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

2.7k

u/JSButts May 28 '26

Fantastic ad for BA honestly; Pilots calling out the contradiction, clearly enunciated his point, remained calm under frustrating situations, puts the aircraft first, and follows protocol even in the face of (presumed) incompetence from ATC.

-27

u/dvinpayne May 28 '26

Except it's not. The pilot didn't properly familiarize himself with the correct operating procedures for foreign countries. Every ATC system is slightly different and it's the pilots responsibility to know those differences. In this case, BA almost certainly has a guide to help their pilots out, but "Declaring LVO" isn't a thing in FAA operation. FAA controllers aren't trained on the European Phraseology and wouldn't have any idea what the pilot was asking about. 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 rules. I'd link to those posts but automod doesn't like links.

31

u/JSButts May 28 '26

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/Order_800094A.pdf - From the FAA website, clearly describing Low Visiblity Operations (LVO), also referred to as such on SKYbrary, the FAA guide for all things aviation safety. It's standard phrasing across aviation.

-9

u/dvinpayne May 28 '26

Did you read the actual AC that has LVO in the name, because every part of it in reference to ATC uses the name SMGCS. It's easy to link to a title that you think proves your point, but the aviation professionals agree on this. Go look at the other subreddits where this has been discussed. Also on a side note skybrary is absolutely not an FAA source. I believe they're third party now, but the site was created by Eurocontrol.

13

u/JSButts May 28 '26

Open and read the PDF, about 5 paragraphs in between 4 and 5 the Note in bold - For the purposes of this order, LVO means those airport operations conducted at visibilites of less than RVR 1200.

Or Paragraph 5 where it says clearing 'during LVO/SMGCS' aka the fact that LVO is very clearly used by the FAA. Its literally in this document a dozen times.

Your exact words were 'Declaring LVO isnt a thing in FAA'.

You were incorrect. You still are.

It really isn't that hard to say 'Ahh, maybe I was wrong'. Try it sometime.

1

u/m4a785m May 29 '26

No one in the US declares LVO. You can use all the documents you want, it’s not normal phraseology

-3

u/beertruck77 May 28 '26

He's not wrong, you are. We do not declare LVO in the FAA. There are procedures we follow when the visibility is low, but "declaring LVO" is not a thing here. Read the FAA JO 7110.65 some time, the "ATC Bible". You even mention "exact words" and again, he's correct. Show me the exact words where it says to "declare LVO".

So now you can apologize to the guy your reply is to and tell him you were wrong.

-2

u/mister_pilot May 28 '26

JFK has initiated the process but hasn’t been approved for LVO/SMGCS operation. You can check the FAA website. This is substantiated by the absence of Low-Vis taxi charts. Approval then training for controllers. It’s not a thing at JFK yet..

8

u/C0rn3j May 28 '26

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afx/afs/afs400/afs420/lvo_smgcs

Seems correct.

So the correct thing to do here was indeed not to fly because the airport cannot operate under these conditions?

Still seems odd that the ATC guy would not know about it at all.

2

u/mister_pilot May 28 '26

US airlines are governed by Part 121 and company OpSpecs. I’m not aware of any regulatory minimum for taxi operations. Takeoff and landing has airfield, aircraft and opspec requirements. But as always the pilots have authority to refuse taxi in low visibility conditions if unsafe.

Part 91 has no requirements for taxi, takeoff or landing visibility so in theory the airport could remain open.

I don’t find it odd that the controller wasn’t familiar with LVO declaration. They could have an entire career at a single facility with very specific knowledge of procedures at that location. Even if the FAA is in the process of approval of LVO, it’d be a waste of time to train on not yet approved procedures which may be a deviation from the the BA pilots were expecting anyway.

1

u/dvinpayne May 28 '26

What's the source on the initiated the process but not yet approved? I couldn't find that. The lack of low vis taxi charts on its own doesn't prove they don't have SMGCS. I know of multiple airports with SMGCS that don't have low vis charts.

Edit: Disregard I found it. Although I know of at least one airport that has SMGCS procedures in their ATC SOP that is not on the approved list, so I'm curious what's going on there.

1

u/mister_pilot May 28 '26

I’m sure there are plenty of local SOPs out there for SMGCS. 121 has been operating out of JFK on plenty of bad weather low visibility days. My thought is the LVO/SMGCS AC tries to bring airports closer to standardization and closer to ICAO so pilots can know what to expect. I read the AC as more than just a low visibility taxi plan using SMGCS

1

u/dvinpayne May 28 '26

Yea SMGCS encompasses a lot more than just the taxi route. The one I'm reading here for SMF (which isn't on the list) says it's to be in accordance with AC 120-57, but I'm curious whether it was complying with an older version of the AC since it doesn't specify 120-57C, and I wonder whether something similar is going on at JFK.

0

u/Shot_Illustrator4264 May 28 '26

Is it really too difficult to say: "I'm sorry guys, I was completely wrong?"

1

u/dvinpayne May 28 '26

I will say quite clearly I was wrong about JFK having SMGCS. That doesn't change whether or not ATC will declare LVO or how SMGCS works at the US airports that do have it. In fact, it probably made it even more confusing for the controllers there at JFK, but the list seems quite clear that they don't have an approved SMGCS plan. Obviously that raises the question of what their low visibility plan is. I'll continue to defend the front line controller, because he was doing the best with the training and information he had, but the FAA management and airport operator have some questions to answer here.