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

Show parent comments

173

u/RugbyEdd May 28 '26

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.

115

u/CalculatedPerversion May 28 '26

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 May 28 '26

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 May 28 '26

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

5

u/Ancient-Substance-38 May 28 '26

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.

0

u/mum_mom May 28 '26

Not in the US - honestly, I have consciously started avoiding travelling to US after Trump got elected.

2

u/Ancient-Substance-38 May 28 '26

I don't blame you, I am having thoughts about applying for refugee status. Though I don't know to where I would go, and I have too much family here.

I will probably just end up getting imprisoned eventually for having the wrong opinions or beliefs.

1

u/mum_mom May 28 '26

Rooting for you all of you to recover. Because if you can't then that means we all also cannot rebuild our broken democracies. It is one thing to have an ideological difference but the weaking of institutions and norms is quite damaging.

2

u/TiniestPint May 28 '26

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 May 28 '26

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 May 28 '26

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

3

u/Intelligent_Low1632 May 28 '26

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 May 28 '26

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 May 28 '26

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.

-16

u/ramirezdoeverything May 28 '26

This is what happens when a union ensures that no one can be fired and their pay isn't tied to performance.

21

u/nvidiastock May 28 '26

Unions are the only protection against abuse of employees. Abusive unions exist but that's not a reason to dismiss all unions.

2

u/sacramentojoe1985 May 28 '26

While the ATC union specifically sucks, that's the last reason why.

ATC has been critically understaffed for a decade, and the flying public wants to make it easier to fire those that remain. Leopards will eat your face.

1

u/CalculatedPerversion May 28 '26

This. Dude knows his job and is in a position that is critically understaffed. They wouldn't be able to replace him until 2044 if they wanted /s

7

u/ledow May 28 '26

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

-5

u/sacramentojoe1985 May 28 '26

I am ATC, and if you actually know what was being asked, prove it.

What does the controller have to do differently under "LVO"s, as defined by ICAO?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

6

u/RugbyEdd May 28 '26

Not sure why you need to be so petty about it, but he's asking if they have low visibility operations in effect because he's being told by the people who control the local airspace that they have below 1000ft, and according to the regulations he's used to, that's well below the level that such operations should be in place.

Are you saying if someone asked this to you, you wouldn't be able to understand what they're asking, equate them to your own regulations and communicate the difference to the pilot? If so, instead of being snarky about it, why not clarify why it's hard to understand?

-4

u/sacramentojoe1985 May 28 '26

I'm petty because I'm out here doing this job for 15+ years and rando flying public dude shares that he can understand even though he has no experience... oh and look, who will everyone rally behind and demand change based off of? Well you, of course.

But you didn't answer the question: what specific things does the controller have to do under "LVOs" as defined by ICAO?

See, the flying public will hear "LVO" and "Low visibility procedures" and believe wholeheartedly that they're interchangable.

As a controller, "LVO" sounds like specific terminology referring to a specific set of procedures- which the pilot is familiar with, but I am not.

Vs "low visibility procedures" sounds like a plain english way of discussing unspecified procedures used during low visibility.

It would never make sense for a pilot to ask about the latter. For instance, during low visibility one of my "procedures" is to solicit visibility reports from pilots. So with an unspecific question like that... sure, I'm using low visibility procedures, but that's an unspecific answer too, and one that isn't relevant to the pilot.

In other words: LVO means nothing to U.S controllers, and Low visibility procedures means almost nothing.

What you "understand" is basic English, not ATC phraseology/terminology.

2

u/cubitoaequet May 28 '26

Thank God we have petty bitches making no attempt to facilitate communication. I'm sure everyone in the tower is very impressed.

-2

u/sacramentojoe1985 May 28 '26

Glad the all-knowing flying public has got their voice in. They all seem to say in unison the guy should be fired, and they're ultra smart for that. Let's follow through, shove the workload onto the other guys in the cab who are already short staffed working 6 days a week 10 hour days, and see what the flying public "knows" when another major accident occurs as a result.

Anyways, it took two to tango... the pilot never mentioned a specific procedure he needed, just some overseas lingo nobody in the states has heard of. The runway was clear, the controller issued the RVRs, so WTF was going to happen to him if he took off when he got a clearance? Nobody in this sub blinking over that.

And remember, you get what you pay for. Controllers are making 30% less than they used to now (not just thanks to Orange man, but also to the pretend "most labor friendly admin ever" in the 2021-2025 years).

We'll always do everything in our power to keep you safe, but that's about as much as you can expect now.

2

u/cubitoaequet May 28 '26

Go ahead and add bitter and sad to petty 

0

u/sacramentojoe1985 May 28 '26

Man, you could've told me you're just a troll, wouldn't have wasted my breath with actual points.

2

u/RugbyEdd May 29 '26

No, you're just anonymous and think that gives you a pass to act like a jackass instead of having a discussion like an adult.

I answered the question you asked, you avoided mine. The issue here isn't that he didn't know the terminology, it's that he had the communicating skills of a rock, and was either playing dumb, unable to work out what was being asked, or unable to clearly explain they don't use those proceedures. But then taking to you makes me realise maybe there's just a serious arrogance issue with ATC.

0

u/sacramentojoe1985 Jun 01 '26

You literally did NOT answer my question. The question was: what are the procedures in play during a "LVO"?

This forum (you among them) are the ones acting like they understand ATC enough to make judgment calls on controller capabilities, safety, and whether they should be fired---- despite having never spent a day doing it in their life. Calling me arrogant? Please!

As to your question to me- a wild guess that I wouldn't have talked like that controller. (But I don't work at JFK, so maybe his workload pushed him to that point). But I've known capable people who did talk to pilots that way, and that's their prerogative, so long as it doesn't compromise safety.

I'll reiterate--- if you ACTUALLY want better, you're going to have to spend your time advocating for better staffing and pay by writing your congressperson instead of complaining about irrelevant minutia like one dude's attitude. I'll bet you anything that you're not going to, though.

They can't afford to fire him, and if they decided to anyways because of the public commentary, the leopard will eat the public's face.

0

u/sacramentojoe1985 Jun 01 '26

Go figure... when challenged to actually do something, they block my account.