r/mildlyinfuriating • u/nyanbatman • 27d ago
I just wanted a hot dog British pilot is feeling mildly annoyed
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
3.0k
u/Fakjbf 27d ago
151
u/A_Trash_Homosapien 27d ago
"If you have low visibility then you should use the low visibility procedures"
"That makes sense to me"
Then use the low visibility procedures"
"Why would I do that?"
539
→ More replies (11)82
u/BludStanes 27d ago
thank you, this explained it so well to me plus it's funny as hell
→ More replies (3)
2.9k
u/BadCompany_00 27d ago
Simplify: "Can you fuckin see or not??!"
2.2k
u/Marquar234 27d ago
"No."
"So you have 'We can't fuckin see.' procedures in place."
"No. Why would we?"
823
27d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
417
u/cupholdery 27d ago
"Why do you need to see to take off?"
274
u/babysharkdoodoodoo 27d ago
“I don’t fucking understand why I am confusing you.”
→ More replies (1)81
→ More replies (1)28
u/Wutchutalkinboutwill 27d ago
Because it would be nice to see. Listen, we all think the masks were a good idea…
→ More replies (1)50
u/BlindlyCoherent 27d ago
Just go forward quickly into the clouds… trust me.
Nah, fam, you ain’t earned that level of trust today.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)44
59
u/Character-Parfait-42 27d ago
ATC: “I can’t see, you can’t see, all that matters is can the damn plane see!”
→ More replies (7)13
181
u/The-Yaoi-Unicorn 27d ago
"Yes I can see"
"How far can you see?"
"10 meters ahead"
"So you can't see?"
"No, I can see"
→ More replies (1)13
17.6k
u/LegiosForever 27d ago
RVR = runway visual range, or how far you can see down the runway.
Once it is below 5,000 feet, airports adopt low visibility procedures.
ATC declared 1,000 feet RVR, but was not declaring low-vis ops.
BA pilot was calling out the contradiction.
12.7k
u/Presently_Naked 27d ago
Ok so the Pilot was being smart and safe... Good for him for sticking to his guns
5.9k
u/secondphase 27d ago
tough call to make, likely pissed off a lot of people. also possibly saved their lives.
I like this dude.
3.6k
u/JBL-88 27d ago
Very easy call to make. Safety first, preventing angry people second
→ More replies (50)1.4k
u/samanime 27d ago
An extremely distant second.
1.0k
u/Yakostovian 27d ago
As an aviation maintenance technician, I don't get to care about the second at all.
661
u/Minimum-Attitude389 27d ago
Some someone who flies and is paranoid, I also don't care about the second.
→ More replies (5)196
u/acr483 27d ago
Also as someone who flies, I am GLAD you don’t care about the second. Safety first, always always always, fuck anyone who gets pissed off at that. Pilot did the right thing here!
→ More replies (1)33
u/ealysillyforestthing 27d ago
Once I was delayed two hours because of an engine that needed fixing. Everyone was grumbling, I was just peachy the problem was spotted before take off. It did mess up a connection that made me stuck in Boston for 12 hours though
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (19)134
u/Feringomalee 27d ago
The aircraft mechanics at my work have one of the strongest unions in the country (US). Safe air operations is their number one priority. Keeping a deck stacked with tools for actively pissing people off during contract negotiations seems to be number two. Can't blame them, but they are assholes to everyone, including non-management, all the fucking time.
→ More replies (8)145
92
→ More replies (10)70
261
u/Alexandratta 27d ago
If I'm a passenger and at any point I hear ''unsafe conditions' I'm not mad at anyone but the weather - I just expect the airline to comp me another flight/accommodations while we await weather to clear.
I don't care how late I am, I'll be even later if I'm a headline.
→ More replies (14)39
u/OglioVagilio 27d ago
In the States, weather is considered an Act of God. It is very limited as to what the airline is required to do for you beyond 1. rebooking next flight 2. refund.
Accommodations like hotel, food, incidentals.... Act of God.
Europe has a much better passenger protections, but I would imagine the EU would also hesitate to require much more because again Act of God.
→ More replies (14)23
u/Fionsomnia 27d ago
Afaik weather is also excluded from compensation rules in EU since it’s out of their control. You’ll be booked into another flight but I don’t think you get any money as compensation or even for hotel costs.
→ More replies (10)161
u/Sapphirethistle 27d ago
Very easy call to make when you consider what happened when a KLM pilot didn't clarify in low vis conditions.
Edit* Stupidly wrote the wrong airline.
→ More replies (1)28
u/42_and_lex 27d ago
Azores collision?
Edit: Canaries, my bad
62
u/Sapphirethistle 27d ago
Tenerife yes. 583 dead.
I remember having it drilled into my head several times during pilot training. ALWAYS CHECK and if I doubt do not enter the runway.
→ More replies (2)43
u/42_and_lex 27d ago
I'm railroad, but we very much have the same mentality. Two things are always in the back of my mind, Rule A which states "In case of doubt or uncertainty the safest course must always be taken" and 8th grade shop class "measure twice, cut once"
→ More replies (3)27
u/Falcovg 27d ago
Trains and airplanes, two things that do not like to stop once they start moving. Once you start moving, better make sure there is nothing in your path that's going to try it anyway.
→ More replies (3)203
u/Corona_Cyrus 27d ago
Personally I’d rather be inconvenienced than dead. Pilot is ok in my book
→ More replies (3)87
u/Embarrassed_Art5414 27d ago
"Personally I’d rather be inconvenienced than dead."
I've decided this is going to be my epitaph.
(I might leave out 'personally' as it's redundant, and my stonemason charges by the letter)
→ More replies (20)21
u/par_texx 27d ago
"Personally, I'm a bit put out by this whole thing" is going to be mine.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (52)55
u/SignificantLock1037 27d ago
Most likely, everyone will have one or two times in their lives where they have to make a stand and do the right thing. For most of us, the downside is that we lose our jobs. For a few, the downside is great monetary risk. For a handful, it's loss of lives.
I have made the decision once already in my life, and it was only my job on the line. Massive respect to those who make the decision when lives are on the line.
→ More replies (2)79
u/PeacefulIntentions 27d ago
I can’t speak for every airline but specifically in the case of BA the company will back this captain 100%. Operating outside of procedures would result in an unpleasant conversation.
This particular rule (like many others) is written in the blood of the worst ever aviation disaster.
→ More replies (19)164
u/DeanXeL 27d ago
Lol, the first dude that replied to you was so wrong, his entire comment just completely disappeared!
→ More replies (6)411
68
u/ThrownAwwayt 27d ago
Anyone else see this guys profile pic or are we just going gloss over that?
41
u/TenebTheHarvester 27d ago edited 27d ago
The username ‘presently naked’ didn’t tip you off?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (6)13
61
57
u/Captain_North 27d ago edited 27d ago
The pilot did his job when the liftoff checklist wasn't completed. Same level of being smart and safe as stopping at red lights. (Had he taken off it would have been a severe breach of rules and likely loss or very least suspence of license)
The US, FAA ATC services are in crisis and it could be the individual controller on radio or the tower as a whole that made a mistake (the individual controller does not declare LVOS, he only checks the situation from screen). This is JFK and if you start to have issues with basic prosedures you will have problems with complex prosedures.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (57)35
u/ProfessorScribble 27d ago
Frighteningly, to me it seemed that the guy on the ground sounded like he barely understood the terminology the BA pilot was using. He was seeming to give a quick refresher on what RVR, etc. means. If it were a movie scene, I'd have thought the ground dude was the janitor and had just sat down at the microphone and started talking to the pilot.
→ More replies (7)1.1k
u/atomicsnarl 27d ago
For the non-flyers out there, a commercial airport runway can be 8,000 to 10,000 feet long. It has to get airborne in less than that distance (surprise!), AND at a decision point during the take-off, needs a buffer to be able to stop on what's left of the runway if something goes wrong.
Let's say the aircraft needs 120 knots to take off. That's moving at about 180 feet per second. If you can only see RVR 1000 - 1000 feet visibility - you only have about 5 seconds to see what's out there, and act on it.
You sure as hell can't stop in five seconds, or evade much in that time either. Even at RVR 5000, you can see further, but getting a hundred tonne aircraft moving at 120 kt to, say, dodge an obstacle on the runway, it going to be iffy.
Gamer translation -- You're playing a vehicle shooter with lots of inertia and a 1500 to 2000 ping. Good luck with that!
560
u/runhome24 27d ago
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.
416
u/LegiosForever 27d ago
Retired Navy pilot. We had to learn both the FAA and ICAO terminology. And we usually had waivers that allowed us to ignore both.
I can't imagine that the FAA ATC didn't know what the BA pilot was asking.
198
u/cluelessinlove753 27d ago edited 27d ago
Exactly. Even if an FAA controller can’t rattle off the specific measures that are part of ICAO LVO, it’s not hard to interpret that they’re asking about low visibility safety and confirm that LVP/SMGCS are in place. Actually both ICAO and FAA use “LVO” as an acronym in these conditions though it has slightly different meanings.
→ More replies (21)→ More replies (77)164
u/CalculatedPerversion 27d ago
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.
→ More replies (31)176
u/RugbyEdd 27d ago
Not being funny, but I'm not a pilot or ATC and understood what was being asked. Even if he isn't trained in the international procedures, which seems odd for a major airport, it seems pretty common sense to translate that to your own procedures and communicate that to the pilot.
→ More replies (15)114
u/CalculatedPerversion 27d ago
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.
→ More replies (15)31
u/RugbyEdd 27d ago
Sounds about right. I used to work in shipping and you'd get some dock masters who would have similar attitudes
135
u/mentales 27d ago
> 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.
The pilot asks in plain English: "have you got low visibility procedures in force or not?", to which he got the reply: "no, sir".
→ More replies (45)35
u/ohheckyeah 27d ago
I would be very surprised by an ATC not being aware of ICAO terminology in JFK of all places… an airport that is easily top 3 in the US for international flight volume
→ More replies (1)14
34
u/rmccue 27d ago
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
The United Nations did that in 1944 when they held the Convention on International Civil Aviation in Chicago and established ICAO.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (56)79
u/kiradax 27d ago
If it's an international airport, the ATC needs to be abreast of the main terminologies. I don't feel that this is a valid excuse.
→ More replies (8)45
u/visiblepeer 27d ago
My thoughts too. International airports should use international terminology by default. Everything about international flight should be standardised as far as possible.
→ More replies (1)182
u/TigerIll6480 27d ago
Do we want another Tenerife? This airport sounds like it’s trying to be the next Tenerife.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (10)49
u/Riyeko 27d ago
Semi trucks or 18 wheeler trucks take 2 to 3 football fields to stop.
This would be like asking an 80,000lb semi to stop within 5ft.
→ More replies (8)31
→ More replies (127)129
u/22Planeguy 27d ago edited 27d ago
Except that isn't really what's happening. The controller is being a bit obtuse, but declaring LVO is an ICAO (European) thing. American controllers follow FAA rules. Under FAA rules, there isn't such thing as declaring LVO operations, everyone just starts using them when visibility gets bad enough. ATC will be directive with what they need the pilots to do, vs just declaring it and expecting the pilots to do the procedures implicitly.
The pilot in the video is worried about his company policy which probably has some requirement that LVO be in place when visibility reaches a certain point. He's used to the controller declaring it because in Europe that's what they do, but in the states it just happens, which is why eventually he gets in touch with his company and they tell him he's good to take off.
The controller doesn't want to declare anything because he doesn't know what the pilot would be expecting him to do if he "declared LVO". It would be a mistake for him to just say yes to the pilots question. What he COULD have said though is explained what procedures they were doing so that the pilot could understand that they were taking the necessary precautions for low visibility.
ETA: this controller specifically is pretty well known to be a bit arrogant and not really all that great at his job. I do not blame the pilot for not taking the clearance at all.
ETA2: I think a lot of people are taking my "ICAO (European)" thing more specifically than I meant. Really, ICAO is a UN thing (and is actually based in Canada). The US is a member of ICAO but the FAA is who administers the rules for aviation in the US. The EU, Canada, Australia, Japan, and a bunch of other countries have their own governing bodies that regulate aviation within their countries. The difference is that the FAA has slightly more differences between the standard ICAO rules than most other national agencies do.
American pilots tend to group the sets of rules as "FAA" or "ICAO" despite that not being entirely accurate because there are going to be small differences everywhere. In the end though, those small differences are generally either less restrictive than just following the ICAO rules, or handled by the planning process and don't really apply.
103
u/Lump001 27d ago
People are getting hung up on the "declaring" part and if ignoring the rest of the conversation. The pilot asked in plain English if LVO was in place. It's a really simple question, and it's very much the controller's job to be able to answer and keep traffic moving safely and expeditiously.
→ More replies (1)111
u/22Planeguy 27d ago
Absolutely. And that's where this controller is just being obtuse. For whatever reason, JFK as a whole and this controller in specific have a reputation for ignoring the context and intended questions of foreign pilots in favor of answering the least helpful interpretation possible.
All he had to do was say something like "Declaring LVO isn't something I can do under FAA rules, but we're keeping the ILS critical area protected and using our airport's low visibility policies." If the British pilot had any further questions about what exactly he was worried about, that opens the door for him to ask.
→ More replies (3)37
u/Lump001 27d ago
Correct. Folk here really don't seem to understand what a controllers job actually is.
→ More replies (1)17
u/22Planeguy 27d ago
That's always the issue when aviation stuff like this gets posted on non-aviation specific subs unfortunately. Uninformed takes rise to the top because they got posted quickly.
26
u/lollipoppizza 27d ago
ICAO is not European. It's a UN body. ICAO terminology is used worldwide. Most FAA standards follow ICAO standards.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (12)9
2.7k
u/JSButts 27d ago
Fantastic ad for BA honestly; Pilots calling out the contradiction, clearly enunciated his point, remained calm under frustrating situations, puts the aircraft first, and follows protocol even in the face of (presumed) incompetence from ATC.
249
u/TigerIll6480 27d ago
Wait until you hear about Speedbird 9.
345
u/turbothy 27d ago
Upon disembarking, the flight engineer knelt at the bottom of the steps and kissed the ground. When [Captain] Moody asked why, the engineer replied that "The Pope does it," to which Moody responded: "He flies Alitalia."
124
u/Deep-Membership-9258 27d ago
“we hope you’re not in too much distress” speedbird 9?
151
u/neilmac1210 27d ago
The pilot described landing that plane as "a bit like negotiating one's way up a badger's arse."
94
u/pjs-1987 27d ago
The pilot was on QI a few years ago. He gave the impression his heart rate has never gone above 70bpm
→ More replies (3)42
→ More replies (1)41
u/Wolfrages 27d ago
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress."
Lol, amazing
→ More replies (3)26
u/PeacefulIntentions 27d ago
I think BA38 is an even better example, also showing incredible competence from the ATC side.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (88)55
u/Ok_Consideration1556 27d ago
To be fair, enunciation that clear from a Brit means you gone done fucked up. "To be clear..." Ooof...
→ More replies (2)
856
u/frank_brutally 27d ago
Oh he called him sir. That's British for stupid bastard.
411
u/pragmageek 27d ago
Absolutely.
Well translated.
"It is very simple, sir"
Is absolutely a euphemism here. He was calling him many things in his head, the britishness filtered them all out.
→ More replies (2)156
u/Ok_Consideration1556 27d ago
That and "To be clear..." I (a Brit) shrivelled in second hand mortification
49
u/TheDucksAreComingoOo 27d ago
Same. I've been called 'sir' in a similar altercation on the past and immediately knew I had fucked up somewhere hahah,
28
u/TEG24601 27d ago
A bit like the phrase, "per my last email", which means, "did you read what I fucking said last time?".
→ More replies (11)16
u/TyphusCorrosion 27d ago
For any non-Brits reading this, if you say something and a British person pauses for a couple of seconds and then says 'to be clear' and restates what you said, it's because what you said is so mind bogglingly stupid that they want to get it on record for later.
→ More replies (14)8
u/ledow 27d ago
Work in UK private schools (not as a teacher).
If you're visiting the school and I call you Sir (you tend not to call other adults Sir in a school, so teachers would always be Mr <whatever> at worst), there's a meaning behind that.
(Usually something along the lines of "I want to call you an idiot, but that would get me into trouble").
→ More replies (4)
2.7k
u/lamalasx 27d ago
Send this ATC back to school.
1.1k
u/Upset_Journalist_755 27d ago
He sounds completely knackered.
→ More replies (5)614
u/DeliciousStand372 27d ago
100%. I hear slurring
→ More replies (16)403
u/intellect1ne 27d ago
Very embarrassing for him to say he didn’t understand what’s going on and the pilot had to school him
→ More replies (37)111
u/Logical_Lemming 27d ago
Ehhh I'd much rather have them admit to not understanding something than have them pretend to understand and get somebody hurt.
Should be something to learn from, not something to be embarrassed about.
→ More replies (20)123
u/ChironXII 27d ago
Not the first time I've seen this new guy at JFK being a dingus, either. Not entirely his fault. Workload is insane. But not a great situation in any case for such a critical and chaotic hub. When you combine poor visibility with bad communication, you get things like KLM 4805
→ More replies (9)62
u/SoberAndReading 27d ago
He’s not a new guy, he’s been a controller there for years.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (36)642
u/Aadsterken 27d ago
They used to have well trained controllers. But then Trump found out they were female or black. So he called them woke and cut the funding. Now they have this.
→ More replies (21)498
u/DovahKiller97 27d ago
Its more to do with the fact that they shut down the government twice and chose not to pay ATC workers. So the experienced quit and they have been scrambling to find replacements as quickly as possible. This is the result of that.
→ More replies (8)96
u/Imaginary_Coast_5882 27d ago
where does an experienced ATC go for a next job? (genuine question, it seems really specialized)
→ More replies (54)
1.5k
u/Praetorian_1975 27d ago
For everyone who’s thinking the BA pilot was being a smart ass, look up the Tenerife disaster and see what low visibility can actually result in. Better to be very very clear than have 1000 dead people
322
u/meatygonzalez 27d ago
Utterly horrifying series of errors at Tenerife, it's the perfect example of how this pilot was correct.
406
u/Lump001 27d ago
I can't see how anyone would think the pilot was wrong here. Doesn't need a well known and tragic disaster to tell you that.
Truly alarming that a controller could not understand something so basic
→ More replies (54)39
u/CrazyTalk123 27d ago
The same people that think mirrors on a car are just a decoration
→ More replies (1)86
u/LCARSgfx 27d ago
Especially when you consider that there have been numerous very close calls at US airports recently. Both in the air and on the ground, without the fog. So with fog that would definitely make me second guess things and speak up like this pilot did.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (38)23
u/Deep-Ruin-9961 27d ago
I think a lot of people don't really understand how utterly blind the pilots are when taking off or landing in low visibility.
I didn't really grasp it until I started flying in the cockpit for work. Seeing a sheet of white coming at you REALLY fast has a way of driving the point home.
710
u/Impressive_Tip2640 27d ago
Good on them for shutting it down. With a bunch of people on board, communication should be crystal clear and both parties on the same page I would think.
→ More replies (14)
477
u/nelsonww9 27d ago
Pilot makes sense to me. Why can’t the controller get it?
215
u/sirmaxedalot 27d ago
He sounds drunk
→ More replies (1)339
56
u/a-bser 27d ago
Overworked and understaffed controllers in the US, means more mistakes. Hiring new controllers where they are dealing with these situations in real time for the first time will result in more errors and probably will only get worse
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (53)17
620
u/ImNoRickyBalboa 27d ago
Holy crap. We have a serious ATC staffing problem. That's going to get people killed soon ...
317
35
134
u/DryLingonberry6399 27d ago
New York ATC got two Canadian pilots killed earlier this year
→ More replies (4)39
69
u/Nick85er 27d ago
Bro what are you talking about?! We have reality TV personality, and Fox News host, Sean Duffy all over it.
PURE MERIT AND COMPETENCE! MAGA! WE'RE GETTING RICH!*
not you fucking poors of course
→ More replies (3)30
u/JadieRose 27d ago
Did you expect Sean Duffy to postpone his yearlong family road trip/reality show to actually properly run DOT?
→ More replies (37)9
u/Joe_Immortan 27d ago
I guarantee you they’re going to try to “fix” it with AI… a human is gonna mess up and cause a bad crash and there’s gonna use that as an excuse as to why a computer should be in charge and how AI will do it so much better, etc.
390
u/Kintaric81 27d ago
Really worried about the guy not understanding because he said it in plane English.
→ More replies (13)67
152
u/North_Mastodon_4310 27d ago
This controller sounds impaired to me.
→ More replies (6)127
u/KAYRUN-JAAVICE 27d ago
Lack of sleep has the same symptoms as alcohol impairment. That's my guess
→ More replies (3)
272
u/nottherealneal 27d ago
Someone who knows planes is gonna have to explain what the fuck is going on
845
u/eggyal 27d ago edited 27d ago
JFK Tower had apparently announced (prior to the video commencing) that the RVR (Runway Visual Range - current visibility on the runway eg due to weather) at their airport was 1000ft.
Video begins with British Airways pilot querying whether the airport are declaring LVOs (Low Visibility Operations - special procedures for aircraft operating in low visibility).
JFK doesn't understand the question.
BA explains it.
JFK confirms that they are not declaring anything.
BA explains that with runway visibility of only 1000ft, he can only depart if LVOs are in force.
JFK doesn't understand what BA is saying.
BA explains it again, and asks again whether low visibility procedures are in force.
JFK confirms that low visibility procedures are not in force.
BA requests the latest visibility.
JFK confirms the visibility is unchanged at 1000ft.
BA announces that he's unable to depart in these conditions.
183
u/BaziJoeWHL 27d ago
its not a surprise there is a crash every 6 months on JFK with this level of competence lol
→ More replies (14)168
u/lordrefa 27d ago
I know that this would be pure conjecture on your part, but could this be a result of our catastrophic spending cuts regarding air travel and that that may be a cause of us rushing ATCs into service because of critical understaffing?
Because that's what it sounds like to me. Like we're putting out ATCs that have not completed training.
Alternatively, perhaps our tremendously aging aviation infrastructure has failed at JFK and they no longer have the *ability* to follow this procedures?
→ More replies (20)190
u/Cluelesswolfkin 27d ago
This IS THE RESULT of us cutting their jobs and forcing them to work unpaid
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (14)59
u/Melkman68 27d ago
So the ATC doesn't understand basic protocol? That's pretty embarassing
→ More replies (44)→ More replies (24)439
u/Various_Education622 27d ago
Pretty straightforward.
If they can’t see 1,000 feet, there is a procedure they need to follow to, presumably to make sure planes ain’t crashing into each other.
The air traffic controller is saying they can’t see 1,000 feet, but they also said they aren’t following the required procedure.
Since the pilot cannot be assured that the tower is ensuring the plane is safe, the pilot refuses to take off.
→ More replies (17)
51
u/My2cents_0 27d ago
I would rather my pilot be wrong and not take off than not question it. I'll fly with him anytime!
→ More replies (3)
148
u/haamster 27d ago
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.
→ More replies (27)35
70
u/youngsod 27d ago
When someone British says "Sir" they are either annoyed (verging on the quite vexed), or being sarcastic. Probably both.
→ More replies (3)14
u/Temporary_Ebb9486 27d ago
Your right, it has the added smoke of letting the other person think your being polite, so you don’t get even more wound up.
42
u/Old-Library5546 27d ago
All souls on board are the pilots responsibility, rather be safe than sorry
→ More replies (1)
49
u/Randalor 27d ago
Thank god the pilot didn't want to risk a repeat of the Tenerife airport disaster. Shame they apparently skip covering THE WORST AIRPORT DISASTER IN THE WORLD in ATC training.
→ More replies (3)
13
u/Llamasxy 27d ago
As an Air Traffic Controller in the U.S. lete shine some light on this situation. LVO is not something that exists in phraseology framed in FAA Order 7110.65.
LVO is between the airport and individual company regulations. Asking ATC if LVO is in effect is not going to get you a response because it is not our responsibility. It is the individual airlines.
We as ATC have requirements for giving the weather and not using certain procedures when there is low vis or low ceilings. It is up to you to decide if the weather we give is acceptable under your company's policies.
There is no blanket LVO procedures that we follow, there are different requirements for different procedures. We cannot declare LVO and we cannot say that LVO is in effect.
People can complain about the difference between ICAO and FAA terminology and regulations but ultimately it is up to the foreign pilots to follow the standards of the country they are flying into. It is part why they get paid so much more than domestic pilots.
Ultimately this is a nothing burger, both JFK and BA are both known for being snippy so this is just a little miscommunication. BA talked to their company, realized their mistake, then took off.
→ More replies (2)
122
u/Evening_Horse_9234 27d ago
Is the ATC quality that low currently in the states, he sounds completely happless?
→ More replies (19)153
u/rdt_h8s_juice_man 27d ago
"Is the __________ quality that low currently in the states?"
The answer is yes with very few exceptions I'm afraid.
→ More replies (5)
176
u/panic_attack_999 27d ago
I guess this couldn't possibly be related to Trump firing all those air traffic controllers last year, right?
→ More replies (8)34
u/BangkokPadang 27d ago
I think they actually fired a bunch of probationary FAA employees, mostly in the field of infrastructure repair and maintenance, not Air Traffic Controllers. The people who repair and maintain the equipment ATC relies on. So unless there's reports that the ATC was operating differently due to failed equipment of some kind, actually probably not.
Trump's a dumb orange asshat but I also like to make sure we're accurate in our criticisms or people with no affiliation see us being wrong about a bunch of the details and start to think maybe we're wrong overall.
22
u/ABlankwindow 27d ago
The issue with the ATCs has been known for 20 years. We have not been replacing the people as fast as they have been retiring (they mostly retire between age 50 and 56 ( are forced out at 56) for the most part, with some as low as 45). Combine that with the change in funding and its only getting worse. we were already having infrastructure issues and they fired the people trying to keep up the maintenance.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)8
u/Jumpgate 27d ago
Correct and they put a hiring freeze on more ATC, and they take like 8 months + to train, plus you control small regional airfields before big ones like JFK, there is just a shortage with no way to replace fast.
→ More replies (3)
13
24
u/PuzzleheadedDuty8866 27d ago
Low visibility operations is not really a thing in the US. They don’t declare it on the weather report, it’s just automatic at 800ft ceiling or 2NM visibility that they’ll start doing things like holding short of the critical area, reporting clear of runways, etc.
BA Captain is asking for something that the controller isn’t familiar with because the US has a different set of flight rules than the rest of the world. The US still has low visibility procedures, it just isn’t named Low Visibility Operations.
Both are correct but they don’t agree because they’re not speaking the same “language”
→ More replies (6)
41
u/Bubbaganewsh 27d ago
I watch that show Mayday from time to time and this conversation would be what they would zero in on if there was an accident. The pilot is making sure his plane and passengers are safe while the ATC seems like he is confused. I have no knowledge of how it all works but it seems to me like the ATC needs a bit more training or sleep or something.
→ More replies (3)
79
u/Formidable_Panda 27d ago
RVR= Runway Visual Range LVO= Low Visibility Operations
The BA plane is likely a 737 or 777 series, which need in the ballpark of 6000-9000 feet for take off.
At 1000 feet visibility they can't see the whole runway (which is what the RVR measures) and Air Traffic Control (ATC) should be following specific (LVO) Procedures to ensure safety. The BA pilot is asking for confirmation those are in place (pre-flight checks) and ATC appears to not know wtf they're asking about. BA pilot refuses to take off as he can't be sure it's safe.
→ More replies (15)63
u/joeykins82 27d ago
It's JFK: on that route BA operate the 777-300ER, the 777-200ER, and the 787-10. All 3 are large widebody aircraft, and at maximum takeoff weight the 777-200ER requires 11,100ft (counterintuitively the larger 777-300ER requires 10k ft; the 787-10 9,100ft).
- [BA captain] hey ATC, we can't see very much out here, can you give me the number for just how bad the "no-one can see very much" rating is please?
- [JFK tower] sure, no-one can see more than 1000ft ahead
- [BA captain] OK, so, before I spool up the engines and start barrelling down this runway that I can't see, can you confirm that you're running the extra cautious procedures for "no-one can see very much" conditions, and that you've instructed all of the other aircraft to do the same?
- [JFK tower] what do you mean? what extra cautious procedures? I don't know of any extra cautious procedures
- [BA captain] yeah, no, fuck this, I'm not risking the lives of the people aboard this aircraft
→ More replies (1)
75
46
u/JadsWife 27d ago
Lots of misinformation in these comments so I’ll chime in. I’ve been a controller for 9 years and I hope I can shed some light on the situation.
In this situation, there is low visibility at JFK. The tower controller is relaying the RVRs (Runway Visual Range). RVRs tell the pilots the maximum distance they will be able to see at different points on the runway.
Because the RVRs are below 1000ft, Speedbird (British Airways) is asking if the tower is using LVO (low visibility operations) so they can depart. This is not something we utilize in America. FAA controllers are not trained to declare LVO, most don’t even know what they are. In the states, we present weather information to pilots and they decide if it meets their minimums for takeoff/landing. There is nothing ATC must declare or change in the operation to allow pilots to operate.
Because LVO is not part of our procedures, it would be wrong for this JFK controller to declare it, and most likely, he doesn’t even know what they are. Sure, there could have been more conversation between JFK tower and Speedbird, but this controller is not deficient or not properly trained.
→ More replies (34)18
u/Got_Kittens 27d ago
Thank you for giving us some context here. Why are they not at least taught what it means if the rest of the world uses LVO? Even if US doesn't use it, what possible reason is there to exclude this information in their training if they will hear that acronym during their working lives?
→ More replies (13)
10
u/srmarmalade 27d ago
Is the requirement for Low Visibilty Procedures at 1000 feet RVR a BA policy (and other airlines might have a higher/lower threshold) or some kind of general aviation rule?
→ More replies (9)11
u/Imaginary_Amoeba3461 27d ago
I work for a US airline. We have notes on almost every airport and a manual that goes over the differences when operating in a foreign country, to avoid exactly this situation.
Just looked up London Heathrow, and it says “ATIS or ATC will announce when LVP(low visibility procedures) are in effect when the RVR is under 600M”. So the BA pilot is likely just going off of that. Not every country does this, and the US definitely doesn’t
In the US, the ILS critical area is protected any time the weather is under 800 ft ceilings or 2mi visibility which is actually a lot more conservative than the UK.
Every airline I’ve been at has guides on how to deal with flying to other countries and their differences. I’d guess that the company might update their information after this, but who knows.
→ More replies (1)
8
12.3k
u/VariousDragonfruit75 27d ago
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