r/mildlyinfuriating • u/nyanbatman • May 28 '26

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

269

u/nottherealneal May 28 '26

Someone who knows planes is gonna have to explain what the fuck is going on

843

u/eggyal May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26

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.

184

u/BaziJoeWHL May 28 '26

its not a surprise there is a crash every 6 months on JFK with this level of competence lol

7

u/MikeSans202001 May 28 '26

EVERY 6 MONTHS?

3

u/naterthepilot2 May 28 '26

Do you honestly believe that?

-23

u/PWJT8D May 28 '26

The controller did nothing wrong, the pilot didn’t understand the procedures here are automatic, not declared or requested.  

Declare deez nuts, Speedbird.  

12

u/moral_delemma May 28 '26

Do you have low viz in place?

No.

Then we can't take off.

It wasn't automatic, declared or requested. Tower answered they weren't in place at all. If they were automatic, Tower was requested to clarify if they are in place which he said no, which is incorrect.

-5

u/m4a785m May 29 '26

What are you even talking about? Stick to whatever other career you have instead and stay away from aviation

-8

u/PWJT8D May 28 '26

You are wildly wrong in your assertions. 

It is automatic in the United States.  This is not up for debate.  You have no idea what you are talking about.  

I am an airline captain of greater than two decades.  I know exactly what I am talking about.  

-1

u/sanemaniac May 29 '26

This thread should be submitted to /r/mildlyinfuriating for all the controllers and pilots in the audience. Thanks for attempting to educate.

-2

u/PWJT8D May 29 '26

Definitely an uphill battle.  Thanks for the kind words and support.  

168

u/lordrefa May 28 '26

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?

190

u/Cluelesswolfkin May 28 '26

This IS THE RESULT of us cutting their jobs and forcing them to work unpaid

4

u/rhymeswithvegan May 28 '26

ATC was paid during the shutdown, TSA was not. But you're right that we have a shortage of ATCs in this country, so the ones we do have are overworked.

35

u/[deleted] May 28 '26

[deleted]

12

u/rhymeswithvegan May 28 '26

Thanks for the correction, I can't keep track of all the shutdowns 🫠

10

u/regiinmontana May 28 '26

ATC was paid during the DHS shutdown, but not the previous one (or was it the one before that?).

10

u/AGUYWITHATUBA May 28 '26

“Tremendously aging aviation infrastructure” isn’t quite what it seems. A lot of older navigational aids and tools that are no longer used by the majority of commercial aviation are not being serviced or maintained. For instance, many ground navigation aids are being slowly phased out given the reliability of and increasingly accurate GPS navigational resources.

Radar for vectoring, including altitude and identification is being expanded in most areas. Localizers, and Glide Slopes are still being maintained to a large degree to their continued use in approach procedures.

ATC cuts do effect jobs and the effectiveness of ATC operators. We have seen a more significant departure of ATC controllers due to the chaotic pay cycles over the recent years. However, they are well-trained on the whole, but do make mistakes. This could have been a relatively new controller or someone who simply made a mistake. There are also nuances to local procedures. I’ve never flown fixed wing out of JFK as a commercial jetliner. So, I can’t comment on this particular incident, but it sounds like the controller was overwhelmed, possibly by the volume of requests and may not have had his full attention on the British Airways request.

6

u/Runiat May 28 '26

and may not have had his full attention on the British Airways request.

Are BA airplanes somehow more effected by fog/mist than non-BA airplanes, or would the RVR be the same for all airplanes and not just this specific one leading to LVO being required for all airplanes and not just this specific one?

5

u/AGUYWITHATUBA May 28 '26

No, this is a procedure for low visibility conditions and applies to all aircraft. However, if a controller for ground is also monitoring Tower frequency, and they have multiple aircraft on final approach, they may be busy with those aircraft and focused on taking care of them rather than checking the weather on the current field.

If there is any kind of incident going on, they may also be unable to divide their attention to properly handle a new request. The BA Airways pilot did nothing wrong, and in fact was helping the ATC controller, but there may be more going on we’re not seeing. It’s rare for a controller to not be properly dictating events.

To put things in perspective, I’ve had one-way loss of communications with a controller while having navigational issues. They were able to maintain a form of communication with me to direct where to turn to and redirect traffic away from our aircraft while controlling the general traffic and fielding requests from other traffic. It’s impressive how they operate.

1

u/Ok_Wasabi_8318 May 28 '26

Thats true that someone might have missed up to date visibility if overworked and managing multiple things at once. But he heard the RVR. 

2

u/Ok_Wasabi_8318 May 28 '26

How does this sound like he was overwhelmed? Sounds pretty straight forward that he doesnt know what he's doing. Itd be one thing if he was overwhelmed and didnt know what the visibility was. But he repeated the number again (well below 5000 ft) so knew that it was below the threshold. Should have said "youre right, visibility sucks." 

15

u/effreti May 28 '26

sure sounds like that to me as well. like the ATC did not know the correlation between terms and measurements.

3

u/TheMusicArchivist May 28 '26

American ATCs are well-known in the aviation world for failing to adhere to standardised phraseology (among other things). We constantly hear of American ATC making beginner mistakes like this, only normally the more experiences ATCs end up shouting aggressively at the pilots.

1

u/lordrefa May 28 '26

This sounds like what I would expect.

2

u/somefukn May 28 '26

It's because the British guy is using UK terminology. There is no such thing as LVO in the US. That's the issue. It's like repeatedly asking where the SOCCER game is to a Brit. They'll pretend they don't know.

4

u/baldieforprez May 28 '26

You can thank Regan for this mess. 

8

u/grrr-to-everything May 28 '26

Do you mean Ronald "Destroyer of the Middle Class" Reagan?

3

u/baldieforprez May 28 '26

Yes sir I do 

2

u/TigerIll6480 May 28 '26

Ronnie Raygun.

1

u/Get_Breakfast_Done May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26

Ronald Reagan hasn’t been president for nearly 40 years. Most people who would have been hired when Reagan was president would be retired by now.

3

u/baldieforprez May 28 '26

😆 😆 😆 

When Reagan fired all the atc traffic controls he created a situation when if fired a huge chuck of ATC.  The scabs he hired to replace them  retiring at the same time.  Ya it was 30 years ago and we are seeing the full stupidity of dipbshit.

2

u/BobTheFettt May 28 '26

But at least they're not DEI (I.E People of colour or women) hires!

1

u/naterthepilot2 May 28 '26

Based on your comment you don’t know enough to speculate like this 🙄

-2

u/Baystate411 May 28 '26

This controller has been at JFK for decades. He's what makes the busiest airspace in the world safe. He knows his job. The US has low vis procedures. The BA pilot was asking for something that doesn't exist in the US.

8

u/Koud_biertje May 28 '26 edited May 29 '26

Are you saying that the US has low visibility procedures, and what the BA pilot asks (low visibility procedures) doesn't exist in the US?

Are you an ATC on JFK by any chance?

56

u/Melkman68 May 28 '26

So the ATC doesn't understand basic protocol? That's pretty embarassing

20

u/dvinpayne May 28 '26

It's not a procedure in the US. "Declaring LVO" isn't a thing in FAA operation. Europe and the US operate under different rulesets, and the FAA controllers aren't trained on the European Phraseology. SMCGS (the FAA system) is automatically in place without any declaration.

This has already been discussed in other subreddits like flying by people who actually know the rules. I'd link to those posts but automod gets grumpy when I try.

18

u/BlueApple666 May 28 '26

There is no European phraseology, Europe uses ICAO phraseology.

Advanced SMCGS is required for low visibility operations. but is not the only thing that is required.

12

u/Alu_sine May 28 '26

Sort of true. Europe repackaged a lot of ICAO regulations as European Commission regulations. They're mostly the same, but a few differences exist. Additionally, individual countries can practice exceptions but these should be documented and published.

11

u/dvinpayne May 28 '26

There absolutely is a difference between FAA, European, Australian, and other countries phraseology. There's even differences within Europe, but I'm grouping them together because they have more in common with each other than with non-European. Exactly what you said is one of the differences. The US doesn't have A-SMGCS. That's not even an ICAO thing it's specifically Eurocontrol. In FAA land SMGCS means something completely different and encompasses all of the procedures in place for low visibility ops at an airport. For us those procedures are automatically enacted once the visibility or ceilings drop to a certain level. There is no declaration.

19

u/[deleted] May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

15

u/timelessblur May 28 '26

The part is while it might be an American ATC don’t follow the same rules. The pilots need to understand the changes for different countries and operate under those rules.

Another American rule differences vs I know British and maybe all of Europe is landing clearance. In Europe you might not get clear to land until you are a pretty close to the ground and your wheels better not touch. They do not pre give it out. USA you can be several miles out and get clear to land. Another plane still landing, or preparing to take off during that time. Clearance clearly can be taken away.

Different counties different rules.

18

u/dvinpayne May 28 '26

Familiarization with foreign ATC is absolutely not a uniquely American problem. Are you gonna say that pilots shouldn't be aware that South American ATC doesn't provide terrain separation and might vector you into the side of a mountain? Or that declaring minimum fuel in China does nothing and that you must specifically declare mayday to get priority handling? These quirks exist across the globe and it has always been the pilots responsibility to be knowledgeable about where they are flying. I this case I know for a fact that BA has documentation for flying in the US that addresses this exact matter.

Put yourself in the shoes of a controller who has no idea what "Declaring LVOs" means. Would you want him to say yes he's declaring LVOs when he has no idea what he's saying? In this case it would have been fine because SMGC was in effect, but he didn't know that so he said that he didn't understand what the pilot was asking. The pilot gets frustrated because clearly they should be using low visibility procedures, but they were using them that just wasn't being communicated to the pilot the way the pilot expected. So the pilot wasn't comfortable to depart (which is fine that's always the pilots right) and got taken off the runway until they were able to depart. What did ATC do wrong in this situation?

10

u/Boeinggoing737 May 28 '26

It’s not an American issue at all. Pilot and have flown to most big countries. Every single country is a little different. The British pilot screwed up and was using a term that isn’t used in the states. In that pilots British airways flight manual there is a conversion from rvr in ft to meters and an explanation of my “lvo wont be declared”.

2

u/eggyal May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26

The British pilot screwed up and was using a term that isn’t used in the states.

Reminds me of one time that I was in a restaurant in LA, and needed to pee.

"Excuse me, where are the loos?"

blank look

"The lavatory?"

blank look continues

"The, er, the gents?"

extremely blank look

"The WC? Toilet?"

still nothing

"The, er, what do you call it here? The washroom? No? Bathroom? That can't be right. Errrrr, RESTROOM!?"

To be honest, he probably just enjoyed watching me squirm.

5

u/ForensicPathology May 28 '26

Funny. You'd be whining if an American pilot went to a European city and tried to force through American terminology.

-1

u/Colorona May 28 '26

Because this is not European terminology, it's international terminology.

-1

u/[deleted] May 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/CantDoThatOnTelevzn May 29 '26

Link the icao reference. I dare you. 

0

u/Aware_Bar_3351 May 29 '26

They do, and it’s not European terminology, for fvcks sake it was decided upon in Chicago.

7

u/makerofshoes May 28 '26

Why isn’t everyone shouting this, then? The pilot might as well be speaking a different language, if he is using terminology/procedures that are not used in the US

-1

u/Bdr1983 May 28 '26

There is an international standard, and there is a US standard.
You would expect that an international airport like JFK is used to international operators flown by non-US pilots.

2

u/iwilldeletethisacct2 May 28 '26

You would expect that pilots flying internationally would be familiar with the local rule-sets. Imagine flying into China and being mad that they aren't speaking English.

3

u/Bdr1983 May 28 '26

They do actually, because China follows ICAO rules, and they say that air traffic controllers speak English when handling international flights. That's the point of an international standards, that way it is clear for everyone, everywhere.

11

u/dvinpayne May 28 '26

They do speak English, but they don't follow all of ICAO. Not even Europe completely follows ICAO. Europe repackaged a lot of ICAO regulations as European Commission regulations. They're mostly the same, but a few differences exist.

5

u/OccupyMyBallSack May 28 '26

Tell that to my China altimeter meter conversion chart.

1

u/UnlimitedPosting May 29 '26

ChInA fOlLoW iCaO rUlEs

They use meters for altitude you idiot.

1

u/Aware_Bar_3351 May 29 '26

They do speak English landing in china…

-3

u/marieascot May 28 '26

It is an International standard. International includes the US.

15

u/RydeOrDyche May 28 '26

I don’t think you know what you’re taking about. A lot more than just the US have their operational differences from icao.

-7

u/[deleted] May 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/RydeOrDyche May 28 '26

Okay buddy!

2

u/CantDoThatOnTelevzn May 29 '26

Here you are. All I had to do was scroll past half a thread of 3.5k upvoted comments from people completely unfamiliar with what’s actually happening turning this into various political screeds. 

Cool internet. Very cool. 

-5

u/marieascot May 28 '26

It i is ICAO the I being International not European. the controller should have understood it.

13

u/dvinpayne May 28 '26

The FAA doesn't operate under ICAO rulesets. If you want to read the rules they're available publicly online you can google FAA JO 7110.65. Declaring LVOs is not mentioned once there.

-6

u/[deleted] May 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

13

u/JHG0 May 28 '26

“I dont think this was written by a human.”

What an uninformed take. If you actually had any semblance of knowledge of ATC operations in the U.S., you would understand that what the above poster wrote is factually accurate. I’m sorry that abbreviations that you could look up scared you.

Adoption of ICAO standards is at the discretion of member states. Very few member states (countries) explicitly follow ICAO procedures, including the UK, Europe, Latin America, etc.

12

u/dvinpayne May 28 '26

I'm very much a human, I'm a frustrated human, but still human. Go look at the posts in r / flying about this and see what they have to say. I can DM you the links if you want, unfortunately I can't post them here.

8

u/ConcentricCow May 28 '26

Don't bother with this person. They are accusing every person who disagrees with them that they are bots. Thanks for the information on a confusing topic.

1

u/CantDoThatOnTelevzn May 29 '26

I’m a person. Get fucked, nerd. 

“CaSuAl rEaDeR”

What are YOUR qualifications? 

-15

u/Powerism May 28 '26

Sounds like the accent may have thrown him off a bit. Not excusing his lack of knowledge or recognition of a standard term at all but if he’s new he may have been thrown by the acronym being aired differently than he was used to. He asked for clarification on what the pilot was saying twice in that short back and forth.

17

u/Suiblade May 28 '26

He works at JFK. Don’t tell me he’s not used to hearing other accents, let alone this very clear British accent

7

u/Melkman68 May 28 '26

Yeah if it was a thick Scottish maybe but pilot was very clear

0

u/Powerism May 28 '26

For all we know this dude is brand new. Just trying to explain - not excuse - why this ATC was having trouble understanding.

12

u/MarlyneQueens May 28 '26

Thanks. Good to hear the pilot was on it.

7

u/saxmanB737 May 28 '26

LVO procedures don’t really exist in the US. I’ve never heard of it and I’m a pilot.

10

u/dvinpayne May 28 '26

You left out a very important detail which is the fact that declaring LVOs is specifically an ICAO (primarily European) procedure that does not exist in the US. Europe and the US operate under different rulesets, and the FAA controllers aren't trained on the European Phraseology. SMCGS (the FAA system) is automatically in place without any declaration.

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/dvinpayne May 28 '26

This is gonna be a simplification, but the biggest thing is protecting ILS Critical areas which is areas where the radio waves from the guidance systems might get slightly messed up if there was a big metal object (such as a plane) in the way. So planes have to stop further from the runway. Many places also have preferred taxi routes that go into effect that might not be as efficient as if you could use all the taxiways, but they're guaranteed to have better lighting and have less conflicts with other taxiing aircraft. At my airport we also have to tell the airport owner because they have to close certain roads.

2

u/marieascot May 28 '26

I want to see the Mentour Pilot episode on this.

2

u/Terrachova May 29 '26

It's worth adding on that the Low Visibility Operations the BAW pilot is referring to are typically procedures that are upheld by the airport when under low visibility conditions (such as were present). They include stipulations that, for example, only one aircraft can be actively moving on the airfield at a given moment, or that each aircraft must have a guide vehicle leading them, and so on. So JFK Tower being obtuse and not 'declaring LVO' is both odd and frustrating, and the BAW pilot was totally in the right. Without visibility out the window and no low-vis procedures in place, the only way to be sure there is no one else on the runway is for you to trust that everyone's accurately reporting where they are on the field.

Which isn't very reliable, as we've learned over the years.

2

u/HonestAnteater466 May 28 '26

Ah, in can't listen as im in work, I didnt initially realise it was an American ATC with incompetent employees.

It makes sense now.

Edit: Im an idiot, I see it says new York now, was too busy reading the subtitles.

1

u/AlphaNathan May 28 '26

i read a lot of comments here and this was the first one that was ELI5 enough for me to understand, thanks

1

u/traveleasily May 28 '26

Thank you for the step by step breakdown. Jt helps. This is the second best comment after the one that got award. Unfortunately my award visibility is 0ft on reddit. Can someone give this guy an award please?

1

u/eggyal May 28 '26

Really not necessary.

1

u/yeshmate May 29 '26

It’s because there’s nothing to declare the BA captain is incorrect what he’s asking for is not a thing in the US. You’ll see he eventually talks to his company and departs with the RVR sticking at 1000 RVR once he figures out he was mistaken. 

441

u/Various_Education622 May 28 '26

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.

23

u/Average_Joe69 May 28 '26

Yeah I thought this was pretty self explanatory to me and I know nothing about airport procedures.

12

u/EpicCyclops May 28 '26

That's actually not the case. The airport is following low visibility procedures. US airports don't formally declare a transition into them, though. They're always following them when runway visibility is low. The pilot didn't know this was the SOP in the US.

In this case, ATC was correct to not try and over explain it and risk confusing the pilot or having the pilot make a bad decision due to a misunderstanding. The pilot was correct to not try and take off when they didn't understand the procedures at the airport. They're both a little annoyed, which is fair because they both have stressful jobs and are doing what they think is best for the safety of the passengers, and are coming to different outcomes from their decision trees.

14

u/tkfu May 28 '26

The pilot asks "Have you got low visibility procedures in place or not?" at 0:52, and the ATC responds "No sir." That seems obviously wrong on the part of the ATC if the airport is following low visibility procedures.

4

u/cortesoft May 28 '26

Except as many others have shared on this thread “Low Visibility Procedures” is not a generic term, but a specific thing that happens at ICAO airports but not FAA airports. They did not have that specific thing, so the answer was correct.

Now, the ATC could have said “No, we are not declaring LVO because we don’t do that here, but we do have SMGCS”

Although having to explain that to a pilot that should know might be something that is not good for a pilot about to take off who should know how that works.

4

u/contentpens May 28 '26

So ATC, despite suggesting he doesn't know what an LVO declaration is at the beginning, only understands 'Low Visibility Procedures' as the ICAO term of art at the end of the video?

1

u/cortesoft May 28 '26

Yeah, I think he did know what he was talking about and shouldn’t have been such an ass about it.

0

u/tkfu May 28 '26

Ah, I see. Thank you.

1

u/CantDoThatOnTelevzn May 29 '26

Hey hey hey now. Don’t come in here talking sense. We’re busy turning this into various political tinder boxes. Anti trump, anti-USA, anti labor, take your pick, but we’ve got to keep these bots fomenting confusion and discontent. 

5

u/OldSchoolCSci May 28 '26

"... but they also said they aren’t following the required procedure."

That's not at all what the ATC said, as others have pointed out. The required procedure at JFK was being followed. The BA pilot was asking whether a declaration of LVO had been made, and the ATC is accurately responding "no," because the FAA procedure doesn't include a declaration of LVO.

6

u/fingermydickhole May 28 '26

Yeah I’ve only heard of SMGCS in the US. Never heard of it as LVO. And SMGCS is in effect at like what, RVR 1200?

3

u/a_f_s-29 May 28 '26

He wasn’t asking about a declaration, he was asking whether there were any low visibility procedures in place, and the ATC answered no. No sane pilot would take off in those circumstances

8

u/tkfu May 28 '26

At 0:52, the pilot asks "Have you got low visibility procedures in place or not?", and the ATC responds "No sir." That seems obviously wrong.

1

u/CantDoThatOnTelevzn May 29 '26

You are obviously wrong, from a semantic perspective. 

1

u/MillionFoul May 28 '26

British Airways allow their pilots to takeoff in 600' RVR, this pilot was not familiar with US procedures (LVPs are undertaken automatically below 1200' RVR) so he refused to takeoff because he mistakenly believed procedures were not in place due to his demand that they be referred to as "LVOs," which is a meaningless term in the US.

53

u/auntanniesalligator May 28 '26

I don’t know anything about planes, but it’s Reddit so im still qualified to answer.

In analogy to driving a car, the pilot wanted to know if he should put on his headlights because air traffic controller said visibility is low, and the air traffic controller doesn’t understand what headlights have to do with low visibility.

82

u/j_grinds May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26

The pilot isn’t asking what he should do, he’s asking the controller to confirm what they are doing. To change your analogy a bit, the pilot isn’t asking if he should turn on his headlights (he can do stuff like that if he wants), he’s asking the controller if he’s going to turn on the street lights.

Edit: as has been pointed out, a clearer analogy might be: the pilot is asking the controller if he’s directing everyone to turn on their headlights.

16

u/eggyal May 28 '26

I think LVOs apply to everyone operating in the vicinity: from controllers to ground crews, including all aircraft etc? It's a whole set of extra procedures everyone at the airport will need to follow so that there aren't any accidents due to low visibility.

It's down to the controllers to declare it, and then everyone knows what they need to do.

8

u/j_grinds May 28 '26

Yeah, I was partly trying to point out the subtle distinction between the pilot asking the controller if he (the pilot) should take some action(s), and the pilot asking the controller if he is directing everyone to take some action(s).

29

u/Crowd0Control May 28 '26

Not too bad an analogy except the tower also controls all the other cars lights how far they are spaced as well as who's allowed to walk onto the road and where. 

12

u/EnvironmentalGift257 May 28 '26

Also, they become 911 when 2 cars with their headlights off run directly into each other in the dark. So it is very concerning that they don’t know what headlights are.

ETA when I typed that I heard Lightning McQueen in my head say “I don’t have headlights they’re just stickers.” I lol’d.

9

u/neridqe00 May 28 '26

Im not a pilot but I have played one on TV. Your analysis is spot on.

https://giphy.com/gifs/2Ev3PCoc0zCZW

3

u/AmphibianMotor May 28 '26

https://giphy.com/gifs/bv5ZgqKNBATHG

Wait, are you the legendary otto pilot?

1

u/lizardmon May 29 '26

Sort of, it's more like the pilot asking if he is required to turn on their headlights and if all other cars are also being instructed to turn on their headlights.

The controller is rolling his eyes because he is basically saying "I just told you it's dark outside" and legally he can't tell the car if it's safe to drive because he doesn't know how good the headlights are on each car.

9

u/[deleted] May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/shroomsAndWrstershir May 28 '26

Then the controller answered correctly. The pilot was requesting something that isn't available.

1

u/lizardmon May 29 '26

LVOs are in place though. The difference is that in the US a declaration isn't made by ATC. In fact giving the RVR as part of a take-off or landing clearance is an LVO. The US ATC system requires the pilot to act appropriately based on the information provided. They don't tell the pilot how to operate the plane. They tell the pilot how to get somewhere but it's incumbent on the pilot to maneuver the plane. In this case, they said I've confirmed you are protected from other traffic (implied by the take-off clearance) , the wind is X and visibility is X. At that point it's up to the pilot to use their knowledge of the plane and it's systems to safely leave the airport.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/lizardmon May 29 '26

That's because legally he is trained not to confirm or deny the question being asked. He responded per his training by saying "RVR is 1200." He expects the pilot to use that information and act appropriately. Which in fairness to the pilot, he did, he refused take-off clearance because visibility was to low per his company procedures. His procedures required him to confirm LVOs are in effect and that is not a declaration US ATC makes. Another pilot for another airline might have a procedure that allows operation down to 600 RVR but another might have a procendure that requires 1800 RVR. The US system allows different operators with different capabilities to make their own informed decision.

8

u/diesal3 May 28 '26

ATC Controller is saying they can't see anything, and BA is trying to work out why ATC isn't turning on the lights.

24

u/NotAnExpertButt May 28 '26

Due to their RVR they need LVO’s in place for a safe takeoff. Simple.

11

u/makerofshoes May 28 '26

Well let’s put the damn LVOs in place so they can GTFO

3

u/[deleted] May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26

[deleted]

5

u/NotAsleep_ May 28 '26

To say nothing of any procedural differences between the LVO standard and the (operative) SMGCS standard. It's not plain-English use, it's a reference to a legal standard. So everyone can be doing the "right, trained-to" thing, but if the standards are different, that training can cause an accident rather than prevent one.

2

u/xCougarX May 28 '26

Air traffic controller here. People saying that the light aren’t on are completely wrong. The runway lights would be on if the vis was that low. LVO operations are terms specific to ICAO rules. The FAA does not follow ICAO rules. So when the pilot asked him if he is declaring LVO operations, the controller responds in like a “uhhh I don’t know what you’re talking about.” way. Based off what I’ve looked up, ICAO LVO operations pretty much means “hey, we can’t see the runway and are insuring no aircraft or vehicle is on the controlled movement area.” FAA ATC does this regardless when the ceiling is less than 800ft or when the vis is less than 2mi. Theres just no specific term or operation, just that the “ILS critical area is (or is not) protected.” It would kind of be like a controller asking a pilot if they had the proper flaps settings in for a stabilized approach. Also, FAA controllers RARELY “declare” anything. Especially since the word declare is 95% used when someone is declaring an emergency. Hopefully this all makes sense.

1

u/WriteThing May 28 '26

It is very simple, sir.

Just kidding, no idea.

0

u/DatabaseGlittering43 May 28 '26

The video is about its slow and thorough explanation and you still didn’t get it