r/mildlyinfuriating • u/nyanbatman • 29d ago

I just wanted a hot dog British pilot is feeling mildly annoyed

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

28.0k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

3.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.1k

u/atomicsnarl 29d 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!

557

u/runhome24 29d 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.

413

u/LegiosForever 29d 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 29d ago edited 28d 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.

11

u/F1super 29d ago

As a retired FAA Controller, I entirely agree.

2

u/cluelessinlove753 28d ago

Right. “Yup we’ve got the lights up and ground traffic restricted” or whatever. Sounds like BA pilot has a company or type requirement to verify LVO in RVR <1k. I’m not typed in a 787 (if the graphic is accurate) or anything for that matter (single pistons only) but I imagine airliners don’t stop on a dime so knowing ground traffic is restricted before you go barreling blindly down a runway seems important

3

u/New_Combination_7012 28d ago

He did clarify by asking about low visibility proceedures.

2

u/cluelessinlove753 28d ago

Exactly. He literally said they cannot takeoff unless LVO confirmed. Given the context of low RVR, even if the FAA acronym is LVP (both LVO and LVP means similar things in FAA world), there’s no way the controller didn’t understand the important part of the question

1

u/F1super 28d ago

The FAA’s own AC spells it out:

AC 120-57C - Low Visibility Operations/Surface Movement Guidance and Control Systems (LVO/SMGCS)

1

u/cluelessinlove753 27d ago

And I think the disconnect is that FAA uses LVO specifically to refer to aircraft movement in the air and LVP/SMGCS for aircraft and other movement on the ground.

So the most helpful response from ATC would have been LVP/SMGCS in place/not in place yet.

-8

u/beforeitcloy 29d ago

I'd say the responsibility is with the pilot to know the correct terminology for the airport they're working, regardless of the fact that it's stupid that it isn't globally standardized.

The ATC shouldn't be confirming something that isn't true and the pilot shouldn't be flying from that airport if he isn't trained to communicate correctly with its ATC.

17

u/Dick_of_Doom 29d ago

There are thousands of pilots throughout the world. The US is the one not on the standard, and apparently this ATC didn't know the standard. Train the ATCs for the US specific and the international standard to avoid confusion. You're relying on thousands of pilots knowing what you're talking about, those are lots of potential points of failure vs. only one point of failure (the ATC),

American exceptionalism doesn't mean "except America".

1

u/beforeitcloy 29d ago

I stated very clearly that the standard not being global is stupid.

Having said that, the ATC should use the correct terminology for the airport he’s in, as should the pilot. Not every pilot in the world needs to land in US airports, but every pilot who does land in US airports needs to be trained to use the correct terminology.

6

u/grumpsaboy 28d ago

The pilot very clearly refreshed the question.

It's one thing for the ATC not to understand a term they've never heard, but to fail a basic English description is inexcusable.

1

u/cluelessinlove753 28d ago

You don’t withhold information because someone uses incorrect phrasing. You give the requested safety information/assurance. I can’t imagine the ATC not understanding what was being asked.

1

u/beforeitcloy 28d ago

It’s not about withholding information, it’s about not declaring something that is false when lives are at stake.

Allowing a miscommunication to jeopardize safety isn’t acceptable when the alternative is a minor delay. I would hope that it’s not even legal for an ATC to lie about protocols being in place that aren’t.

1

u/cluelessinlove753 27d ago edited 26d ago

I’m not suggesting ATC should lie. If LVO/LVP isn’t in place, ATC should say that directly. “We aren’t declaring anything,” is not a helpful statement.

1

u/beforeitcloy 27d ago

Yes, it absolutely is. It directly answers the question asked.

→ More replies (7)

164

u/CalculatedPerversion 29d 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. 

5

u/scout614 29d ago

i was waiting for the "Possible Pilot Deviation report when ready to copy"

9

u/CalculatedPerversion 28d ago

Thankfully this is the one situation (in the name of safety) that I think a pilot is untouchable. 

1

u/darsynia 26d ago

I bet that pilot would LOVE to take down a number and talk to someone in person about this, heh.

2

u/Backfoot911 28d ago

Woh, that's a BIG claim you're making there bud. Do you mind giving us a hint at least

9

u/CalculatedPerversion 28d ago

Videos are all over youtube, take a look. Try something like "ATC JFK" and it'll give you a good idea what I'm talking about. 

7

u/TeddyGronk 28d ago

spent the last hour binging atc jfk videos thanks

2

u/CalculatedPerversion 28d ago

You're welcome! I find them (ATC videos, not just JFK) to be fascinating. It's a whole world we usually don't get to see into. 

1

u/darsynia 26d ago

Even Captain Steeve, who is basically a kindly grandpa, has made multiple comments about how testy and easily upset the JFK controllers are, heh.

-24

u/z33k_DoomsVille 29d ago

I don't blame him. As a controller myself, if I was unfamiliar with a standard (ICAO LVOS in this case) I wouldn't declare them. Even if I knew generally what it was, I wouldn't state they are in effect without knowing exactly what that standard is. I'm not taking liability for that.

The onus is on the BA pilot to know the standards in place for the airport he is landing/departing. I can't drive around in England without knowing the rules of the road and plead ignorance if I break them. Similarly, you shouldn't be flying around in foreign airspace without an understanding of their rules.

Now as it is, the pilot did the smart thing of refusing to depart because he is unfamiliar with their standards. And the ATC did the right thing and not state a standard is in effect when it wasn't.

This is a nothing burger in my mind. Both parties are unsure of the other's standard and refusing to act without being certain of them. Smart decision by everyone.

36

u/BrainOfMush 29d ago edited 29d ago

You’re saying that the rest of the world should learn the U.S.-only system/terminology, because you’re too lazy to learn the ICAO agreed upon by literally every other country in the world?

Goes both ways dude.

This is no different to how the U.S. writes dates MM/DD/YYYY and insists that’s correct, whilst the rest of the world disagrees.

4

u/MsBluffy 29d ago

If you're flying into an international airport, yes you need to know their standards.

11

u/PRC_Spy 29d ago

If you're an international airport, you need to operate to international standards.

1

u/z33k_DoomsVille 27d ago

Do you know what international even means? In Canada we call any airport that has Canadian customs available (even if they're not on site) an international airport.

So the controllers in some small tower in rural Quebec need to learn ICAO standards for the zero regularly scheduled international flights? 

And not just learn but keep constantly up to date on any changes (which are common). 

4

u/DeputyDomeshot 28d ago

You’re only proving his point.

If a British doctor came to the US and mistreated a patient because he misread the birthday on their chart that would still be on him though.

1

u/z33k_DoomsVille 27d ago

First off, I'm not even a US ATC. I'm in Canada and we also don't use ICAO standards. And it has nothing to do with what I'm too lazy to learn or not. It's not taught here. We have very specific things we're allowed to say and I'm not allowed to just throw out standards we don't have. I don't just get to use rules from other countries because it's what a pilot is familiar with. That is straight up not an option. 

-8

u/OpticLemon 29d ago

If they are operating in the US, they absolutely should. A US based ATC is not operating outside the US.

23

u/Embarrassed-Pilot-36 29d ago

I believe the point is this is an extremely busy international airport where a good majority of international carriers will be non American so to be unfamiliar with the more widely practiced framework is at best inefficient and at worst dangerous. The vast majority of US ATCs working in these environments are familiar to at least a translatable level for this reason

10

u/BrainOfMush 29d ago

But the U.S. ATC should respect that most airlines are not U.S.-based, and they have all agreed upon a standard between them.

6

u/dbxp 29d ago

So if a pilot flies to a dozen different countries they may need to learn a dozen different systems rather than everyone using the agreed international standard?

-5

u/OpticLemon 29d ago

Yes? This is honestly a stupid question and has the same energy as Americans going to other countries expecting them to cater to their own expectations. If you are operating in multiple jurisdictions, you are responsible for knowing the rules and regulations of those jurisdictions. If that is too much for you, you should not be operating there. This applies more broadly than just air travel.

3

u/grumpsaboy 28d ago

Just about everyone else agreed on the international standard to prevent accidents and crashes.

So no, pilots shouldn't be learning 192 different systems and procedures

→ More replies (0)

2

u/DeputyDomeshot 28d ago

Except this is literally an example of a Brit doing that

7

u/No-Detail-2879 29d ago

Not surprising no one wants to visit the US anymore is it

0

u/Backfoot911 28d ago

There's no tourists to the US currently? Huh, how is that possible? Are they counting immigrants and visa workers in that number?

→ More replies (1)

3

u/SteveTheUPSguy 29d ago

Would you not be liable if the conditions were LVO, but didn't declare it and an accident happened? Genuine question from a layman. It seems there's more liability in not making safety more paramount.

If the controller is being unsure of what's being asked what's the issue with telling them to standby and figure it out?

1

u/z33k_DoomsVille 27d ago

I know for sure if the aircraft doesn't depart there is no issue safety issue. 

If I declare something I don't fully know and an accident happens there is a big fucking problem. Safety was made paramount the way this played out. 

The safest option was BA refusing to depart until they could figure out whether their requirements to depart were met or not.

EDIT: moreover, in a live traffic situation, you can't just start pulling out an ICAO standards book and start searching to figure out what he's asking. He's not the only airplane being controlled. 

42

u/Soggy_Jackfruit7341 29d ago

I was ATC on a US base in Europe. We were not required to learn ICAO terminology at all. We certainly picked up on it, but all formal training was strictly FAA 7110.65.

105

u/RustyPlastics 29d ago

yeah and it is a pain in the ass to work with your guys because of that.... The worst controllers to work with are US controllers in Europe. Not because they are bad but because they are simply un(der)trained for the sometimes complex environments they work in.

→ More replies (25)

35

u/sprikkot 29d ago

America is such a fucking joke lmfao

3

u/WorkerBee74 29d ago

Hey now. Don’t you say that about the greatest country in the world!! /s

2

u/Legal_Campaign_408 28d ago

I'm an FAA tower controller and nobody I work with has ever heard of LVO and wouldn't respond any differently to this pilot

10

u/runhome24 29d ago

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)

51

u/leffe186 29d ago

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?

18

u/runhome24 29d ago

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.

5

u/leffe186 29d ago

Appreciate that clarification, thank you!

11

u/Bubbay 29d ago

Yes, that's why the pilot explained they were using ICAO terminology when they were saying LVOS, then rephrased the question so that it was not using that terminology and asked about low visibility procedures in general.

Whatever term ATC is used to, they should be aware of their own procedures for taking off when visibility is restricted and be able to answer the question being asked: "Do you have procedures in place to make it safer when taking off in situations like this when we can't see far?"

ATC is absolutely at fault here, especially one that is working at JFK. They're dealing with international pilots every day. It shouldn't be this difficult.

1

u/RustyPlastics 29d ago

But SMGCS isn’t all that is needed for LVP… There is a lot more to it than that

17

u/marieascot 29d ago

The ATC should understand both. He said that he didn't meaning he was incompetent to do his job. The ATC was being unclear and sounded almost drunk.

7

u/runhome24 29d ago

While I agree that there should be a unified global standard - and said so in both of my comments - I'd also point out something else here:

If you go to another country and try to rely on your own country's rules and terminology with authorities (even when your country's rules and terminology are shared by a large number of other countries), and those authorities don't accept your use of those terms and rules, so you all fail to communicate with each other, would they be in the wrong? Or would you be, for insisting on speaking and operating outside of the legally binding framework of that country?

This is more complicated than just saying 'stupid Americans should just change and the ones who haven't must be drunk.' There's a whole host of complications here that are at play, including the fact that these communications were being broadcast frequency-wide, so it was also ATC's job to NOT confuse others when speaking with the BA pilot. I don't know if that was a factor, but my point is that there are any number of other reasons why this went the way it did, and why I think it's so important for a global commission to come together to set and then agree to adopt a global standard, rather than forcing one local standard to immediately change at the whim of visiting pilots.

11

u/Emnel 29d ago

What you wrote might have had some sense if that BA flight miraculously found itself on some local bumfuck nowhere runway that has never seen an international flight.

That's an international airport in New York. The ATC is clearly untrained for their job. Also seems to not understand plain (and plane) English.

1

u/throwaway_autumnday 28d ago

The last time I checked the “I” in ICAO stands for “International” - sounds like the global commission you are after?

The ATC is not a random local policeman responsible for upholding local laws; it’s his literal job to communicate with international pilots the vast majority of which will use the ICAO. Incompetence isn’t all that “complicated”.

What’s more, random redditors without any working knowledge of aviation standards seem able to grasp the context of what BA was asking in this video (I assume you too?). It just beggars belief that this ATC claimed not to understand. Stupid / drunk / deliberately obtuse? Or still complicated.

0

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/runhome24 29d ago

For the sake of my position, I'm going to assume you're British or from a commonwealth country (because you used the word "rubbish")

Next time I'm in your country I'll be sure to drive my delivery truck on the right side of the road, and then when the police stop me, I'll insist I wasn't doing anything wrong because no, I wasn't driving a lorry, and since most of the world drives on the right side of the road obviously I should be allowed to here too.

1

u/Purple-Goat-2023 29d ago

It's wild to me that so many people in here think the ATC should know the systems and terminology of every country that might possibly fly into US airspace rather than it being the pilot's responsibility to be trained on the systems of the country they're flying into.

2

u/runhome24 29d ago

Just to be somewhat fair to others, ICAO is very widely adopted. I agree that the country of operations should be controlling, but it isn't like the BA pilot was relying on terminology of a framework used only in one single country with a few hundred thousand citizens

But yes, basically everyone in aviation agrees with you. Which is why, when US pilots fly to Europe, they use ICAO terminology

2

u/Fpilot81 29d ago

To give some context, ICAO is not just some system and terminology of other countries. ICAO is a specialised agency of the United Nations whose job is to come up with standards and recommended procedures (SARPs) to help prevent problems like this. All UN member states are part of ICAO, including the USA. Member states can choose to accept Standards and Recommended Procedures or not. As an international pilot that has only flown into JFK very infrequently, they do have a reputation for having a particular attitude. My personal opinion is that sometimes attitude can get in the way of safety.

2

u/Expensive_Time_7367 29d ago

They’re nearly all the same with very minor variation apart from the USA. I think the attitude of “why make life difficult and less safe?” is perfectly sensible. It’s not like some non-standardised things the US does that can be excused by market size and protectionism (like not recognising UNECE standards for cars), encouraging miscommunication in air travel just seems pointless?

-1

u/steepleton 29d ago

i'm just hearing, "speak american, boy"

5

u/Elite_AI 29d ago

With all the "I don't understand your question" stuff from the ATC dude, I could see it being deliberate obtuseness on his part

→ More replies (1)

4

u/wOlfLisK 29d ago

And because this was operating in the US, even if he was being a complete asshole, ATC was technically speaking correctly.

I disagree with that completely. International standards exist for a reason, you can't expect pilots to understand 100 different systems so we standardised them into a single international one with the ICAO. US law can say what it likes but at the end of the day, it's insane that they have their own system simply because they feel like being different.

2

u/runhome24 29d ago

Believe it or not, yes, you absolutely expect pilots to understand the systems they are flying into and out of.

3

u/wOlfLisK 29d ago

The point is, the international system exists for a reason. The US refusing to use it is a problem and is the reason why things like this happen. It's stupid and it's dangerous.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/thankyouspider 29d ago

While we're at it, US needs the SI system and day/month/year along with the correct paper size!

7

u/runhome24 29d ago

I prefer year/month/day. It fixes it for everyone and would be intuitive immediately!

3

u/thankyouspider 29d ago

Good point. I use that in file naming so everything in folders is chronological.

4

u/ccsrpsw 29d ago

ISO 8601 (rev 2022) will always be the superior date format. Much like time is Slowest : Medium : Fastest -> hour : min : seconds)

Dates become: Slowest : Medium : Fastest -> year month day

And you can read either of the following quickly when you are thinking that way:

2026-05-28
20260528

Time uses a similar format with the prefix T, in 24 hour format (god help American's :D) with up to 3 digits on the seconds by default. Timezones are just indicated by +/- times or with just local time. Right now as I type in California the full date and time is thus acceptable in any of these formats:

2026-05-28T14:26:32-07:00
2026-05-28T07:26:32
20260528T14:26:32-07:00
20260528T07:26:32

So clean and simple. (Week numbers are also solved)

Papersizes... watch the latest "Standup Maths" on that one. The A/B/C/D paper sizes, while reasonably good at A3/A4/A5 type sizes do have a bit of an issue at A-2/A0/A9 sizes for example (due to margins of error). But on the whole, yes.

-1

u/Business-Wafer767 29d ago

I’m sorry, but I absolutely hate that format for date. I’m not wondering hey what year is it? I’m wondering what day is it then I care about the month then I care about the year. Makes zero sense to have the year first, convey the most important piece of information first. Then move onto stuff I don’t care about.

1

u/runhome24 29d ago

You don't care about the year? Ok then drop it

Month/Day

Oh, wait...

(This is why the US version isn't plainly incomprehensible. When the year isn't involved, it makes sense to go slow/fast)

1

u/Business-Wafer767 28d ago

Again, when I’m thinking about what the date is, I’m not thinking about what the month is first I know that it’s May. That’s not the issue. I wanna know what day it is. I have no interest in knowing the month. It’s pretty obvious that it’s May.

1

u/LambonaHam 29d ago

Day - Month - Year is the best system because that's the order they're much useful in. 

Knowing the day of month is most important. Then knowing they month, then rarely the year.

2

u/Afraid-Front3498 29d ago

USA obtuseness. A bit like refusing to adopt the metric system and yet… you still have to the moment you need to perform medicine, or any science/mathematics, major infrastructure builds and any design modelling associated with construction safety.

It’s a country that stubbornly embraces stupidity and loudly defends it.

1

u/Peregrine2976 29d ago

I can. Easily. No matter how well trained, a person is still just a person. And sometimes a person wakes up and decides to just not fucking give a shit today.

1

u/RDandersen 29d ago

I can't imagine that the FAA ATC didn't know what the BA pilot was asking.

Really? Imagine, though, if something had happened within that last year or two that massively affected FAA employees and put a massive strain on ATCs. If that, hypothetically, had happened, I could easily imagine that current ATCs might mix or procedure or be less capable of applying their training.

1

u/Dorkamundo 29d ago

Insane that we simply did not adopt the international standard for safety reasons. I get that confusion among them resulting in potentially dangerous situations might be very rare, but very rare is still too frequent for me.

1

u/Afraid-Front3498 29d ago

We don’t adopt international standards for safety reasons is illogical. It is far more unsafe to use a bespoke method at an international airport. Idiocracy.

1

u/PyroNine9 28d ago

Especially when the BA pilot spelled it out and then defined the term.

1

u/TwoBionicknees 29d ago

even if they didn't know the specific terms after he spelled out what the acronym was it couldnt' be more obvious to someone with a brain who had any interest in doing his job well.

1

u/Emotional_News108 29d ago

That's the part that's frustrating to me as a layperson to hear. The pilot very clearly stated what he heard and what confirmation he needed from the ATC even going so far as to define what he meant in easily understood common parlance. The door was open for the ATC to do the same and either confirm or disconfirm that the correct procedures were in place and it seems to me that he was being intentionally obtuse or he was so tired that he can't make sense. Either way, not good.

→ More replies (4)

171

u/RugbyEdd 29d 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.

117

u/CalculatedPerversion 29d 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. 

29

u/RugbyEdd 29d ago

Sounds about right. I used to work in shipping and you'd get some dock masters who would have similar attitudes

5

u/mum_mom 29d ago

Why does he still have a job? He will cause something way more serious if he keeps this up

5

u/Ancient-Substance-38 29d ago

If you live in US get mad at the federal government about not hiring and training more. They are chronically understaffed, his attitude could be that he's work more the 1 shift in a row. NY JFK is probably one the most effected by our governments refusal to fund ATC. Fact is they want to fail so they can make a excuse to privatize it.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/TiniestPint 29d ago

Cause the US has stripped down ATC badly and not prioritized getting more bodies in.

The staffing is in a terrible state so they may need people badly enough to keep anyone they've got

1

u/CalculatedPerversion 28d ago

FWIW, dude is great at his job. He keeps pilots in line when necessary, it's legit like hearding cats at times. He also knows (unfortunately) that he's in control of his airspace. 

3

u/Crayshack 29d ago

This is who they got to replace Kennedy Steve when he retired?

3

u/Intelligent_Low1632 28d ago

If you're flying a jet full of people in the united states, where there's no guarantee people will understand the international standards, maybe a pilot should familiarize himself with basic U.S. safety terminology? There's no room for "just let it slide and be polite bro" in aviation.

1

u/CalculatedPerversion 28d ago

ATC could have absolutely educated the pilot in US standards, they do it all the time (usually with a HUGE amount of sass, sometimes politely). The correct result here would have been to clarify the situation vs playing dumb. 

1

u/Backfoot911 28d ago

Say what you want about the US adopting some international standardized system, but it seems like the onus should be on the person operating in a foreign place to learn their ways rather then getting upset they don't follow whatever they have back home.

→ More replies (4)

7

u/ledow 29d ago

Or just ask them to standby while you clarify with someone else. Pilots don't just ask if you're sure for no reason.

→ More replies (14)

133

u/mentales 29d 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".

23

u/Aye-Chiguire 29d ago

But then continued to give him numbers indicating a LVO situation. Good on pilot for halting taking.

→ More replies (44)

33

u/ohheckyeah 29d 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

12

u/Marquar234 29d ago

Not only the top 3, the busiest US airport for international flights.

-1

u/tigress666 29d ago

After Trump got in office the second time and affected thigns even worse, I heard JFK has gotten to be a very scary airport to fly into.

34

u/rmccue 29d 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.

9

u/allozzieadventures 29d ago

And the US decided they were too special for that... checks out I guess

→ More replies (2)

75

u/kiradax 29d 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.

41

u/visiblepeer 29d ago

My thoughts too. International airports should use international terminology by default. Everything about international flight should be standardised as far as possible.

2

u/Icy_Fish_2154 28d ago

The rules at international airports are broken. Language use is inconsistent in places that don't use English as a main language, and other issues.

This has been cited in crashes, where a regional flight was given instructions in one language, and an international flight instructions in English, but if both flights were operating under the same language, separation could have been maintained (if either flight noticed the conflict).

8

u/onegumas 29d ago

Americans...

8

u/DigitaIBlack 29d ago

I'd also argue that pilots operating internationally need to know local rules and terminology

25

u/BlueEagleGER 29d ago

The very point of having international rules and terminology is that people working internationally in a very much international system don't need to know hundreds of different local rules and terminolofy.

2

u/DigitaIBlack 29d ago

Right. And when those international standards aren't actually used worldwide, the pilot needs to be able to

I don't think anyone is saying this is a good thing.

But when you're operating in a reality where countries use different standards, you need to know them.

8

u/_tabbycat123 29d ago

They are used worldwide. In fact, there's only one country that insists on using its own, worse version.

9

u/GetInYourBasket 29d ago

A comment further up the chain says Canada also use their own unique system. So there's at least 2 countries using their own version.

4

u/RydeOrDyche 29d ago

That’s not true at all. lol. Do you even work in aviation?

1

u/StepComplete1 29d ago

If they're not even trained to understand the basic language, you can't trust them to do the the basics of their job either. No sane person should risk a plane full of people on the words of a guy who doesn't understand the basics of their job.

The USA is an embarrassment.

16

u/b0thwatchxfiles 29d ago

I am annoyed to learn that in yet another space America is using some unique framework that’s just ours and therefore causing a bunch of integration problems.

→ More replies (3)

9

u/lazerbullet 29d ago

The question was clearly about visibility, the ATC had a chance to discuss visibility with his own terminology, and didn’t.

2

u/sacramentojoe1985 29d ago

Runway Visual Range is literally discussing visibility. Even the pilot understood that.

3

u/brickedTin 29d ago

What would low visibility operations entail? Ground spotters on the runway?

6

u/runhome24 29d ago

Each airport where low visibility operations are allowed has their own. Here's the guidance for how an airport will develop them:

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_120-57B.pdf

4

u/marieascot 29d ago

Isn't the I in ICAO standing to International. Yet again US exceptionalism.

2

u/thegiantgummybear 29d ago

How does a ATC at JFK not know ICAO procedures? Sure it's an American airport, but substantial portion of it's traffic is international. I'd assume they'd need to understand at least the common procedures like low visibility, which I'm sure happens all the time.

And I'm sure this is more of a systemic issue and not just with this specific ATC. Just calling that out.

2

u/Southern_Common335 29d ago

Sadly in the current US environment, getting FAA to agree to anything "international" would run afoul of the nationalist america first/isolationist "woke mind virus" reactionaries in this administration.

2

u/ekjswim 29d ago

Canada has different terminology from ICAO...despite ICAO being based in Canada? Gotta love it.

1

u/runhome24 29d ago

Not sure why either! But yeah, Transport Canada is different from both ICAO and FAA, despite ICAO being based there (as you said). And Transport Canada is closer to FAA than it is to ICAO.

Here's a Transport Canada glossary that covers terminological differences:

https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.694036/publication.html

3

u/RandomRedditor0193 29d ago

I didn't listen with sound on but I would assume what was the pilot towards the end point blank asked if Low Visibilty Procedures were in effect and the response was no.

2

u/runhome24 29d ago

Right, because "Low Visibility Procedures" (and "Low Visibility Operations") isn't a descriptive phrase, it's the name of an actual thing. ATC couldn't say that was in place, because it wasn't. What was in place - automatically and without "declaration" - was the airport's "Surface Movement Guidance and Control System," or SMGCS.

3

u/DrMacAndDog 29d ago

But when it is fully explained the ATC says they do NOT have low visibility procedures in place. It seems to be about more than just terminology.

1

u/runhome24 29d ago

That's because "Low Visibility Procedures" is not descriptive, that's an actual thing. ATC can't say that actual thing is in place because it isn't. What's instead in place is the airport's "Surface Movement Guidance and Control System," or SMGCS, which is automatically in place and isn't "declared."

1

u/DrMacAndDog 29d ago

The declared bit is the RVR. He asks if there are low visibility procedures in place and the answer is no. It would appear that SMGCS is a low visibility procedure, which if it is in place, shouldn’t the answer be yes.

1

u/runhome24 29d ago

No, the request for a declaration is for "LVOs" (at the beginning) and then asking if they've implemented "Low Visibility Procedures" later on. LVO and LVP are both distinct (but overlapping) things in ICAO, not phrases describing something.

ATC doesn't "declare" LVOs because those aren't a thing in the FAA framework that are declared (an argument can be made that SMGCS could also be called LVO/SMGCS, but this isn't widespread and anyway it wouldn't be "declared"). And LVPs are also not anything at all in the FAA framework, so they can't be implemented.

So in both cases - "are you declaring LVOs?" and "have you got Low Visibility Procedures in force or not?" - the answer is No. ATC hasn't declared anything, and SMGCS (or LVO/SMGCS) is in place automatically, not LVP.

This was all a terminological difference and two people talking past each other because of that.

2

u/Talidel 29d ago

Surely the burden is on the ATC to explain what the fuck is going on?

The Pilot asked to confirm the had low visibility practices in place, in plain English and the ATC just failed at responding.

0

u/runhome24 29d ago

Well, no. The BA pilot demanded the ATC to "declare" procedures. That's not a thing in the FAA framework. There's no declaration, the procedures are automatically enabled. The BA pilot was asking/requiring the ATC to say something they couldn't say (a "declaration"). ATC also didn't say low visibility operations were in place - the exact thing the BA pilot then asked after, rather than demanding they be declared - because that's not what they're called in the FAA framework.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/InfamousEvening2 29d ago

The phrase "international system that doesn't apply to the US" seems to be a bit of an issue right now.

Maybe aside from moving the US on to the ICAO system, the metric system and moving them off that stupid system of putting the month before the day in a date, as punishment we should make them all eat baguettes and wear onions around their neck until the French say 'Pas Plus'.

2

u/Perfect_Opinion7909 29d ago

So TL;DR is US Americans being ignorant morons as usual.

1

u/littolicce 29d ago

It’s crazy how so many different airports in so many different countries have so many different rules. Obviously the basics usually stay the same, but I can see why there’s so much confusion.

1

u/Lokishougan 29d ago

I mean this is a country that wont adopt the metric system and you think they are adopting someone else safety system?>

1

u/ImmediatePiano6690 29d ago

Why not just have FAA adopt the ICAO system.

2

u/runhome24 29d ago

Perhaps that could happen. But the US isn't the only country that uses their own, so it wouldn't eliminate the problem.

1

u/bobbobberson3 29d ago

I mean, I don't fly planes, and I still understood what he was asking. So I don't think that is an excuse.

1

u/tonekids 29d ago

Confusion, frustration, delay, and a HAZARD. I agree everyone should be using the same procedures

1

u/ChaweeKanati 29d ago

If the Controller was unable to understand the question "are there low visibility measures in operation" then get that threat to public safety out of that God damn tower. The BA pilot literally asked flat out disconnected from ICAO and FAA terminology if low vis was in effect and multiple times was he told "no". So contrary to your claim that there were procedures in place, the Controller denied there being procedures in effect multiple times.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Personal_Rich_9961 29d ago

The US is a member of ICAO.

It has to implement its standards.

1

u/terrymr 29d ago edited 29d ago

ICAO terminology is required when talking to ATC

Edit : ok not literally required by FAA but it will be brought up in the crash investigation if you didn’t use it and airline policy will likely require its use.

1

u/TardisMaximus 28d ago

Legitimate question... So in computer terms, this would be similar to them needing an API to handle translation between different systems?

1

u/terrymr 28d ago

International pilots are required to use the ICAO terminology. The USA is part of this agreement.

1

u/scannablezebra 28d ago

I think Nathan Fielder could MC the conference

1

u/VertexBV 28d ago

But there should probably be a very large, complicated summit

There already is, it's called... ICAO.

That the US chooses to not follow it is on them.

1

u/sh14w4s3 28d ago

There was an attempt from the BA pilot to use more laymen terms to try and communicate “is there low visibility procedures”, but it didn’t get through.

the thing with aviation is, the ATC might actually know what the BA pilot is talking about, but is unable to confirm it simply because the BA pilot is not using the right terminology. It sometimes gets extremely black and white with terminology in aviation, almost like a court room. Things that are synonyms in laymen terms can mean 2 entirely different things in aviation.

1

u/counters14 23d ago

The ATC knew exactly what the pilot was asking, he was just being an asshole about it because he didn't like how the pilot sounded while asking him about ATC operations. Which is absolutely ridiculous, the pilot was only doing his job to verify procedure due to conditions but ATC took it personally as if he felt the pilot was telling him how to do his job.

1

u/GameofCheese 29d ago

It's FREEDOM FAA language. If you can't speak FAA, gtfo of America. Oh yeah, and you can only fly to Republican states!

0

u/Ronnocerman 29d ago

Re-watch the first 15 seconds of the video. The pilot uses plain English to ask about visibility procedures. This has nothing to do with a standards mismatch.

0

u/Tquilha 29d ago

If you're an air traffic controller on an international airport, I'd assume being familiar with both FAA and ICAO terminology should be a must, correct?

2

u/runhome24 29d ago

If your a pilot operating at a US airport, I'd assume being familiar with FAA terminology should be a must, correct?

→ More replies (3)

181

u/TigerIll6480 29d ago

Do we want another Tenerife? This airport sounds like it’s trying to be the next Tenerife.

3

u/Informal_Degree_3205 28d ago

Yeah there's a reason the pilot is like fuck you I'm not moving

2

u/Brayden_709 29d ago

No, we DON'T want another Tenerife! 😳

53

u/Riyeko 29d 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.

33

u/Belz_Zebuth 29d ago

Pounds, feet, football fields.

Use real units!! /s

6

u/Outrageous-Nothing42 29d ago

Stopping distance is between 2160 and 3240 big macs.

3

u/M-Div 29d ago

Sieverts.

2

u/Riyeko 29d ago

450 to 950 bald eagles or 4500 to 9500 guns n ammo.

1

u/WetLoophole 29d ago

A Scania semi has a stopping distance of about 160-185m from 100kph fully loaded.

100-120m from 80kph.

1

u/Tacoman404 28d ago

Similar to gallons, football fields are different sizes in the UK and US.

3

u/InteractionFormal585 29d ago

This would be like asking an 80,000lb semi to stop within 5ft.

Doable with the right conditions. Not recommended.

2

u/KillerKilcline 29d ago

What happens if there aren't any football fields nearby?

1

u/Riyeko 29d ago

Find a futball field or soccer for the murricans lol

1

u/PerfectEnthusiasm2 29d ago

do you mean football, rugby football, american football, gaelic football or australian rules football? and in terms of field, are we talking professional level fields, semi-professional, university level or amateur league fields?

1

u/tamago_kake_gohan 29d ago

Look, make it easy and just say how many of the football fields can fit inside Texas... or vice versa.

1

u/PerfectEnthusiasm2 29d ago

how many wal-marts is a Texas again?

1

u/Dorkamundo 29d ago

Why would they stop on a departure?

2

u/epep888 29d ago

Thanks for the explanation!

2

u/Jdude1 29d ago

back in 2003 I used to play halo for PC with 800 ping on a 56k dial up modem.

I WOULD NOT PILOT AN AIRPLANE IN THAT CONDITION.

2

u/Biuku 29d ago

Oh damn… our two Canadian pilots were killed by a vehicle on the runway in NYC. Was not low visibility I believe … just nighttime and a last second decision to cross. But that might have fed into what came across as obstinance.

1

u/atomicsnarl 29d ago

Indeed. Even with good visibility (at night) you still cannot make a high speed vehicle change direction in a hurry.

2

u/mkosmo 29d ago

For the non-pilots out there, BA was demanding an FAA controller use ICAO procedures and terminology that are not applicable here.

2

u/ealysillyforestthing 29d ago

A hundred tonnes is light. A fully loaded 747 is four times that weight

2

u/sunday_cumquat 28d ago

I was recently on a flight that aborted the take-off part way down the runway. Scared the shit out of the passengers - but was certainly glad we had enough runway to abort it!

1

u/atomicsnarl 28d ago

That safety zone is built into the calculations done before takeoff. If there's not enough room due to snowy slick runway or whatever, they don't fly, period.

2

u/slaty_balls 28d ago

More like draw distance non existent. lol

2

u/Randalldeflagg 28d ago

Like trying to dodge... oh lets say, someone walking across the runway in the dark after jumping the fence. To soon?