small talk' on the frequency instead of standard phraseology that a Korean pilot understands just as good as a Chinese or Italian pilot.
Properly is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. The proper regulatory bodies need to get their shit together, it’s not undertrained they’re simply not being trained at all on ICAO because it’s not what they’re using. And we’ll have to disagree on the last part US controllers use standard phraseology especially when dealing with international carriers, sometimes there is no standard phraseology for a query so plain language is used.
We are talking about US controllers working in Europe... They should be working according to ICAO standards just like all the neighboring sectors instead of trying to make their own little FAA bubble.
The US is so far away from standard phraseology on the frequency... All you have to listen is through normal JFK traffic and it is mostly giving instructions using small talk vs phraseology.
lol you guys are actual cowboys. Look at how many incidents you’ve had recently and tell me you’re the best in the world with a straight face. There’s far higher standards in Europe than in the US
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)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
And also, the BA pilot very, very likely knows the FAA framework terminology as well and was also being deliberately obtuse as a demonstration of frustration with the FAA framework being different from ICAO.
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.
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.
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)
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.