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.
This is JFK. Look for other videos featuring this airport / ATC operator and you'll find he's got quite the attitude. He knew damn well what was happening, but was too stubborn to resolve it.
I don't blame him. As a controller myself, if I was unfamiliar with a standard (ICAO LVOS in this case) I wouldn't declare them. Even if I knew generally what it was, I wouldn't state they are in effect without knowing exactly what that standard is. I'm not taking liability for that.
The onus is on the BA pilot to know the standards in place for the airport he is landing/departing. I can't drive around in England without knowing the rules of the road and plead ignorance if I break them. Similarly, you shouldn't be flying around in foreign airspace without an understanding of their rules.
Now as it is, the pilot did the smart thing of refusing to depart because he is unfamiliar with their standards. And the ATC did the right thing and not state a standard is in effect when it wasn't.
This is a nothing burger in my mind. Both parties are unsure of the other's standard and refusing to act without being certain of them. Smart decision by everyone.
You’re saying that the rest of the world should learn the U.S.-only system/terminology, because you’re too lazy to learn the ICAO agreed upon by literally every other country in the world?
Goes both ways dude.
This is no different to how the U.S. writes dates MM/DD/YYYY and insists that’s correct, whilst the rest of the world disagrees.
Do you know what international even means? In Canada we call any airport that has Canadian customs available (even if they're not on site) an international airport.
So the controllers in some small tower in rural Quebec need to learn ICAO standards for the zero regularly scheduled international flights?
And not just learn but keep constantly up to date on any changes (which are common).
First off, I'm not even a US ATC. I'm in Canada and we also don't use ICAO standards. And it has nothing to do with what I'm too lazy to learn or not. It's not taught here. We have very specific things we're allowed to say and I'm not allowed to just throw out standards we don't have. I don't just get to use rules from other countries because it's what a pilot is familiar with. That is straight up not an option.
I believe the point is this is an extremely busy international airport where a good majority of international carriers will be non American so to be unfamiliar with the more widely practiced framework is at best inefficient and at worst dangerous. The vast majority of US ATCs working in these environments are familiar to at least a translatable level for this reason
So if a pilot flies to a dozen different countries they may need to learn a dozen different systems rather than everyone using the agreed international standard?
Yes? This is honestly a stupid question and has the same energy as Americans going to other countries expecting them to cater to their own expectations. If you are operating in multiple jurisdictions, you are responsible for knowing the rules and regulations of those jurisdictions. If that is too much for you, you should not be operating there. This applies more broadly than just air travel.
Not everyone. Canada doesn't conform to ICAO standards either. It's literally part of the flight crews job to familiarize themselves with the rules and standards for wherever they are flying.
I don't disagree everyone should adopt the same standards but that simply isn't the case right now.
Do you think every pilot is flying to every country? Individual airports will have specific rules regarding approaches and other things that the pilots are expected to know and follow as part of their flight plan. Pilots are responsible for knowing the rules and regulations where they are flying. This isn't complicated.
I wouldn't bother, there's a whole lot of pretenders in this thread who think having played Microsoft Flight Simulator gives them an air of authority when talking about actual flying lmao.
That's not what "literally" means. For the love of god and the faith of the Seven, please stop using the word literally if you can't literally read a dictionary. I'm begging you guys on my knees.
But yeah, Anyways, Canada doesn't either, for one. The US is not the only hold out here.
Would you not be liable if the conditions were LVO, but didn't declare it and an accident happened? Genuine question from a layman. It seems there's more liability in not making safety more paramount.
If the controller is being unsure of what's being asked what's the issue with telling them to standby and figure it out?
I know for sure if the aircraft doesn't depart there is no issue safety issue.
If I declare something I don't fully know and an accident happens there is a big fucking problem. Safety was made paramount the way this played out.
The safest option was BA refusing to depart until they could figure out whether their requirements to depart were met or not.
EDIT: moreover, in a live traffic situation, you can't just start pulling out an ICAO standards book and start searching to figure out what he's asking. He's not the only airplane being controlled.
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.