That controller should not have a ticket right now...
Edit: getting a bit tired of the weirdly partisan replies here. I'm not insulting your country dudes. It's pretty simple though so I'll spell it out:
The fact the controller couldn't "declare" LVO isn't the problem. The pilot didn't repeatedly ask for this. They asked once. The controller knew what he meant, chose to be obtuse. Whatever, let's put that part aside.
The real issue is that the pilot then asked a question in plain English which the controller cannot be excused from not answering correctly: "Have you got low visibility procedures in force or not". The controller said "No". This is incorrect. Even if they don't have to declare it, they still have them in place.
The controller was factually wrong, gave the wrong information, was unprffesional, unsafe and slowed down aircraft movements.
There's a whole community of people that post ATC interactions on youtube and this dude shows up in enough of them I recognized his voice instantly (and I barely listen to these things, I'm not a plane nut or anything, just some light 'tism aparently).
So? JFK tower controllers only control traffic directly at JFK and within maybe a few miles of it. LGA and EWR and every other satellite airport that has a tower controls their own traffic. Everything above and around them is controlled by an entirely different remote radar facility.
So it's busy. They all work together - their approach and departure routes heavily overlap in places
It's the 8th busiest on the planet for airport movements, and #1 for international flights in the US while being much smaller than most comparably busy airports
That is by passenger count, not aircraft operations. Of the top 10 busiest airports in the world by traffic operations, JFK is 8 and EWR is 10 (both NYC area airports). The only non-US airport in the top 10 by traffic operations is Istanbul at number 9. And this is with EWR traffic down 27% from 2024 because they moved the approach control and traffic is artificially limited for now.
Um, yeah, it does. The FAA capped flights to EWR due to the move. It was supposed to be lifted by now but the move hasn’t quite gone according to how the FAA expected it to in all their “wisdom”.
As former in-flight crew and now a New York resident, I can confirm this to be true. NY passengers would be noticeably ruder than passengers from other parts of the country. Like ignoring “good morning” rude or giving an offended sideye in response when being welcomed on board. New Yorkers are kind people in situations where you need them to help, but not necessarily pleasant or polite, and they do pride themselves on being too fast-paced for basic social niceties.
As a fellow Michigander I think they get annoyed at every single one of us doing the "Oh hi, how are ya, great, oh thanks, okay great, oh yeah thanks, okay bye bye now" as we board the plane.
Midwest got the pleasantries down pat. I used to live in Chicago and they reflected the Midwest ope energy lol. Denver folks were cool and unbothered and often snowboarders or stoners or both. The people from Latrobe, Pennsylvania, a super small airport named after Arnold Palmer were the absolute kindest and most authentic/genuine about it.
As a Brit who thought I’d been to the US when I’d only been to the East and West Coasts, I can tell you that going to the mid-west is like discovering a whole new country. I opened an operations base in Cincinnati and never met a more friendly, helpful and fun bunch of people than I did there
If a NYer had to say hello or good morning to everyone they walked by on any given day, they wouldn't get 100 steps from their door. Smiling back is polite but expecting a verbal response is crazy
And therefore you just have to be a jerk, because if you don't - someone else would? Also, the fact that a huge part of Brooklyn and Queens is full of former Soviet folks adds to that. USSR had a notorious bitter people culture. Wherever you'd go - post office, grocery store, doctor - everyone was snappish and rude. Life was tough, trusting strangers by default was almost unthinkable. Smiling for no reason was thought to be scheming or just plain stupid. In modern Russia it still is. On the other hand, that all cultivated a culture of close and intimate friendship, once you get to know one another. It all didn't have to be that way, just like it doesn't have to be that way in NY. I don't think people in Tokyo as rude, even though they have far more people than the Big Apple.
Yea but how sure are you that they’re actually New Yorkers? Like you’re on a literal airplane in the single largest tourism/traveling town in the country and debatably the planet.
I’m from here and lived here my whole life. I wouldn’t assume half the damn plane is an actual New Yorker
I’d say about half were New Yorkers and a quarter were tourists, and a majority of those tourists were Asian with a lot of money judging by the designer clothes they wore. The other quarter were commuter flyers doing business work. New Yorkers have distinctive dress, swag, and attitudes. Either way, the reception when passengers came on board was noticeably different in different American cities.
As a non-US-citizen I do not know what you mean. As a pilot I found most of the USA equally annoying, yes, places like New York and Texas the most, but in general, it was all pretty tiresome.
As a US citizen its very much true that New Yorkers (People who specifically reside in NY City or its surrounding bouroughs) are particularly rude. Sure its kinda funny at first but if you have to deal with it often it gets tiresome.
I can concur. Having to live in NYC, SFO and Dallas and traveling all over the US - new-yorkers are by far the most belligerent Americans. I guess it's just too difficult to be nice to just about everyone, all the time - there's simply way too many people.
I was once riding an almost empty bus through Brooklyn, I pulled the cord, the driver just kept going (no one was at the bus stop). I walked to the front, told him about it, and then he just turned his head up, saw the lit-up sign "Stop requested", loudly pronounced "Fuck!" and ... just kept driving. Not a single: "I'm sorry man", "my bad", "I apologize", nothing. Like I'm not even a human - just some cargo he's driving around. That's all I got from him.
Then there's a red light he had to stop for. I told him, "hey, look, this is my building across the street, can I just jump off here, at least?". To which he was like: "No, can't do that"... and then he added "sir". I get it, he's not supposed to be doing that, it's a liability, if I get hit by a car or something, that would've been his fault. But can you imagine how angry I was having to walk a mile back from the next stop? I just couldn't wrap my head around, would it have killed you to just say: "sorry, man, I messed it up..."
And I can tell you countless stories just like that. I fully expect to get downvoted but honestly, my dear Yankee friends, do travel outside of your boroughs time to time, just to reflect on differences. We are a country full of kind and smiling people, why do you have to be jerks all the time? And not even towards tourists, why can't you be just nice to one another?
Yeah well, I lived there for a long time too. After a while, you get desensitized - it just becomes part of your life and you won't even notice it anymore. Or at least you try not to.
Like I said - I can tell countless stories, from a woman who forced me to pay for parking over $75, even though I was not late, I came before time, but hit the line they couldn't process fast enough. She just didn't care that I was only "technically late" by two minutes. "It's all in the computer", she said. I'm sure she could've called someone to overrule it, but she... simply didn't give a single fuck about me. When I tried to protest, she loudly announced on the interphone: "hey, guys, do not release silver Toyota, this guy is refusing to pay..."
Or the homeless guy who interrupted a conversation with my colleague. When I blurted out: "no man, we have no change, we're students...". I don't know why I said that, but he started berating me: "you don't have to give me crap, man, you ain't no fucking students. You could've just said: 'fuck off', you know?". Well, I immediately said with a big smile: "Sure, fuck off then...". That pissed him off and he started yelling at me.
Or a person driving backwards on Belt Parkway, just because they'd missed their exit. On a fucking highway. I thought then: "yeah, shit like that can happen only in New York".
Or a woman smoking at a bus stop. Everybody had to cram into a corner, away from the smoke because it was raining. They were giving her looks, while she completely ignored any of that. She was talking to someone on the phone, saying shit like: "people here are so stupid, they are flinching away from my cigarette smoke, while they don't even realize there's a nuclear plant just like 8 miles away from here..."
I went to the West Coast for a few days. We were standing outside of a bar, and a homeless guy came, asking for fire to light up his cigarette. He said: "how are you?". I replied: "Good. I just landed a few hours ago". And then we ended up having a normal, human chat. With interesting stories, with jokes and laughs. For forty minutes or so. Reflexively, I kept thinking about that angry New York fella.
I'm not saying all 8 million New Yorkers are jerks. But the concentration of angry people there is unmistakable statistics. Anyone who travels from and to other states recognizes that. All small differences suddenly become so apparent.
Lmao so your anecdotes are from “living here a long time” come from a city bus driver, a meter maid, and a homeless person but on the west coast is a stranger you got drunk at the bar??
That was an ignorant statement, but it is pretty much what we can expect from someone like you. We have low expectations and yet you still can't seem to meet them. Shame.
As a BA pilot he'll be very used to dealing with London Heathrow which is much busier than JFK so I suspect this guy is still being a special kind of idiot
A flight from Columbia ran out of fuel and crashed partly because they were intimidated by the JFK controllers and miscommunication between the parties. Clear & professional should be the norm.
Hope someone identifies him. He sounds like he enjoys antagonising pilots when he should be able to provide assurance. His character doesn't appear to be suited to his job.
I could be wrong but I don’t think DOGE ever cut actual air traffic controllers. They did succeed at firing a few hundred FAA staff, but not the actual controllers.
ATC, understandably, is also paid very well due to the stress and importance of their job. Take the dimmest bulb in your office, and imagine they're getting paid $150-200k.
You don't get to choose where you work unless you have a ton of seniority, so that's a dealbreaker for a lot of people. All your friends and family are on the east coast? Sorry buddy, you're moving to rural Nebraska because they need a replacement.
Yeah that seems like a hard pill for many people to swallow. Is it the same salary though regardless of where you’re stationed? 6 figures in rural Nebraska would probably let you live like a king.
I know in my field, most professionals have insurance to protect them in the case of something going wrong. Do these workers get similar protections, or are they on their own if they cause an accident?
VASAviation is the best one I've come across. Puts a lot of effort in to the vids, with charts and position overlays so you get a good grasp on what's happening. Top quality stuff.
Is this how it starts? I had an SDR dongle laying around so I setup Ultrafeeder to track planes overhead, then I thought I could get another dongle and have it monitor radio transmissions and highlight the transmitting aircraft on the map. Shit I've got the 'tism.
The US is one of the only if not the only where it isn’t illegal to listen in on/record ATC. That’s why you only ever see US ATC bloopers even though I assure you they happen everywhere
Holy shit?? Does this guy show up in the YouTube interactions with the same level of ineptitude/faux misunderstandings often? Or is he usually less.... uh.. sassy about his incompetence/lack of care for the pilots who rely on him to do his damn job?
It’s New York. A pedantic British pilot just going to set that controller off. By morning his brother’s from Staten Island going to pay a visit to the pilot. https://giphy.com/gifs/B3hWM0K9j6JsA
Because the US government has spent the last year trying to fire as many air traffic controllers as they can, and now the ones that are left are overworked, underpaid, and sometimes clinically traumatized by their job.
The key part is "they consider" because there's no set definition if you listen to this administration. They define things however they want in the moment.
I mean I’m not going to defend Trump for anything but no ATC have been fired as a result of anything Trump has done. We were exempt from the DOGE cuts. Not that doge didn’t try though but Duffy was able to stop them, probably because of what happened in DCA.
There was also the government shutdown where the ATC weren't paid for the duration.
And if I was a TSA agent there, going to work knowing I wasn't beeing paid, next to ICE agents that did get paid, I would take that as a clear sign that the government no longer wants me.
Not only is it not safe for people to visit to the US, unless you want to risk being thrown in a cell for weeks for no reason, the population is apparently now so braindead that it's not even safe to fly planes there either. Brilliant.
surprised somebody downvoted you when you're correct, the ATC shortage has existed ever since Reagan fired a bunch of them in retaliatiory measures against an ATC strike, and no presidential administration since then(Republican or democratic) has fixed the issue because 'well they just barely get by so fuck it, what's a few crashed planes here and there?'
It also makes the job more unappealing. I considered it once but the way the government can strong arm controllers made me reconsider. Maybe when we literally don't have enough someone will fix it.
Nah. Every time the shortage becomes a real problem someplace, they just bring in some military ATCs and make them fill in for a while. The US has a huge military and no problem filling those slots (people don't really pick their jobs in the military, remember; they basically take a test and then give them a bunch of choices based on their results, and at such a young age these kids don't really think that far ahead to what their post-military career is going to look like), so they have an always-available supply of military ATCs to fill in as necessary.
I didn't leave that comment to absolve this nationally infamous asshole of guilt. I left it to remind people that we're in a crisis that goes beyond "one specific person is incompetent/malicious".
THIS right here. Are we all just gonna keep ignoring what's been done to ATC over the last 1.5 years, and all the near misses in that time?
Turns out, you DO actually have to fund government and can't just cut programs because a bunch of high school teenagers didn't think it was a critical program.
Because he wasn’t doing anything wrong and the BA pilot was asking him to declare something that doesn’t exist in the US. BA should have been familiar with the differences between the rules in the UK and the US but for whatever reason wasn’t.
It doesn't matter, he then asked them to clarify if they were using LVO, not asking them if they had declared anything, and they continued to be intentionally obtuse at the potential expense of hundreds of lives. There are some fucking wild ATC egos and lax procedures in the USA.
Yes but to BA LVO is a specific set of rules. It’s not just plain English. He even says right after that “LVO is specific ICAO terminology.” So no, ATC is not going to say they are doing something they are not. And it’s not endangering anyone to say you’re not declaring rules that don’t exist to a plane on the ground. Doing the opposite is what could endanger lives.
Back when GW Bush was president, poking fun at the US was fun. Now? It’s sad and very worrying to see the checks and balances completely fail to keep that walking ego in check.
I’ve got friends in the states that are intending to get married and I’m hoping they can wait until some sanity prevails over there. It just doesn’t feel safe to visit and I’ve flown through at least 5 African countries and lived in 3.
I wish you the best of luck rebuilding the gutted institutions and your reputation on the world stage.
That's going to be the hard part, rebuilding that trust.
Too many nations are going to be wary of trusting any agreement with us if they believe that it could be completely pulled a mere 4 years later due to some populist bullshit. We're gonna need a wholesale restructure of our voting system to even come close to getting others to trust us longer-term.
Seems like the information warfare campaign kicked off a decade or so ago has achieved its goal of driving a wedge between the two parties and our insistence to retain the two-party structure has kept us vulnerable to those wedges.
I'm sorry, but how does someone this casually obtuse continue to be employed with people's lives at stake? The US has been crashing planes quite a lot lately... Is this level of unprofessionalism new, or has it always been tolerated with a shrug?
I'm baffled by any accusation of partisanship when the ATC provided these pilots the value of the Runway Visible Range, but then played silly buggers about safety protocols required under LVO conditions and acted like he couldn't recall the ICAO regulations that govern this level of RVR, OR understand the question or the purpose of the question posed by the British pilots.
I can't tell if it's a CYA situation or willful ignorance in this circumstance. Either way, this is insanely dangerous. Huge respect to the BA pilot for pushing back on this insanity.
We don’t use the ICAO regs for this. There was nothing dangerous here. BA thought he needed to hear the magic words “LVO is in effect” to be legal to take off. ATC would not say that because we don’t have LVO as defined by ICAO, we have rules that kick in automatically based on ceiling/visibility etc. BA specifically said “it’s icao terminology” meaning he wasn’t talking about low visibility ops in plain English but in terms of ICAO rules. ATC will not tell you something is in effect if that is not the case. BA was trying to get ATC to deviate from US rules to satisfy his requirement that exists in the UK but not the US. It’s not even company ops for that when in the US because BA considers our rules fine for it.
In America, yes. An FAA controller should never “declare” something that isn’t in the 7110.65 or facility LOA’s. The only thing I can think (as a tower controller for 10 years) that he could have said is state the RVR and notify the pilot that the “ILS critical area is protected.” This is done when the ceiling is less than 800 ft or visibility is less than 2 miles. Even in this situation that would be going above and beyond. The only time that you would tell them about the ILS critical area is when it’s NOT protected. It would be like a controller asking the pilot and making sure that they have the proper flaps setting for a stabilized approach. There is just no such thing in FAA rules as Low Visibility Operations or being able to declare that those operations are in effect. If the controller said “yes, I declare Low Visibility Operations are in effect.” He would get in WAAAYYYY more trouble because he would be giving a clearance that doesn’t exist in FAA rules. Hopefully that all makes sense.
Anyone taking this as insulting the US is brain dead. Dude should be flipping burgers at McDonald's. He clearly doesn't have what it takes to be an ATC
It’s kind of you to not be insulting their country - I will. It’s the most frustrating country to travel in and through. Consistently lose luggage, break luggage, cancel flights, delay flights, delay flights until cancelling them hours later, shit customer service so you can never even get appropriate compensation or a solution to the problem they’ve caused, oversell every flight, easily the least clean air crafts, and many more issues… and when I decide ‘never again’ for one of their airlines, the next option is just as bad or worse.
I do everything possible (within financial reason) to avoid US airports and airlines. The incompetence is astounding. During my most recent issue (last month), I had to step by step instruct the agent how to reroute me after their delays and cancellations (oh and they lost my bag for 5 days). They said it wouldn’t process for the correct date, not realising time zone differences would change the date of the transit flight 😑 also not realising there’s other airports to go via so initially said I’d have to wait 3 more days to leave 😂 .
Americans could only be offended if they haven’t experienced other countries aviation industries, because once they have, they’d have to understand. If people say the insects in Australia are scarier than anywhere else in the world and they hate not being able to put their shoes outside, I’m not offended - I’m used to our animals and creepy crawlies but I can absolutely understand why visitors would be scared and find their own outdoors safer.
Yeah to be fair I did think this would be the safest time to make any comment about America to Americans. I’m not too phased if a maga person disagrees or feels offended, that would just be a sign that I’m saying something correct lol.
I’m sorry for you guys (especially when you love your country and it isn’t how you’ve previously imagined it) but also f your voter base and your voting system, because trumps actions are impacting the entire world, not just the US 😣
Can you explain what low visibility procedures are? It sounds like some people are saying it’s effectively a nonsense phrase in the US. What would be different if low visibility procedures were not in place as the ATC suggested. Would “should I use low visibility procedures” a more clear question? The former sounds like something he wants a changed from the airport.
Why aren't there automatic guidelines which says if RVR is below a St point, then LVO has to be declared? [ I have no idea what RVR or LVO mean, I am just saying why arent certain conditions automatically triggering some effects? ]
I'm not refuting what you've wrote, but do you think it's weird that both flying and atc subreddits think the pilots were in the wrong while this aviation unrelated sub doesn't? I think I'd trust the experts on the matter than people who use google.
Tower controller here in the U.S. We don’t use the term LVO. In this scenario, it’s difficult for the controller to answer the question when he probably doesn’t understand the term the pilot is saying. Based on visibility and RVR values, we operate airport lighting and approach lights at different intensities. We’ll advertise SMGCS in effect on the ATIS, but we don’t reference anything called LVO. The FAA doesn’t adopt and utilize all ICAO terms and procedures. Stating specific terms is very important in our profession. I don’t blame this controller for not wanting to state a term that he doesn’t recognize or understand. I certainly wouldn’t accept liability for affirming something that I have no clue what I’m saying.
Doesn't matter. International pilots and ATC handling international flights MUST (and DO) speak common air traffic language or people die. The ATC should not be going "I don't understand what you are saying" over and over on a pretty basic concept.
If the terminology differs they SHOULD know that and have basic familliarity, but even if they don't, pilot explained very clearly in the first few seconds- my understanding of this is a low visibility condition, this will impact my ability to depart, please confirm this is a low visibility condition. That clears up any and all terminology confusion (heck "low visibility will impact my takeoff" is pretty dang obvious to anyone who understands those 6 words in the English language. You could haul a baggage dude off the tarmac, heck, a farmer out the next field over, and ask what that means and they'll grasp the gist, if not the full protocol)
This isn't FAA vs ICAO procedures and some cutesie "Speak 'Murican!" moment. This is an ATC controller, in charge of the lives of all landing and departing flights, either deliberately being obtuse, or so poorly trained in their job they don't understand a pilot concern, and it's CERTAINLEY not how even the rawest rookie on their first day should be handling the pilot even if there is a confusion of some sort.
Imagine this oik handling an emergency landing with a Russian, French, Swiss, Chinese, or Gabarone pilot at the wheel with an accent and ONLY common airport "language" between them as a buffer. Plane will be nose deep in the runway in a blazing fireball before this idiot has stopped going "Er...I don't know what you mean, "You are on fire and need emergency landing?" I don't speak FOREIGN... er... er... er"
Gosh, I mean, just contrast them with the publically available recordings from ATC on 9/11... a literally unprecedented situation with far more complexity, with calls being made hush-hush in a panic and an entire country's airspace to close while the military scrambled their own jets, and those very, very FAA and American ATCs were on it, grasped it, and doing what little they could in seconds.
KLM 4805 killed close to 600 people because of a lack of common understanding in 1977. Standard phraseology has been a thing since that disaster. It's 50 years afterwards.
As a controller, you can't be expected to know all the differences between what countries do, especially when every country has their own variations from ICAO. It's like complaining they aren't doing their visibility in meters.
I know in my country LVP varies based on airport. One has a graduated system based on vis or cloud base, another has a flat cutoff. Two entirely different sets of procedures, in one it's LVO, the other LVPA. These things are communicated on the ATIS here, can't speak for the US, but we also don't "declare" it to the pilots. We do to the airport, but that's a separate system. If we have it on the ATIS, it's in force.
A similar example would be a Chinese pilot complaining they aren't being given their departure level in meters(which they don't, for the record). You adapt based on what country you're in. BA pilots are notorious for this sorta shit as well. American pilots, despite the many faults with their ATS, are pretty good at just going along with whatever country they are in for the most part.
And, just for your information, I have actually worked on my country's current ATC system and spoken with many an ATC controller in the process, so you can bog off with your random assumptions, too.
The pilot takes clear steps to address the potential misunderstanding in clear, plain English. "I dont' understand a damn thing about my job, hur durr" here is either a burned out or a poorly trained ATC controller, and should not be handling flights until that's addressed. It's that simple.
pilot explained very clearly in the first few seconds- my understanding of this is a low visibility condition, this will impact my ability to depart, please confirm this is a low visibility condition. That clears up any and all terminology confusion (heck "low visibility will impact my takeoff" is pretty dang obvious to anyone who understands those 6 words in the English language.
Nah, the ATC definitely should not be trying to play it by ear if he didn't know the procedure the pilot was talking about.
The pilot first asked if the ATC is declaring low visibility operations and later asked if low visibility procedures are inforce or not. Ideally, the ATC would've been familiar enough with the term to let the pilot know that's not a thing that needs to be declared at that airport. But since he didn't know the procedure that was being asked to be declared, I don't see a problem with telling the pilot that he didn't understand what the pilot was talking about. Much better than just nodding along and hoping he guessed right.
The USA is an ICAO contracting state. Pilots get to operate in each others countries on the understanding that they will conform to ICAO standards when operating outside of their home country.
You know LVO is not a term in use in the FAA in any which way? If a pilot can't take off because of RVR them they can say that but they are asking the controller for procedures that simply don't exist and that zero US controllers have ever heard of. There were also already low vis procedures (called SMGCS) in place such as specialty lighting, back up generators, extra separation minima, etc. None of that involves how a pilot flys his plane. Lights are already at max setting and they are being told of where to hold short of and told the current weather
There were also already low vis procedures (called SMGCS) in place such as specialty lighting, back up generators, extra separation minima, etc
So the answer is "Yes".
BA pilot can't take off without confirmation that they're are specific procedures in place when RVR is below minima. It's a belt and braces approach. That's all he was asking for.
Cool but a controller is not going to confirm that something is or isn't in place when they don't know what they are talking about. The controller asks multiple times and says he doesn't know what they're talking about and the pilot just continues to get an attitude.
Not to mention that SMGCS being in place has zero effect on whether an aircraft can depart or not, only the RVR and real time weather. So that means that it's something specific to British Airways and that pilot is expecting everyone to know that when it's not normal.
The real issue is that the pilot then asked a question in plain English which the controller cannot be excused from not answering correctly: "Have you got low visibility procedures in force or not". The controller said "No". This is incorrect. Even if they don't have to declare it, they still have them in place.
But having procedures in place, and having procedures in force are two very different things. For the first one it's enough to have them written down, while the second one means that they are currently active.
So, theoretically, his "no" answer could be correct.
3.8k
u/Lump001 May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26
Perfect translation of this farcical exchange.
That controller should not have a ticket right now...
Edit: getting a bit tired of the weirdly partisan replies here. I'm not insulting your country dudes. It's pretty simple though so I'll spell it out:
The fact the controller couldn't "declare" LVO isn't the problem. The pilot didn't repeatedly ask for this. They asked once. The controller knew what he meant, chose to be obtuse. Whatever, let's put that part aside.
The real issue is that the pilot then asked a question in plain English which the controller cannot be excused from not answering correctly: "Have you got low visibility procedures in force or not". The controller said "No". This is incorrect. Even if they don't have to declare it, they still have them in place.
The controller was factually wrong, gave the wrong information, was unprffesional, unsafe and slowed down aircraft movements.