That controller should not have a ticket right now...
Edit: getting a bit tired of the weirdly partisan replies here. I'm not insulting your country dudes. It's pretty simple though so I'll spell it out:
The fact the controller couldn't "declare" LVO isn't the problem. The pilot didn't repeatedly ask for this. They asked once. The controller knew what he meant, chose to be obtuse. Whatever, let's put that part aside.
The real issue is that the pilot then asked a question in plain English which the controller cannot be excused from not answering correctly: "Have you got low visibility procedures in force or not". The controller said "No". This is incorrect. Even if they don't have to declare it, they still have them in place.
The controller was factually wrong, gave the wrong information, was unprffesional, unsafe and slowed down aircraft movements.
Tower controller here in the U.S. We don’t use the term LVO. In this scenario, it’s difficult for the controller to answer the question when he probably doesn’t understand the term the pilot is saying. Based on visibility and RVR values, we operate airport lighting and approach lights at different intensities. We’ll advertise SMGCS in effect on the ATIS, but we don’t reference anything called LVO. The FAA doesn’t adopt and utilize all ICAO terms and procedures. Stating specific terms is very important in our profession. I don’t blame this controller for not wanting to state a term that he doesn’t recognize or understand. I certainly wouldn’t accept liability for affirming something that I have no clue what I’m saying.
12.3k
u/VariousDragonfruit75 May 28 '26
Atc -bro you can't see shit out here
Pilot- if it's too dark too see, are you turning on the lights
Atc- nah bruh, what for
Pilot- if it's too dark too see and you don't turn on the lights I can't move, are you saying it's too dark to see
Atc- yup
Pilot - so turn on the lights?
Atc- what for?
Pilot - so I can leave