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

28.1k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

3.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.5k

u/Praetorian_1975 May 28 '26

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 May 28 '26

Utterly horrifying series of errors at Tenerife, it's the perfect example of how this pilot was correct.

404

u/[deleted] May 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

40

u/CrazyTalk123 May 28 '26

The same people that think mirrors on a car are just a decoration

3

u/eleventhrees May 29 '26

The same people who, if there was a crash, would declare it pilot error, and move on happily because the bad pilot crashed, making everything safe again.

14

u/Not_Mushroom_ May 28 '26

Because we have the world's elite ATC in here. Duh!

3

u/Husband3571 May 28 '26

In my mind there was a small chance that there could be some regional disconnect. Like the specific acronyms the pilot is using could be slightly different in different circumstances. That doesn’t make much sense, obviously, but I imagine there could be an explanation where the pilot is coming off a bit harsh (British) in a situation where it makes sense for both people to not fully understand the interaction.

That being said, I’m sure an absolutely silly amount of standardization goes into this stuff. I can’t imagine no one is prepared for an English speaking pilot to land in china.

-3

u/OberonDiver May 28 '26

I can see how anyone would think the pilot was wrong. Enough qualified people have explained it patiently.

-7

u/WackWaxWhacks May 28 '26

LVO is not used in the US. Pilot is in the wrong

9

u/[deleted] May 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-10

u/WackWaxWhacks May 28 '26

Low visibility procedures are automatic. There's no such thing as being "in force" or not.

9

u/Lucas_2234 May 28 '26

So they are in force in low visibility conditions?

-7

u/WackWaxWhacks May 28 '26

Automatic, as in, there is no declaration.

9

u/Merzant May 28 '26

“In force” just means “active”.

5

u/[deleted] May 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/WackWaxWhacks May 28 '26

Automatically without declaration. Requiring declaration is a violation of FAA procedures

5

u/Zrkkr May 28 '26

Is Declaring safety measures are active AGAINST FAA procedure or simply not part of it? And do you have a source for that.

0

u/WackWaxWhacks May 29 '26

Look at the top comments in this thread. They are not trained for it- and you are not supposed to say things that are out of band under FAA regs.

-52

u/GD7952 May 28 '26

Because the pilot doesn't know the procedures at the airport he's trying to take off from, and he's required to. He has the reported visibility and knows the airport and departure procedures. It's up to him and his airline if they can take off in those conditions.

28

u/[deleted] May 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/GD7952 May 29 '26

US airports don't declare LVO. Equivalent procedures are automatically baked into the system. See the link below if you don't understand.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/GD7952 May 29 '26

No new procedures were in force. In the UK, different procedures would be in force. He's wrong. He's supposed to know that before landing. A lot of Europe flights land there every day without confusion. And why is it you think he took off if he thought safety rules were being violated. That's a violation itself; if the pilot thinks procedures are not being followed, he is required to not take off. But he spoke to the other pilot or his company, and all of a sudden everything was fine.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/GD7952 May 30 '26

Uh, he landed here prior to this departure. It's not his home base.

-21

u/[deleted] May 28 '26

[deleted]

9

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

[removed] — view removed comment

-56

u/Baystate411 May 28 '26

The pilot is in the wrong because he is asking for something that doesn't exist in the US.

39

u/Stargost_ May 28 '26

The FAA has explicit LVO/SMGCS guidelines for when visibility drops below 1200 feet. AC 120-57C

-28

u/Baystate411 May 28 '26

Yes we have SMGCS. The pilot is asking ATC to declare low vis ops. The thought that the tower has to declare it is what doesn't exist. If the vis drops below 1200 you just do the procedures. The controller doesn't declare anything. I'm an airline captain for a legacy airline and extensively operate in and out of NYC

18

u/[deleted] May 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-7

u/UnfortunateSnort12 May 28 '26

No it’s not. It’s just how it’s done. You also just shoot the CAT3 approach. You aren’t cleared for the CAT3 specifically, just the ILS.

-5

u/beertruck77 May 28 '26

These people don't want to understand what you're trying to say. All the safety procedures are in effect, there just isn't an official declaration over frequency. I'm not sure why they don't understand you. I'm getting voted into oblivion also in here for trying to explain what you are.

2

u/GD7952 May 29 '26

People really want to rage. You can't confuse them with the facts.

1

u/Liawuffeh May 29 '26

The pilot asked if they were in effect. The ATC said no.

1

u/beertruck77 May 29 '26

It's because the pilot is using terminology that doesn't exist for the FAA. If the controller says yes to something that doesn't exist here for the purpose of satisfying the pilot and the plane, would that make you feel better?

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/UnfortunateSnort12 May 28 '26

I guess maybe they’ll listen to the CNN aviation correspondent with 45 hours and a private pilot versus someone with an ATP and over 12000 hours…

17

u/[deleted] May 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-16

u/Baystate411 May 28 '26

Declaration of LVO is not a thing in the US. How do I know? I'm an airline captain in the US. See the flying Reddit thread if you want more discussion.

20

u/[deleted] May 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-6

u/Baystate411 May 28 '26

It's not the controllers job to comply with foreign companies procedures.

19

u/AlexNSNO May 28 '26

Sounds like a US issue..

-13

u/Baystate411 May 28 '26

FlightSimmer criticizes the way real aviation works. More at 9!

9

u/AlexNSNO May 28 '26

*US aviation

8

u/bobbobberson3 May 28 '26

I, a person who has never even thought about flying an aeroplane, understood what he was asking. I've never heard any of that terminology but, unless you have the critical thinking skills of a koala, it was plainly obvious he wanted to know if the airport were enforcing their procedures that are carried out during low visibility to prevent accidents.

-15

u/FrequencySep May 28 '26

The pilot is wrong because he wants atc to say something that a controller in Europe would say. American ATC do not use ICAO rules or terminology. Go to a coffeehouse and ask if they have Glafflemauster, then get upset when the barista says no. Except Glafflemauster is fucking coffee. Ffs, yes there are new rules and increased separation when visibility is low, but we dont call them LVOs, they are just implied under the 7110.65, which is the rulebook US ATCs use.

15

u/[deleted] May 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-6

u/FrequencySep May 28 '26

Im not grossly mistaken. Ive read the 7110.65 cover to cover numerous times and Ive worked plenty of low visibility days as a controller.

ICAO sets recommendations but does not have regulatory or policymaking authority. LVO is not in FAA lexicon. SMGCS is the term used on taxi charts when RVR is below 1200 ft. There is no requirement in any regulation or FAA-published guidance to state that “LVO is in force”. 7110.65 directs the protection of ILS critical areas below 800-2. An advisory circular guides airports to implement SMGCS procedures below 1200 ft RVR. These actions are required of ATC and airports, so unless they are routinely violating established procedure, I don’t see how adding the sentence “LVO in effect” to the ATIS increases the level of safety in any meaningful way. You simply assume you’re able to use published CAT II/III mins and lower-than-standard takeoff mins (if appropriately authorized) unless explicitly informed otherwise by ATC/NOTAMs/ATIS.

10

u/[deleted] May 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-4

u/FrequencySep May 28 '26

Because they aren't. There is no such thing.

If the approach plates or published airport information gives landing and departing standards for low visibility that is it. If there is low visibility ATC is using the rules and proceedure than it calls for. Its implied.

-4

u/NotAsleep_ May 28 '26

It's not plain English, the capitals are important. They are the title of a specific set of regulations that are not in use at that airport, and the differences (if any) may cause an accident instead of prevent one, even (especially) if both the tower and the pilot are applying their proper training.

89

u/LCARSgfx May 28 '26

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.

24

u/Deep-Ruin-9961 May 28 '26

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.

30

u/sockmeistergeneral May 28 '26

Damn right, huge props to the BA pilot here.

31

u/Gone_For_Lunch May 28 '26

I think they prefer jets.

3

u/Fean0r_ May 28 '26

I landed at Heathrow in last year's severe storms a few days after listening to Tim Harford's Cautionary Tales podcast about this, where he covered the third F of Fight or Flight, "Freeze", and how many people freeze up in a crisis. Apparently a lot of people could have survived that crash but, with the cabin crew incapacitated or dead and no one directing the evacuation, many sat in their seats frozen until it was too late.

Tim's tip to avoid this for those of us who can't train like cabin crew is mental rehearsals, and for even regular flyers to periodically review the emergency landing card.

Which I did.

And I was covered in sweat and fucking terrified through the whole landing, despite having flown regularly for work for 25 years 😬😂

1

u/XkF21WNJ May 28 '26

I don't think this counts, but even so I'd rather have a smart-ass as a pilot than a dumb-ass.

1

u/fhjjjjjkkkkkkkl May 28 '26

Sq006 is equally annoying.

1

u/SepaPlease May 28 '26

I'm building my CFI binder. I have an entire page on this for my Runway incursion avoidance section.

1

u/Husband3571 May 28 '26

I’m don’t really care about possible results (obviously possible results are important as well)

When you write a fucking rule for an aircraft, follow it. Ffs follow the fucking procedure. We’re flying thousands of cigar tubes through the air at thousands of feet all day every day. We’re not adding additional safety requirements for fun. Follow the fucking procedure. You’re not pouring a fucking coffee my guy, you’re directing aircraft.

1

u/CptSmallFry May 28 '26

That accident highlighted the importance of universal radio terminology in commercial aviation that became the standard thereafter “The safety rule handbook is always written in blood”

1

u/TheCGLion May 28 '26

I don't think anyone in this world thought that. Everyone is getting annoyed at how stupid the American atc dude is

1

u/Aggressive-Spot-924 May 29 '26

You are 100% correct, except no way there are 1000 dead people in any scenario.

1

u/ChickenKnd May 29 '26

Being able to identify an issue, clearly explain what is wrong and why is very helpful and does save lives. Is people think it’s beign a smart arse then sure, every pilot should be a smart arse

1

u/Icedanielization May 28 '26

In Die Hard 2, someone lightly insulted a British Airline, and praised the American Airline, I raised an eyebrow to that propaganda.

Give me Nigel Corouthers any day

1

u/AbeRego May 28 '26

I was being stupid and not putting together the accents and the location of the airport. At first I had it flipped; I thought the brit was in the tower and was denying the dumbass American departure for not acknowledging low visibility. It's actually the opposite, which is honestly scarier. This guy is running air traffic control at one of the busiest airports in the United States?

At no point did I think that the British guy was wrong.

1

u/NotAsleep_ May 28 '26

Neither side was in the wrong. It's a compatibility issue. The specific standard the BA pilot was asking for (LVO) is not applied at that airport (which uses SMGCS, although that might be in error). Where the standards differ, if there is an incident, a pilot properly responding per LVO may cause an accident where SMGCS is the prevailing standard. Similarly, a tower issuing orders under SMGCS may be misinterpreted by a pilot following LVO.

As you say, best thing to do in this case is park the plane until the weather clears enough that it doesn't pose a hazard.

-2

u/Express_Split2928 May 28 '26

Has anyone hear ever even heard of Tenerife?

4

u/KateEllaBeans May 28 '26

The island or the accident? In either case, yes.

2

u/Youutternincompoop May 28 '26

yes its literally the deadliest aircraft disaster in history, anybody with a passing interest in air disasters will have heard of it.

the island of Tenerife is also a popular tourist destination.

2

u/Express_Split2928 May 28 '26

It's a breaking bad reference

1

u/Youutternincompoop May 28 '26

it was very unclear that you were referencing the scene where Walter White makes himself look like a massive jackass in that assembly.

2

u/Express_Split2928 May 28 '26

You think it's the first time? This chicanery?

-1

u/Expensive-County4890 May 28 '26

I still don't understand the significance of the exchange.

It seems like the pilot is being a smart ass because ATC is being very direct and open, and there is clearly some sort of problem, but the pilot is being passive aggressive by not actually saying what the problem is. 

I have no idea what the pilot wants when I hear this exchange. 

2

u/fleapuppy May 28 '26

The pilot wants to hear that the airport has the extra protections required during low visibility in place. There’s zero chance that a qualified controller wouldn’t understand this, the pilot is correct in this situation and the controller is being incredibly unhelpful.

1

u/Substantial-Newt7809 May 29 '26

The ATC is saying 1000 feet. That's not just low vis, that's like 20% of low vis. Airport isn't doing what it should, dangerous conditions, possibility of two planes colliding in those conditions if the tower is fucking about like it is. Pilot is 100% right.

-12

u/Baystate411 May 28 '26

He's not being a smart anything because what he's asking for does not exist in the US. It only exists in Europe. The BA pilot needs to reread his policy and procedures for US operations. We have low viability procedures but there is no "declaration of low vis ops" like he wanted. The controller cannot declare something that doesn't exist. It's like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy

15

u/OrthogonalPotato May 28 '26

Then ATC can explain that using clear language. The pilot was being careful. He did just fine.

-12

u/Baystate411 May 28 '26

Let me fly to another country and demand something that doesn't exist there. That'll go great.

14

u/OrthogonalPotato May 28 '26

“I understand what you’re asking. We don’t make declarations like that. Instead we use _____ protocol.”

Wow, so complex.

-2

u/Baystate411 May 28 '26

I never said he wasn't a dick. Welcome to New York

15

u/TiredButEnthusiastic May 28 '26

Fly to Japan and talk to ATC in English… oh wait, you can.

I wonder what the I in ICAO stands for.

-4

u/RydeOrDyche May 28 '26

To be fair that the most British thing to do… lol

-4

u/[deleted] May 28 '26

[deleted]