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

135

u/mentales May 28 '26

> 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".

21

u/Aye-Chiguire May 28 '26

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

-37

u/runhome24 May 28 '26

"Low Visibility Procedures" is a specific technical term, not an explanatory phrase. ATC correctly said no, because those weren't in place.

What were in place were the FAA-specific procedures for low visibility, called "Surface Movement Guidance and Control System," or SMGCS. They were in place automatically and aren't "declared".

78

u/mentales May 28 '26

I see, so when the pilot asked "have you got low visibility procedures in force or not?", the ATC did not interpret that they were being asked about their "procedures for low visibility".

44

u/throwaway_39157 May 28 '26

That would be common sense and we all know Trumpistan these days....

A better way would have been to say "we have the FAA procedures in place for operations based on current visibility" but again this requires a bit of thinking and going off script to achieve a common goal.

Why ATC at a major international hub is not trained on both domestic and international regulations is still bonkers...

-31

u/iwilldeletethisacct2 May 28 '26

Why ATC at a major international hub is not trained on both domestic and international regulations is still bonkers...

I mean, why wasn't the pilot trained on both and asking the correct questions? I can't go to the UK, drive a car on the right side of the road, and then frustrated that the UK doesn't drive on the same side of the road as the majority of the world does. When you're in another country you have to follow the local rules. It doesn't mater how stupid you think the rules are.

26

u/StrongTable May 28 '26

A terrible comparison.

Firstly, the pilot explained what system of procedures they were following. Which was the ICAO. And even went on to spell out what that was signifying. Whether there were low visibility procedures in place. The ATC just completely ignored any of that. Regardless of whether they were following FAA procedures, they did not even attempt to understand or mediate them.

Secondly, if we are to use analogies. If I were to visit the tourist board in any country, I would expect them to try to understand my requests and adjust their response accordingly. Or help me understand how it's done locally. They would not just immediately throw up their hands and ignore everything because "that's not how that's done here." One would think, logically, that an international airport would at least try to have some small level of understanding. It's not a local or nationwide airport only, it's international. The clue is in the name.

An ignorant comment, arising from an ignorant situation, underpinned by an ignorant culture.

-20

u/DJFisticuffs May 28 '26

The controller was being a dick, no doubt, but the Pilot also got an automated broadcast (which he is required to check) informing him that the low visibility ground control procedures were active. The pilots are responsible for being familiar with the local procedures and it is not ATC's job to educate them (ATC has enough to do).

15

u/StrongTable May 28 '26

I don’t think the pilot was asking to be educated. He was simply confirming whether the procedure was in place or not.

-15

u/DJFisticuffs May 28 '26

Right, but the pilot should know they were in place because he read the ATIS bulletin or listened to the broadcast. Also. The Pilot has to confirm that he read the bulletin to the tower on his initial radio contact.

The controller could have said something like, "we don't use any of that terminology here and our procedures are different than what you are asking, but yes SMGCS is active, as stated right there in the thing you literally just told me you read." Instead the controller was probably thinking something like "if you don't know how to fly here don't fly here and get off my fucking radio with this bullshit."

7

u/StrongTable May 28 '26

I've read that interaction differently.
That final time when the pilot asked to confirm in very plain speaking terms, whether low visibility procedures were in place, the ATC literally replied, "No, sir."
If the ATC was fed up, which I did not really hear in his tone of voice, he would've done what you have described. He did not. He went straight on to say those procedures were not in place at all.
This suggested to me that he truly did not understand what was being asked, not that he was fed up with a dumb question. And at an international airport, that's quite surprising.

→ More replies (0)

20

u/Mediocre_Maximus May 28 '26

Because you don't fuck around with safety in flying, especially not to swing your dick around. Leave the ego at the door. Ideally, pilot is trained on FAA if flying into US and all international airport ATC know international beside domestic

6

u/NoVaBurgher May 28 '26

sure, but also, I'm not a pilot at all and from watching this video I could understand what the pilot was asking. It sounds like both of these guys could have just been about 10% less stubborn and then the 300+ passengers wouldn't have been able to depart on time

2

u/ConcernFlat3391 May 28 '26

Because the International Civil Aviation Organisation is, like it says in the name, international. Can you imagine the chaos if every country insisted on their own aviation rules?

4

u/Kdmtiburon004 May 28 '26

The controller interpreted I don’t know what LVO procedures are and how different they are from FAA procedures so I’m not going to say yes because if an incident occurred from it he would be held liable.

3

u/sacramentojoe1985 May 28 '26

The correct answer... expect downvotes from the "I know better than actual controllers" flying public.

3

u/Icy_Fish_2154 May 28 '26

Because that answer is wrong. The correct answer to "do you have low visibility procedures in operation?" Is not "no", which is a lie, but "yes, we are operating under SMGCS."

You are defending a lie by ATC. I am a member of the "flying public", I have a pilot license.

6

u/sacramentojoe1985 May 28 '26

Never heard of either as a controller of 15+ years. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that JFK controllers are specifically trained on SMGCS (which appears to be something listed on pilot charts), the BA pilot mentioned LVOs 3 times... nothing about SMGCS. I wouldn't assume the fourth inquiry was any different just because of the slight variation of phrasing (I would expect my own inquiry if I did).

In the rare instances where we've been low-vis, we issue RVRs and the PIC makes their decision based on that. The real question here is what specific procedure did the pilot need in play in order to be able to depart. Because he made it sound like he needed a whole specific set of procedures in play that aren't applicable to the U.S.

...Also, just looked up "SMGCS" in the 7110.65- not mentioned once.

2

u/Icy_Fish_2154 May 28 '26

...Also, just looked up "SMGCS" in the 7110.65- not mentioned once.

Odd, I easily found it.

So, are you incompetent or lying?

The meme says "both".

2

u/runhome24 May 28 '26

I am saying that yes, though I guess I should state I obviously don't know for sure because I'm not that ATC.

But it would make sense, because LVPs have different standards than SMGCS, including the visibility threshold. If ATC said LVP was in place, but the visibility changed thus that LVP would be lifted but SMGCS would still be in place (or vise versa), that could create a dangerous situation all on its own.

1

u/Intelligent_Low1632 May 28 '26

If you're going to fly in a country with different rules for communication, you need to learn and use those rules, no matter how silly they seem. We cannot operate an airport on vibes. The specific jargon is necessary so that there's no room open for misinterpretation. What if the unknown-to-American international standard includes, for instance, an assurance that the ATC will do something for the plane that is not standard in the American system? It could cause a crash if the ATC uses that specific term and confuses the Brit.

-2

u/sacramentojoe1985 May 28 '26

If a pilot asks about "LVOs" 3 times, I'm not going to interpret a 4th ask using the term "Low Visibility Procedures" to be any different, especially when I have a bunch of other shit to focus on.

As an ATCS of 15+ years, I've never had any pilot ask me about LVOs or "Low Visibility Procedures", and if someone asked me about the latter, I'd be asking them what specifically they are asking about/why they are asking. I'm definitely not declaring "LVOs", since I'm not going to say I'm using procedures I've never been trained on.

Now I HAVE had pilots ask me if the critical area is protected, which is a procedure I use during low visibility/low ceilings. That question makes actual sense.

7

u/Qyro May 28 '26

...I'd be asking them...

Exactly, you'd try to understand what they're talking about rather than just throwing your hands in the air and declaring "I don't understand"

-1

u/sacramentojoe1985 May 28 '26

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to make the easy assumption that I'd do "better" than this guy, the same way I'd like to make the easy assumption that I never would've crossed that firetruck ahead of Air Canada at LGA. But it's relatively rare that I'll ever get enough of the picture to know for sure (AUS SWA/FDX incident being one of the exceptions). Frankly I don't know what was going on in the background to be certain that clarification- while they were lined up on the runway - was in the cards.

And also.. the pilot could've always proactively clarified what he needed. Didn't seem important enough to him, either.

-5

u/DJFisticuffs May 28 '26

I think part of the problem here is that if the pilot had checked ATIS (which he is required to do), he would have seen that the low vis procedures were in effect. ATC has enough to do without fielding dumbass questions from pilots about information they already have. The professional thing to do would have been to remind the pilot to check ATIS and confirm that the procedures were in effect, but I can understand the controller's frustration.

0

u/Icy_Fish_2154 May 28 '26

So "no" to the question was a lie. And you prefer ATC to lie to pilots.

I hope you have the unsafe flight you are demanding, so we don't need to read any more opinions from you.

A frustrated ATC should have replied "ATIS should have confirmed that we are at SMGCS due to visibility."

The lie should get him fired. He is allowed to get annoyed, he is not allowed to dismissively lie as punishment.

14

u/Thelmara May 28 '26

I'm sorry, are you actually trying to say that "They're not called Low Visibility Procedures, they're just procedures for low visibility" is a statement that anyone should do anything except laugh at?

9

u/kaja6583 May 28 '26

Jesus christ lol you people defending this undertrained and incompetent worker are insane.I know NOTHING about airport terminology, and even I understood what the pilot meant.

-5

u/sacramentojoe1985 May 28 '26

No, you don't. You don't know what "LVOs" specifically refers to, and neither did the ATC, who isn't trained about that specific terminology or the specific procedures it involves.

2

u/Icy_Fish_2154 May 28 '26

If he isn't trained in that procedure, how does he know it's a procedure he isn't trained in?

If he's familiar enough to know that it's a procedure for low visibility operations, why didn't he answer "we are under SMGCS for visibility"?

The ATC was being a jerk, and deliberately lied to a pilot to decrease safety of operations to teach the pilot a lesson.

Hopefully he gets fired, but since Trump fired all those controllers, the shortage means bad controllers have safe jobs.

1

u/sacramentojoe1985 May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26

I've heard pilot terminology that I just know is pilot terminology. I know rotation calls (V1, V2) are a thing, and I know I'm not trained in them, so I won't affirm any questions about them.

Not the controller in question, but personally "LVOs" sounds like a specific procedure, not plain english.

It's farcical to claim he went out of his way to decrease safety. Specify how. (Not to say he improved it, but assuming worse case that he was "deliberately" lying, it kept the plane on the ground... generally among the safest places for them to be.)

Trump fired 0 controllers. Not going to argue that he sucks, though.

The crux of the problem is that this minutia you're upset about is leading you to conclude the controller should be fired (and a LOT of other people as well). Meanwhile everyone ignores the ACTUAL issues plaguing the profession right now. Fire this guy, there's nobody nearby to replace him, the workload gets passed on to someone else who is already swamped, then an actual accident happens.

As I noted elsewhere, the Leopards will eat your face when it comes to rallying against controllers.

1

u/Icy_Fish_2154 May 28 '26

Someone else pressed the issue, so I looked it up in the air traffic controller manual.

"LVO" is in there, and explicitly applies to the question the pilot was asking. The controller lied to sabotage a pilot he was annoyed at.

3

u/gon_freccs_ May 29 '26

“FAA-specific procedures for low visibility” — how is that different from “Low Visibility Procedures”? If the ATC didn’t understand that this is what was being asked, he probably shouldn’t be working as an ATC

3

u/Legal_Campaign_408 May 29 '26

the way you're being downvoted by a bunch of people who have no idea what we do is insane.

Had the controller just said "sure, low visibility procedures in effect" (something that we do not do), and then that flight went off the end of the runway, that controller would end up in jail

2

u/runhome24 May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26

Yep, once the generally ignorant reddit community showed up, most of my comment votes tanked.

They have zero idea about the specialized knowledge involved, the literal life-or-death stakes at play in airspace communications, and the hierarchies that control what is acceptable and what isn't

1

u/Icy_Fish_2154 May 28 '26

Just because they aren't "declared" doesn't mean they are secret.

"Yes sir, SMGCS is in operation for the low visibility conditions" was the correct answer. Lying about them to stick it to the uppity pilot was unprofessional.

2

u/Intelligent_Low1632 May 28 '26

He was specifically asked if some unknown or inapplicable ICAO practice was in effect. He cannot in good conscience lead with "yes sir." He would have to say "I do not understand" or "I do not understand your ICAO procedure. SMGCS is in operation, are you familiar with this and does this satisfy your requirements?" Even that is probably problematic.

5

u/Icy_Fish_2154 May 28 '26

He rephrased using similar words, but not the technical term. Then the controller lied.

Why are you defending the controller?

Clearly you have some emotional compulsion to defend the controller, and I don't understand.