That famous JFK controller is at it again, though I find something about this interaction to be sort of funny…
In this post:
JFK ATC & British Airways pilot spar over terminology
YouTube channel You can see ATC has the audio and a visualization of an incident that happened around 11:30PM on May 9, 2026, involving a New York Kennedy (JFK) air traffic controller, and the pilots of a British Airways Boeing 787-10, which was bound for London Heathrow (LHR).
Visibility was limited on this particular night, and as the British Airways plane was taxiing to the runway, the RVR (Runway Visual Range) was 1,000 feet. This caused the British Airways pilot to ask if LVO was in force (Low Visibility Operations), which is where things went downhill:
British Airways pilot: “Kennedy, Speedbird 18A heavy, are you declaring LVOs?”
British Airways pilot: “Kennedy, from Speedbird 18A heavy, are you declaring LVOs?”
JFK ATC: “I’m not sure… I’m not… I’m not… I don’t understand the question, Speedbird 18A heavy.”
British Airways pilot: “Roger, you just said RVR 1,000 feet. Are you declaring low visibility operations or not?”
JFK ATC: “I’m not declaring anything, no.”
British Airways pilot: “Roger, but you’ve given 1,000 feet RVR, correct?”
JFK ATC: “That’s correct.”
British Airways pilot: “Roger, that means that you have just said that you have low visibility. So please assure us that you have got LVOs in force or we cannot depart in less than 1,000 feet of visibility.”
JFK ATC: “British Airways 18A heavy, I do not understand what you’re saying.”
British Airways pilot: “Roger, it is very simple, sir. You have declared RVR of 1,000 feet. That means your visibility is low. LVO is the standard ICAO terminology. Have you got low visibility procedures in force or not?”
JFK ATC: “No, sir.”
When it was the British Airways plane’s turn to take off, they still didn’t have sufficient RVR, so they had to taxi off the runway and wait for a while longer. Eventually visibility improved, and the plane was able to take off. That being said, the confusion over feet vs. meters, plus the number of left turns needing to be made, makes for some good listening as well.
Why were ATC & the pilot talking past one another?
On the one hand, there’s nothing funny about two professionals who are fluent in the same language essentially talking past one another. This seems like very poor problem solving on the part of both parties, since they basically just keep saying the same thing over and over, rather than trying to find another way to get on the same page.
On the other hand, there is a certain level of humor to the very serious British Airways pilot (who desperately needs a windscreen on his mic) and the JFK controller who would be hard pressed to act like he cares less.
If you look at the comments on this interaction, they’re mostly in support of the British Airways pilot, and commending him for his focus on safety. That generally seems like the right take, and one might logically wonder “well if LVO is an ICAO term, how does the controller not have any clue what that is?”
Here’s the best explanation I can find for the confusion that’s in support of the controller, just to present a different perspective:
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.
Now, people can argue about whether the JFK controller should know the term, but I suspect this is the correct take in terms of the reality of why this played out the way it did. This particular JFK controller is notorious for using his own little phrases, and if you don’t happen to know what those are, that’s on you. And ICAO? As far as he’s concerned, what’s that? 😉
Bottom line
A JFK air traffic controller and British Airways 787 pilot had an unusual exchange, when the pilot asked for assurance that low visibility operations were in force. The controller had no clue what that is, so just kept saying “no.” However, that didn’t stop the pilot from asking the same question over and over.
What do you make of this JFK ATC interaction?
'you can simply assume' should have no place in anything to do with safety.
its all fine until someone assumes that someone will have assumed when they havent.
Bottom line is that, whatever the terminology, low visibility procedures protect both aircraft taking off and those landing by limiting how close to the runway other aircraft and ground vehicles are allowed to go without specific permission.
This reduces the risk of collisions in poor visibility and possible disruption to the ILS, which needs to be at maximum accuracy for Category 2 and 3 ops, including autolands and take-offs using its Localiser element for...
Bottom line is that, whatever the terminology, low visibility procedures protect both aircraft taking off and those landing by limiting how close to the runway other aircraft and ground vehicles are allowed to go without specific permission.
This reduces the risk of collisions in poor visibility and possible disruption to the ILS, which needs to be at maximum accuracy for Category 2 and 3 ops, including autolands and take-offs using its Localiser element for back-up guidance.
When I fly to the UK I use their terminology on the radio (which is not fully ICAO compliant by the way as much as they'd like to believe). The same when I fly to France, or anywhere in the world.
I (a US pilot) don't obstinately speak FAA terminology when I'm in other countries; part of being a pilot on long-haul routes is doing the research about how a country may do things differently,...
When I fly to the UK I use their terminology on the radio (which is not fully ICAO compliant by the way as much as they'd like to believe). The same when I fly to France, or anywhere in the world.
I (a US pilot) don't obstinately speak FAA terminology when I'm in other countries; part of being a pilot on long-haul routes is doing the research about how a country may do things differently, and to brief the differences...
That being said, they're getting heated for no reason. They could just speak to each other instead of digging in.
Right, so a European pilot should learn 20 different sets of terminologies just to fly shorthaul and maybe 50 others for longhaul flights? That's silly.
The whole point of ICAO is to allow seamless operations across the planet, under one standardised set of rules - and it generally works, with the exception of two countries that keep insisting on being so special that the standard rules can't apply to them (US and China).
Each country should produce a document called an AIP (aeronautical information publication) that details their idiosyncrasies. The US does, as does the UK. If these UK pilots had reviewed the US AIP they would see that SMCGS is the term used here. It would be just as silly of a situation if a US pilot showed up in Heathrow and didn't know what "follow the greens" meant (which is also not ICAO!). It is indeed...
Each country should produce a document called an AIP (aeronautical information publication) that details their idiosyncrasies. The US does, as does the UK. If these UK pilots had reviewed the US AIP they would see that SMCGS is the term used here. It would be just as silly of a situation if a US pilot showed up in Heathrow and didn't know what "follow the greens" meant (which is also not ICAO!). It is indeed a pilot's job to review whatever requirements or differences a country may have. When I'm flying in another country's airspace it is my responsibility to know what procedures that their local ATCO expects.
The US is not unique in not being standard. Canada has shuttle climbs. London control silently expects you not to level off below transition level and to decend on the glide whereas Paris control will issue you a green descent to intercept the axis. By the way have fun getting a landing clearance at 50 feet at LHR or LGW.
The NAT is still not consistent across the 5 controlling agencies in agreeing to remove oceanic clearances (and its Shanwick, one of the three European controlling facilities that are late, not Gander or New York).
My point is, we pilots, particularly on long haul flights, are expected to learn each country's and airspace's nuances so as to not make fools of ourselves due to a lack of preparation. We have literal hours to go over this stuff in flight, and being stubborn about how things should be standardised even though they aren't isn't good airmanship.
I agree with you that ICAO standardisation *should* harmonize phraseology such that things like this but that platonic ideal doesn't exist. Again, it's our job to educate ourselves to be able to operate in the countries our airline serves.
Certain BA pilots are notorious for their poorly taken and timed commentary on what they think the controller should be doing, and US ATC haven't been their only victim. There is a recording of a BA pilot in DUB doing something similar and Irish ATC are well known for their strict ICAO compliance. The fact that the pilot used an acronym on top of everything made it even more ridiculous. The controller would have understood...
Certain BA pilots are notorious for their poorly taken and timed commentary on what they think the controller should be doing, and US ATC haven't been their only victim. There is a recording of a BA pilot in DUB doing something similar and Irish ATC are well known for their strict ICAO compliance. The fact that the pilot used an acronym on top of everything made it even more ridiculous. The controller would have understood "low visibility" if he'd said it, but he said "LVO." They then double down when they dont hear what they want.
N1130A, one fails to understand why flight safety is (according to some posts herein) taken so lightly. As assumption is the mother of all cock-ups, surely it is incumbent upon all to seek clarification …. Yes?
We don't do that here. BA guy should have known. He's in the wrong.
Why exactly, No?
Do you know why, what, where, when?
I’m sure that Ben, appreciates your click, for what it’s worth!
Knew someone would make this political. And they did. Because of course this controller whether right or wrong takes orders from the likes of Marco Rubio. Or Donald Trump.
Chronologically it was TrumpGambit and Sean M, apparently right-wingers who ‘went there,’ George, so if you really wanna gate-keep, maybe ‘police your own’ first. Personally, I didn’t find this post inherently political, but, if others did, let them say whatever they wanna say, and you can ignore or engage with them.
He was trolling.
What?? George? Trolling? No…
The BA pilots are guests in the United States.
To quote Marco Rubio, you do not go into somebody else's house and tell them what to do.
The State Department should start cancelling the "D" visas of foreign crewmembers who argue with ATC.
What does that even mean, guest??
Wrong @Sean M. and Rubio
Some clown went into a white house and tell everybody else what to do.
Sean, that’s an awful hot-take…
One might well conclude that your post Sean, is from one who is totally unaware of flight safety issues and is only interested in providing evidence of his ignorance on this medium …. Yes?
Maybe Sean was just trolling. He has been head of operations for actual airlines…
lol, that being the case 1990, then he should know better, yes?
Shouldn't we all, Aero... shouldn't we all...
I hope you are being sarcastic. Mango Mussolini is a guest in the White House. Funny how yanks like telling everyone else around the globe what to do.
Well actually, if you have any manners it's proper for the host to be gracious and defer to the guests. Not the other way around. But I wouldn't expect you to know that...
To be fair to both
A) we know what the BA guys were trying to establish and good on them for asking the question BUT
B) for the airfield it is LVP's (low Visibility Procedures.) LVO is for the operator.
So is there a chance that the controller was being obtuse on purpose or did he simply not understand because the incorrect ICAO term was being applied.
Kris, points taken …. but and it is a BIG BUT. In the event that a controller or pilot does not fully understand something, then in the interest of flight safety, it is incumbent upon the person who is is doubt, to request further clarification and not to act dumb or belligerent, yes?
Aero, do you… like… “BIG BUT”… and you… cannot lie??
1990, your expectations of a heart to heart disclosure will not be forthcoming from me old sock …. draw your own conclusions from your extensive experience of this commentator …. :-)
I try again to post: After reading the article and listening to the audio, I can only conclude that the AT controller is in urgent need of remedial training.
Afterthought …. Perhaps drugs/alcohol checks are required too?
Probably another DEI hire......
TrumpGambit, this has nothing to do with that. Also, instead of using ‘DEI’ or whatever thinly-veiled stand-in buzzword for your hate/bigotry, just go ahead and use the n-word, hard-r, so the rest of us can know for-sure how you ‘really feel.’
*sigh*