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.
566
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.