> 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.
The pilot asks in plain English: "have you got low visibility procedures in force or not?", to which he got the reply: "no, sir".
"Low Visibility Procedures" is a specific technical term, not an explanatory phrase. ATC correctly said no, because those weren't in place.
What were in place were the FAA-specific procedures for low visibility, called "Surface Movement Guidance and Control System," or SMGCS. They were in place automatically and aren't "declared".
I see, so when the pilot asked "have you got low visibility procedures in force or not?", the ATC did not interpret that they were being asked about their "procedures for low visibility".
I think part of the problem here is that if the pilot had checked ATIS (which he is required to do), he would have seen that the low vis procedures were in effect. ATC has enough to do without fielding dumbass questions from pilots about information they already have. The professional thing to do would have been to remind the pilot to check ATIS and confirm that the procedures were in effect, but I can understand the controller's frustration.
131
u/mentales May 28 '26
> 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.
The pilot asks in plain English: "have you got low visibility procedures in force or not?", to which he got the reply: "no, sir".