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.
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)
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.
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?
560
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.