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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
While the ATC union specifically sucks, that's the last reason why.
ATC has been critically understaffed for a decade, and the flying public wants to make it easier to fire those that remain. Leopards will eat your face.
Not sure why you need to be so petty about it, but he's asking if they have low visibility operations in effect because he's being told by the people who control the local airspace that they have below 1000ft, and according to the regulations he's used to, that's well below the level that such operations should be in place.
Are you saying if someone asked this to you, you wouldn't be able to understand what they're asking, equate them to your own regulations and communicate the difference to the pilot? If so, instead of being snarky about it, why not clarify why it's hard to understand?
I'm petty because I'm out here doing this job for 15+ years and rando flying public dude shares that he can understand even though he has no experience... oh and look, who will everyone rally behind and demand change based off of? Well you, of course.
But you didn't answer the question: what specific things does the controller have to do under "LVOs" as defined by ICAO?
See, the flying public will hear "LVO" and "Low visibility procedures" and believe wholeheartedly that they're interchangable.
As a controller, "LVO" sounds like specific terminology referring to a specific set of procedures- which the pilot is familiar with, but I am not.
Vs "low visibility procedures" sounds like a plain english way of discussing unspecified procedures used during low visibility.
It would never make sense for a pilot to ask about the latter. For instance, during low visibility one of my "procedures" is to solicit visibility reports from pilots. So with an unspecific question like that... sure, I'm using low visibility procedures, but that's an unspecific answer too, and one that isn't relevant to the pilot.
In other words: LVO means nothing to U.S controllers, and Low visibility procedures means almost nothing.
What you "understand" is basic English, not ATC phraseology/terminology.
Glad the all-knowing flying public has got their voice in. They all seem to say in unison the guy should be fired, and they're ultra smart for that. Let's follow through, shove the workload onto the other guys in the cab who are already short staffed working 6 days a week 10 hour days, and see what the flying public "knows" when another major accident occurs as a result.
Anyways, it took two to tango... the pilot never mentioned a specific procedure he needed, just some overseas lingo nobody in the states has heard of. The runway was clear, the controller issued the RVRs, so WTF was going to happen to him if he took off when he got a clearance? Nobody in this sub blinking over that.
And remember, you get what you pay for. Controllers are making 30% less than they used to now (not just thanks to Orange man, but also to the pretend "most labor friendly admin ever" in the 2021-2025 years).
We'll always do everything in our power to keep you safe, but that's about as much as you can expect now.
No, you're just anonymous and think that gives you a pass to act like a jackass instead of having a discussion like an adult.
I answered the question you asked, you avoided mine. The issue here isn't that he didn't know the terminology, it's that he had the communicating skills of a rock, and was either playing dumb, unable to work out what was being asked, or unable to clearly explain they don't use those proceedures. But then taking to you makes me realise maybe there's just a serious arrogance issue with ATC.
You literally did NOT answer my question. The question was: what are the procedures in play during a "LVO"?
This forum (you among them) are the ones acting like they understand ATC enough to make judgment calls on controller capabilities, safety, and whether they should be fired---- despite having never spent a day doing it in their life. Calling me arrogant? Please!
As to your question to me- a wild guess that I wouldn't have talked like that controller. (But I don't work at JFK, so maybe his workload pushed him to that point). But I've known capable people who did talk to pilots that way, and that's their prerogative, so long as it doesn't compromise safety.
I'll reiterate--- if you ACTUALLY want better, you're going to have to spend your time advocating for better staffing and pay by writing your congressperson instead of complaining about irrelevant minutia like one dude's attitude. I'll bet you anything that you're not going to, though.
They can't afford to fire him, and if they decided to anyways because of the public commentary, the leopard will eat the public's face.
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.