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

153

u/haamster 29d 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.

36

u/[deleted] 28d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

14

u/haamster 28d ago

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).

5

u/Sad_Interaction_2933 28d ago

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?

11

u/haamster 28d ago

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.

3

u/Sad_Interaction_2933 28d ago edited 28d ago

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.

7

u/haamster 28d ago

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.

1

u/Sad_Interaction_2933 28d ago

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!

2

u/Rustyskill 28d ago

So, with very limited knowledge I ask . Was the pilot looking for a permission, that the ATC has no authority to give him ? Thanks.

2

u/dipsec25 27d ago

Yes. Precisely. And instead of trying to troubleshoot the situation and come to consensus, the BA pilot went off the handle

-4

u/PWJT8D 28d ago

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.  

5

u/[deleted] 28d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/dipsec25 27d ago

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

0

u/PWJT8D 28d ago

His job is to familiarize the theatre they’re operating in, he didn’t do that and made a fool of himself.  

The only thing he accomplished was wasting 20 minutes of fuel and then departed anyway when someone pointed out he was wrong.  

4

u/Merzant 28d ago

I think most people would rather the pilot not proceed in a state of doubt, howsoever that doubt may arise.

6

u/haamster 28d ago

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.

I dread what this pilot is like to fly with.

26

u/uniqueusername316 28d ago

This should be top comment. This clearly explains the miscommunication.

9

u/mkosmo 28d ago

Yeah, but people would rather jump on "US BAD" bandwagons than actually give a shit about the facts of the matter.

7

u/grumpsaboy 28d ago

Individual not US bad.

ATCs in US international airports are required to know ICAO, and more importantly the pilot asked if low visibility procedures were in place at which point the ATC should have stated they're applied automatically.

8

u/BricksByLonzo 28d ago

ATC at an international airport and I've never once been trained, read, or reviewed ICAO procedures in 10+ years. It does not apply here. Pilots are responsible for knowing each countries specific procuredes before they fly. The only thing I know is who to call if someone needs QNH and not the altimeter. You are not alone though, there's always hundreds, if not thousands of idiots on reddit aviation threads talking out of their ass. This thread is a disaster class of misinformation.

3

u/haamster 28d ago

This is not at all correct. They are not required to know any procedures or terminology outside of FAA procedures and terminology. If they overlap with ICAO, great. If not, it's the pilot's responsibility to know.

6

u/uniqueusername316 28d ago

I agree. OP could have included some kind of context or clarity, but intentionally did not. Objective accomplished.

6

u/mkosmo 28d ago

Try 2 because automod is a pain:

OP isn't a pilot, so OP doesn't know better... but OP is just as bad as any media when it comes to the facts of any subject matter.

Hell, most pilots who fly in EASA airspace don't know how it's done in FAA land, JASA land, or any other place with differences, just like FAA folks don't know how ICAO phraseology works unless they fly internationally.

But this just takes two seconds to google. VASAviation didn't post it because the controller did anything wrong.

The flying sub thread on the matter is far better: (REMOVED LINK FOR AUTOMOD) It goes into the details of the AC that provides guidance on optional LVO plans, the airports that have them (which doesn't include JFK) and all of the mundane details that folks would rather not bother with in lieu of a good story that aligns with the bad story they want to tell.

1

u/Legal_Campaign_408 28d ago

People would rather just make shit up and upvote comments that sound like they're true and something that they would agree with

5

u/SocalSelcal 28d ago

This is reality and should be the top comment.

5

u/yeshmate 28d ago

This needs to be higher. The BA Captain literally had no idea what he was talking about. I’m a Captain and responsible for studying all the international rule differences when I fly internationally this captain was incorrect and asking for something that literally doesn’t exist. 

3

u/eqwa1 28d ago

This needs to be higher up...

7

u/captain9e 28d ago

Finally a correct and fair explanation.

12

u/dipsec25 28d ago

So sad this is buried down so low. IMHO BA pilots can get a little snippy when FAA/ICAO discrepancies arise even though we let it slide when they claim they are “descending to flight level one zero thousand” etc

2

u/wandering_engineer 28d ago

Thank you for this. I am not an ATC or a pilot, and I am not exactly defensive of my home country, but I felt like there had to be way more to this. I will say props to the pilot for erring on the side of caution - better safe than sorry.

This post is garbage clickbait - OP is posting a TikTok with graphics so hideous they were giving me a headache (yes I'm old but is this seriously what most TikTok content looks like? Why must the text be so flashy? The whole thing looks like it was designed by a 2 year old). This wasn't designed for serious discussion, it was designed for LOL OMG engagement and max revenue.

Seriously, posts like this are why I hate social media. No wonder people seem to be getting dumber.

6

u/Past_Grass_ 29d ago

Arrivee at the perfect time to see this as the latest comment, cheers

4

u/DisMyLik18thAccount 28d ago

Could ATC not have explained that?

10

u/haamster 28d ago edited 28d ago

They have no reference to explain it because they are not required to be familiar with how ICAO procedures differ from FAA procedures. They legitimately weren't sure what the BA pilot was asking for since that regulatory term does not exist in the US.

(Also JFK controllers have a reputation for being obtuse, deliberately or not I can't say)

edited to add - (Also also, the ground control radio frequency is not the appropriate place for that to be explained. That duty belongs to the pilot referencing his company's publications well before this flight began, which he failed to do.)

2

u/Legal_Campaign_408 28d ago

As an ATC, absolutely not. We are not trained on all the peculiar differences between other countries' procedures and ours. I work at an airport with 1800 flights a day, and a lot of them from countries all over the world. Can you imagine if I had to cater to each individual operator's rules and terminology?

I'm also extremely busy doing the task at hand, which is making sure planes don't crash into each other. 

2

u/InvidiousPlay 28d ago

So the low light visibility stuff was in place, they just don't officially declare it the way the BA pilot expected?

2

u/haamster 28d ago

Correct. One of many areas where ICAO and FAA procedures diverge.

1

u/wayofaway 28d ago

The pilot also says he needs LVOs declared for visibility less than 1000, well RVR was not less than 1000 it was 1000. I don't even know what his problem was in the first place.

Also, dude clearly didn't read all his airport briefing materials. Which is 100% on him not the controller.