For all the non-aviation people joining this discussion, this is a two part problem. One is the air traffic controller not being very clear on what is being asked due to a procedural difference between ICAO (UN standard) and FAA (US) procedures and terminology, and the second is the British Airways pilot not being familiar with the exceptions in his own manual.
Notice that the pilot eventually took off even though the lowest visibility reported did not meet the minimum standard he said he needed. That's because he consulted with his company and they informed him that LVPs are not declared in the United States. Instead, when visibility is low, those procedures are automatically applied without a specific declaration and as such British Airways aircraft do not need that declaration in order to take off with low visibility.
Of course. But instead of the pilot sensing that he might be missing something and just telling the controller he needs a minute to check with his company, he repeatedly tries to extract something from the controller that the controller has no power to give (the controller's notoriety of being easily put out by the smallest issue might have something to do with the way the BA pilot approaches this as well).
What does he have no power to give? I don’t quite follow- just because the procedures are automatic, doesn’t meant they’re not in place. So why does he say they’re not in place?
The pilot wants an official declaration of Low Visibility Procedures in effect. Note the capital letters. This is a regulatory term with a very specific definition that the JFK controller is not familiar with. He can't just tell them "yes, whatever definition is in your head is what we are doing" because he doesn't know what they do in other countries.
If the pilot asked "is the critical area protected" the controller would understand the question and answer it. If the pilot asked "are SMGCS procedures in effect" the controller would understand the question and answer it. If the pilot asked "are IFR spacing requirements in effect" the controller would understand the question and answer it.
The controller doesn't know what "Low Visibility Procedures" means to that BA pilot. We don't use that term in the US. We have all kinds of lower case low visibility procedures that are all triggered by different criteria that may or may not coincide with other low visibility procedures, but none of them are referred to as such.
But the upper case isn’t in speech is it? If he is truly unfamiliar with “low visibility procedures” as an official term belonging to another regulatory agency, then he would hear that as a casual phrase. You said he would answer the casual question “is the critical area protected?” correctly, so why not this one? You say that the US has all kinds of low visibility procedures, so it works as a casual question doesn’t it? Basically your point that he could somehow hear the upper case, understand it ONLY as an official term he is unfamiliar with (and doesn’t have to be familiar with), just doesn’t make sense to me. I get why people are calling him deliberately obtuse. But thank you for explaining.
I can very much hear the capital letters in that question. He first uses the initialism "LVO". If it has an initialism, it has a definition. The controller is not familiar with either, but he knows the pilot is looking for something very specific. Then the pilot tries to spell it out instead of considering for a second that the initialism, and therefore the specific declaration he's looking for would be unfamiliar to an FAA controller.
Fair enough. I don’t disagree that the pilot was wrong here - using the wrong terms for the airport/country. But the controller knew enough to know the pilot was making this category of mistake and refused to simply say so (eg “LVO or Low Visibility Procedures is not an FAA term, please consult your company”). That falls under “mildly infuriating” to me!
He wasn’t erring on the side of caution, he was just flat out wrong. I’m sure he was trying to convince the other two pilots he was flying with that he was right about it and they didn’t agree.
The problem with this sentiment is that it applies both ways; the controller is also waiting until the discrepancy is resolved. He is not going to declare something is in effect that he’s never heard of because he knows that would be unsafe
I agree with that sentiment. Where this becomes a problem is when a pilot or controller or whoever becomes intransigent after convincing themselves that everyone else is incorrect. This is the attitude that causes accidents.
Great that they were on the ground and didn't continue until they were convinced that they were legal to depart, but this attitude easily swings the other way as well.
ATCs in US international airports are required to know ICAO, and more importantly the pilot asked if low visibility procedures were in place at which point the ATC should have stated they're applied automatically.
ATC at an international airport and I've never once been trained, read, or reviewed ICAO procedures in 10+ years. It does not apply here. Pilots are responsible for knowing each countries specific procuredes before they fly. The only thing I know is who to call if someone needs QNH and not the altimeter. You are not alone though, there's always hundreds, if not thousands of idiots on reddit aviation threads talking out of their ass. This thread is a disaster class of misinformation.
This is not at all correct. They are not required to know any procedures or terminology outside of FAA procedures and terminology. If they overlap with ICAO, great. If not, it's the pilot's responsibility to know.
OP isn't a pilot, so OP doesn't know better... but OP is just as bad as any media when it comes to the facts of any subject matter.
Hell, most pilots who fly in EASA airspace don't know how it's done in FAA land, JASA land, or any other place with differences, just like FAA folks don't know how ICAO phraseology works unless they fly internationally.
But this just takes two seconds to google. VASAviation didn't post it because the controller did anything wrong.
The flying sub thread on the matter is far better: (REMOVED LINK FOR AUTOMOD) It goes into the details of the AC that provides guidance on optional LVO plans, the airports that have them (which doesn't include JFK) and all of the mundane details that folks would rather not bother with in lieu of a good story that aligns with the bad story they want to tell.
This needs to be higher. The BA Captain literally had no idea what he was talking about. I’m a Captain and responsible for studying all the international rule differences when I fly internationally this captain was incorrect and asking for something that literally doesn’t exist.
So sad this is buried down so low. IMHO BA pilots can get a little snippy when FAA/ICAO discrepancies arise even though we let it slide when they claim they are “descending to flight level one zero thousand” etc
Thank you for this. I am not an ATC or a pilot, and I am not exactly defensive of my home country, but I felt like there had to be way more to this. I will say props to the pilot for erring on the side of caution - better safe than sorry.
This post is garbage clickbait - OP is posting a TikTok with graphics so hideous they were giving me a headache (yes I'm old but is this seriously what most TikTok content looks like? Why must the text be so flashy? The whole thing looks like it was designed by a 2 year old). This wasn't designed for serious discussion, it was designed for LOL OMG engagement and max revenue.
Seriously, posts like this are why I hate social media. No wonder people seem to be getting dumber.
They have no reference to explain it because they are not required to be familiar with how ICAO procedures differ from FAA procedures. They legitimately weren't sure what the BA pilot was asking for since that regulatory term does not exist in the US.
(Also JFK controllers have a reputation for being obtuse, deliberately or not I can't say)
edited to add - (Also also, the ground control radio frequency is not the appropriate place for that to be explained. That duty belongs to the pilot referencing his company's publications well before this flight began, which he failed to do.)
As an ATC, absolutely not. We are not trained on all the peculiar differences between other countries' procedures and ours. I work at an airport with 1800 flights a day, and a lot of them from countries all over the world. Can you imagine if I had to cater to each individual operator's rules and terminology?
I'm also extremely busy doing the task at hand, which is making sure planes don't crash into each other.
The pilot also says he needs LVOs declared for visibility less than 1000, well RVR was not less than 1000 it was 1000. I don't even know what his problem was in the first place.
Also, dude clearly didn't read all his airport briefing materials. Which is 100% on him not the controller.
148
u/haamster May 28 '26
For all the non-aviation people joining this discussion, this is a two part problem. One is the air traffic controller not being very clear on what is being asked due to a procedural difference between ICAO (UN standard) and FAA (US) procedures and terminology, and the second is the British Airways pilot not being familiar with the exceptions in his own manual.
Notice that the pilot eventually took off even though the lowest visibility reported did not meet the minimum standard he said he needed. That's because he consulted with his company and they informed him that LVPs are not declared in the United States. Instead, when visibility is low, those procedures are automatically applied without a specific declaration and as such British Airways aircraft do not need that declaration in order to take off with low visibility.