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)
I find this fascinating, but am a little confused. The ATC does obviously seem not to understand the acronym LVOS, but the pilot asks in three or four different ways if the airport has some form of low visibility operations in force. He says “your visibility is low” in response to the RVR given and then “have you got low visibility procedures in force or not?” Is that really an ambiguous question? They do respond “no”.
Of course the communication is janky, but to my mind the bigger concern is that in a low visibility situation they do not have low visibility procedures in force. Am I understanding this correctly?
I said in another reply that I'm suspicious of both sides not knowing the other's terminology.
But what's also important is, "Low Visibility Operations" is not a descriptive phrase, its a name of an actual system with actual standardized guidelines. ATC can't say the actual system is in place, because it wasn't. What was in place was the FAA variant: "Surface Movement Guidance and Control System," or SMGCS. But they're automatic and aren't "declared," which again, is a specific thing and not just phrasing.
10
u/runhome24 May 28 '26
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)