That famous JFK controller is at it again, though I find something about this interaction to be sort of funny…
Continue reading: JFK ATC Flippantly Dismisses British Airways 787 Pilot Visibility Concerns
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.’
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.
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 …. 🙂
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?
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.
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?
Why exactly, No?
Do you know why, what, where, when?
I’m sure that Ben, appreciates your click, for what it’s worth!
Maybe Sean was just trolling. He has been head of operations for actual airlines…
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.
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.
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).
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...
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.
'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.
Controllers have plenty of rules that they have to learn and memorize and they are FAA employees that follow FAA regulations, not "ICAO Standards" the LVO may be a common thing in other countries that the BA pilots are familiar with but they should also know in the US that is not a common term that is used - ever. All controllers are required to do is issue the RVR the fact that anyone would be defending the BA pilot is dumb and has no idea what it's like to be a controller lol
One might also say: “The fact that anyone would be defending the (controller) is dumb and has no idea what it's like to be a (Pilot) lol”. Really impressive Dolphin, yes?
Thank for sharing! Retired Aviator
Safety first. When I was born FAA regulations was not even a pamphlet. FTFT
Note: When ICAO came about, the International language ENGLISH only won by 1 VOTE or we’d be speaking French!
Agreed! Assumptions are the mother of all disasters. Captains of commerical airliners are loathe to make them for precisely that reason.
The captain is responsible for 256 passengers, the crew, and a machine with a list price of $340M. Dude in the tower is a glorified traffic cop. Priorities, old boy. Priorities.
Two real world things come to mind. I’d be more concerned about the integrity of the CAT 2 critical area if I was landing versus departing. The other is runway lighting is a lot better than taxiway lighting. Making three left turns to get back to the end of the runway, in low visibility, seems to go against his, by the book, concern about low visibility operations. It was also interesting that Captain Speedbird said he needed an RVR of 1800 meters to depart. He should have known that RVR was reported in feet not meters. When he finally departed the RVRs were 1000 and 1200 feet, well below his stated minimums of 1800 meters. I guess he finally decided to just go, which is what he should have done in the first place.
The greatest President of all time Donald J Trump will be able to sort this out.
I'm more surprised you didn't bring up EU261 (or UK261 in this case) 🙂 I keed, I keed. But not really.