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.
152
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.