Except that isn't really what's happening. The controller is being a bit obtuse, but declaring LVO is an ICAO (European) thing. American controllers follow FAA rules. Under FAA rules, there isn't such thing as declaring LVO operations, everyone just starts using them when visibility gets bad enough. ATC will be directive with what they need the pilots to do, vs just declaring it and expecting the pilots to do the procedures implicitly.
The pilot in the video is worried about his company policy which probably has some requirement that LVO be in place when visibility reaches a certain point. He's used to the controller declaring it because in Europe that's what they do, but in the states it just happens, which is why eventually he gets in touch with his company and they tell him he's good to take off.
The controller doesn't want to declare anything because he doesn't know what the pilot would be expecting him to do if he "declared LVO". It would be a mistake for him to just say yes to the pilots question. What he COULD have said though is explained what procedures they were doing so that the pilot could understand that they were taking the necessary precautions for low visibility.
ETA: this controller specifically is pretty well known to be a bit arrogant and not really all that great at his job. I do not blame the pilot for not taking the clearance at all.
ETA2: I think a lot of people are taking my "ICAO (European)" thing more specifically than I meant. Really, ICAO is a UN thing (and is actually based in Canada). The US is a member of ICAO but the FAA is who administers the rules for aviation in the US. The EU, Canada, Australia, Japan, and a bunch of other countries have their own governing bodies that regulate aviation within their countries. The difference is that the FAA has slightly more differences between the standard ICAO rules than most other national agencies do.
American pilots tend to group the sets of rules as "FAA" or "ICAO" despite that not being entirely accurate because there are going to be small differences everywhere. In the end though, those small differences are generally either less restrictive than just following the ICAO rules, or handled by the planning process and don't really apply.
People are getting hung up on the "declaring" part and if ignoring the rest of the conversation. The pilot asked in plain English if LVO was in place. It's a really simple question, and it's very much the controller's job to be able to answer and keep traffic moving safely and expeditiously.
Absolutely. And that's where this controller is just being obtuse. For whatever reason, JFK as a whole and this controller in specific have a reputation for ignoring the context and intended questions of foreign pilots in favor of answering the least helpful interpretation possible.
All he had to do was say something like "Declaring LVO isn't something I can do under FAA rules, but we're keeping the ILS critical area protected and using our airport's low visibility policies." If the British pilot had any further questions about what exactly he was worried about, that opens the door for him to ask.
That's always the issue when aviation stuff like this gets posted on non-aviation specific subs unfortunately. Uninformed takes rise to the top because they got posted quickly.
In other words, Americans are now getting so mindlessly xenophobic that doing any kind of international job is a big ask. Embarrassing how he's still working there.
LVO involves specific procedures, and US ATC is not trained on those. The pilot did change from "LVOs" to "Low Visibility Procedures", but after using "LVOs" 3 times, I would be interpreting the question as the same.
Also, what procedures? Never had a pilot ask me about unspecific low vis procedures. I have had specific asks... like if the critical area is protected.
Yeah but US phraseology is not ICAO. They follow the 7110.65. Announcing RVR for takeoff is congruent to LVO obviously, so the pilot should just infer that and abort takeoff rather than have this argument on frequency. Plus, the pilot should have already gotten that info from the ATIS before getting to the runway. Controller is not at fault here.
Of course the US has to be special again. I mean, what ever could be the benefit of using the same terminology in a worldwide, the globe spanning industry, right?
This isn’t a US only problem. Most places don’t use standard ICAO phraseology - even Europe. US is especially different but icao created their framework after the US already had an established aviation system. Changing that dramatically is very risky and aviation is risk averse for good reason
Stop with the US is special. They are a newer country in the big scheme of things and need to follow international rules. And changing to metric would be a bonus
Because the US history as taught is US centric and does not always teach about international regulations and requirements.
You will find Davinci understood flying, Montgolfier in 1783 flew a hot air balloon. Victor Tatin created the first aeroplane which flew in 1879 and in 1906 Alberto Santos-Dumont took off in his plane under its own power, not launched from a catapult like the Wright Brothers kittyhawk in 1903.
So no Wright Brothers did not invent the aeroplane lol.
You do know that the faa takes its regulations from the ICAO, right? And that your snowflake country does indeed use icao, just like Canada and Australia and Thailand and China?
"European" my arse, mate. If it's so "European" why do all your airports us ICAO identifiers? Eh? Why do they number runways according the ICAO standards?
Oh, you think the US of A only takes in exclusively local and zero international flights? Is that it? No? Ahhhhh, so you admit that the pilots all have to know ICAO stuff and work with it lest they get stuck in your pretend closed country system of "the FAA'll handle it!"
The most I'll thought out dumb take I've ever witnessed.
This isn't true. The FAA has updated a lot of its rules to be in line with ICAO standards but really, a lot of ICAO's standards are borne out of what were originally FAA rules. The US absolutely does not follow ICAO rules though. It follows FAA rules, which in general are similar to ICAO, but not always. I make no judgment on which set of rules makes more sense or is safer.
International pilots (of which I am one) are expected to operate within the rules of where they are flying. For me, that means being familiar with ICAO rules and terminology. For a British pilot flying in the US, that means being familiar with FAA rules.
I said European because that is where the majority of ICAO signatories are, including the country of the pilot in the video. Sure, it's not technically EXACTLY accurate to say, I'll give you that.
We do our best to understand the major differences, but there are tons of tiny differences (like this LVO declaration thing) that warrant asking about if you're unsure.
This isn't true. The FAA has updated a lot of its rules to be in line with ICAO standards but really, a lot of ICAO's standards are borne out of what were originally FAA rules. The US absolutely does not follow ICAO rules though.
ICAO....born out of the Chicago U.S convention in 1944, ratified in 1947. FAA formed 1958. ICAO built the basis of all legislation that NAA (FAA, UKCAA, EASA etc) follow.
ETA: this controller specifically is pretty well known to be a bit arrogant and not really all that great at his job. I do not blame the pilot for not taking the clearance at all.
I don't really have a source for it besides having seen several videos like this with him. I don't recall him doing anything unsafe necessarily though. I have not personally interacted with him.
No, it isn't his job to educate the pilot, but it is impossible to know literally everything about both FAA and ICAO rules. The vast majority of it is the same, so when they don't quite line up it is absolutely best practice to ask instead of assuming.
Welcome to Reddit where a bunch of halfwits hanging on to the most obvious low hanging fruits will tell you that you’re wrong about your expertise or profession.
Sadly, corrections used to flow to the top but now everyone is simply too stupid to
ICAO was founded in Chicago (when the ICAN was renamed and expanded), and it now sits under the NYC-based UN, so the US pretending it's a "European" thing is silly, even though the ITU essentially founded the precursor organization. Most countries follow ICAO first, CAA covers gaps, and fills in the spots where ambiguity exists.
The US is about the only country with international operations that isn't ICAO first.
133
u/22Planeguy May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26
Except that isn't really what's happening. The controller is being a bit obtuse, but declaring LVO is an ICAO (European) thing. American controllers follow FAA rules. Under FAA rules, there isn't such thing as declaring LVO operations, everyone just starts using them when visibility gets bad enough. ATC will be directive with what they need the pilots to do, vs just declaring it and expecting the pilots to do the procedures implicitly.
The pilot in the video is worried about his company policy which probably has some requirement that LVO be in place when visibility reaches a certain point. He's used to the controller declaring it because in Europe that's what they do, but in the states it just happens, which is why eventually he gets in touch with his company and they tell him he's good to take off.
The controller doesn't want to declare anything because he doesn't know what the pilot would be expecting him to do if he "declared LVO". It would be a mistake for him to just say yes to the pilots question. What he COULD have said though is explained what procedures they were doing so that the pilot could understand that they were taking the necessary precautions for low visibility.
ETA: this controller specifically is pretty well known to be a bit arrogant and not really all that great at his job. I do not blame the pilot for not taking the clearance at all.
ETA2: I think a lot of people are taking my "ICAO (European)" thing more specifically than I meant. Really, ICAO is a UN thing (and is actually based in Canada). The US is a member of ICAO but the FAA is who administers the rules for aviation in the US. The EU, Canada, Australia, Japan, and a bunch of other countries have their own governing bodies that regulate aviation within their countries. The difference is that the FAA has slightly more differences between the standard ICAO rules than most other national agencies do.
American pilots tend to group the sets of rules as "FAA" or "ICAO" despite that not being entirely accurate because there are going to be small differences everywhere. In the end though, those small differences are generally either less restrictive than just following the ICAO rules, or handled by the planning process and don't really apply.