Weird incident regarding Low Visibility Procedures between BAW and JFK Tower - YouTube

[-]

derdubb@reddit

There’s no such need to declare LVO in the US.

You need ops spec to operate below standard or charted minimums which pretty much every air carrier has.

In the US specifically as long as you have ops spec and you are operating at an airport with “lower than standard” published minimums, you just follow those values as your new minimums and go.

Take a look at the JFK jepp chart 20-9A which will illustrate all of this.

Video seems like the pilot didn’t understand how it works on the US tbh.

[-]

cargocapt@reddit

You haven't piloted until you've taken off at 500 RVR in a single-engine Caravan with a plane full of new Iphones.

[-]

CautiousIncrease7127@reddit

Correct. This pilot was wrong….And was being a right bleeding bastard about it.

[-]

ps2sunvalley@reddit

Yeah and he forgot the USA isn’t a signatory to ICAO procedures

[-]

questi0neverythin9@reddit

We absolutely do. FAA AC-12057C Low Visibility Operations / Surface Movement Guidance and Control Systems (LVO/SMGCS).

That controller is just notoriously dense.

[-]

Curly1109@reddit (OP)

Thanks mate, I'm getting gaslit here. Pretty sure Boeing is certified for LVOs and is forbidden to land/take-off in low visibility without LVOs declared

[-]

Gabriel_Owners@reddit

You're not getting gaslit. You're getting corrected. Because in the US there is no such thing as "declaring" low visibility operations.

[-]

Curly1109@reddit (OP)

Corrected from what? I was asking a question, I never stated that that was the norm. I don't know American procedures. Please re-read my post

[-]

Gabriel_Owners@reddit

Saying things like

Pretty sure Boeing is certified for LVOs and is forbidden to land/take-off in low visibility without LVOs declared

You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

[-]

Curly1109@reddit (OP)

I may have been incorrect in regards to Boeing specifically, as LVO seems to be more of an ops thing, but I never stated that it must be declared, America or elsewhere

[-]

Whole-Hat-2213@reddit

I'm a pilot in the US flying Boeings and am unaware of any particular requirement to declare LVOs. We have our charted minimums and we can fly down to them. I don't need ATC to declare anything.

Also, this controller isn't going to make a declaration of something unless his procedures specify it. If BA needs this declaration than that is something they need to work out in their manuals. Most airlines have country specific procedures and their manuals shouldn't state they need this declaration to operate in the US.

[-]

Super_Link890@reddit

Do you ask for explicit clearance to fly the CAT 2 & 3 minimums?

[-]

ORaleigh@reddit

No, the minimums are determined by the flight crew operating. In order to fly a CAT III we need to determine if we’re legal looking at the airplane, crew, and weather outside. ATC has no idea the equipment on the aircraft and if it’s working or not or if the crew is CAT III current. Also different airlines might have different weather requirements. ATC clears us for the approach, we determine if and how to fly it.

[-]

Approaching_Dick@reddit

You need more clearance for Cat II/III in the localizer and glideslope sensitive area. In Europe there is usually a second holding point further away from the runway. LVO assure you everybody is holding at the Cat II/III holding point so there is less signal fluctuation. Also more separation between arriving and departing traffic. There was once a Singapore 777 going off the runway in Munich because a departing aircraft passed in front of the localizer antenna

[-]

22Planeguy@reddit

That exists in the US too. Additional clearance from the antenna is baked in to our airport procedures when the weather is low enough. The controller will just specify to hold short of the ILS critical area marking if it's a consideration. It all happens through additional instructions, not through declaring LVO.

[-]

Super_Link890@reddit

But ATC fuxks up all the time, whats the harm in confirming either on the ATIS or verbally. If you are doing cat 3b with 0 RA decision height, theres no second chance and you have to be sure no one is blocking that antenna.

[-]

22Planeguy@reddit

I wouldn't say they fuck up all the time, but you're right, why not confirm? The answer is that when the airport is under low visibility conditions, the pilots on the ground should be aware that they need to hold short of the ILS critical area, AND they should get told to by ATC. This happens regardless of if there is an aircraft doing a cat II/III at the time. US airports have low visibility procedures that work just fine, and we do confirm this stuff with the controllers all the time, we just don't explicitly declare LVO in effect.

Aircraft doing auto land operations have faulty signal detection capabilities and will produce warnings that lead to the pilots initiating a go around in the event of a blocked or malfunctioning ILS antenna.

[-]

Super_Link890@reddit

Lol, considering the amount of taxiway and runway incursions, I wouldnt trust anyone to stay clear of those critical areas.

I dont know about the Airbus, but if you get a fluctuating signal on the Boeing, the airplane goes into a stabilized mode and you dont get an EICAS until 15s/ 20s after it happened.

[-]

22Planeguy@reddit

The truth is that you have to have some amount of trust in a low vis environment. You can try to eliminate as much of it as possible with ground surveillance radar and taxi lighting, but that stuff is *expensive*. If you aren't flying into one of a handful of airports that have that, you're going to need to trust that the pilots on the ground can manage to hold short of the critical area when they're told.

[-]

Ouch704@reddit

How about ensuring protection of the ILS critical area during a CATII or CATIII?

If you're the only one aware that you'll be flying to CATIII minima, you could have someone happily holding in the critical area, which is a big no no in case of autoland.

That's one of the reasons why LVOs should be in force when low vis procedures are required.

[-]

Wingmaniac@reddit

This. I don't know why I got massive downvoted for my comment that you have to get clearance if you're going to do the Cat II or III. How many pilots on here are doing approaches they weren't cleared for?

[-]

akav8r@reddit

We don’t do that in the US. You only get cleared for the ILS, not cleared for a specific category.

[-]

Wingmaniac@reddit

What happens if aircraft are cleared to hold short of the runway which is inside the CATII hold line? What happens if the airport systems are offline?

[-]

rkba260@reddit

There is an ILS critical hold short line, if the weather requires the use of the ILS... all departing aircraft know to hold short of the critical area. Thats baked in to our training as far back as IR.

[-]

randombrain@reddit

Technically you never need to hold short unless ATC tells you to hold short, no matter the weather.

But yes, good situational awareness means knowing that we will tell you to hold short if the weather is less than 800-2... at least if there is an aircraft on the approach. So if the weather is crappy and you don't get a hold short instruction it's fine to double-check.

[-]

Wingmaniac@reddit

Ok, we have something similar here. The normal hold short line works if it's CAT I and we have a second ILS CATII/III hold short line further back which you will be instructed to hold short of if someone is doing the CATII/III, which they will know because they cleared the plane to do that approach.

I guess the confusion for me is if someone down there is doing a CATII/III without telling anyone and the weather is such that ground is clearing people to the normal hold short line, won't there be interference and a possible go around?

[-]

rkba260@reddit

This is interesting.

I admittedly have a limited amount of experience at Canadian airports, only flying into YVR, YEG, YYC, and YTZ. Do you have example airports with these multiple ILS hold short lines?

[-]

Wingmaniac@reddit

Sure. I wish I could post photos in the comment, but this one is YVR

This one is YYZ

[-]

rkba260@reddit

I see what you're talking about. And here in the states, thats just a ILS hold short.

I do not see, looking at YVR both on the official chart and our AMM, any designation of a CAT I hold short line. To that, our AMM doesn't even list them as CATII/III holdshorts but just as a typical ILS hold short.

There is no rwy 05 at YVR so not sure what you referencing there.

[-]

akav8r@reddit

When someone is shooting those approaches with good weather, they tell us. Tower will then, most likely, advise them critical area isn’t protected and clear them to land.

[-]

Wingmaniac@reddit

Ok, that's what I figured. It seemed like people were saying you could just fly an approach and not tell them which one you're doing.

[-]

akav8r@reddit

We were talking about low vis ops. In that context, you shoot whichever approach you want in regards to CAT1-3.

[-]

Wingmaniac@reddit

Sure, sure. True in the US. Not true outside of it, which is where I am. My original entry; not this thread was to address the question of if you need to request the specifics ILS you want to do, which to the best of my knowledge is what you have to do outside of the US.

Which has led us here to my education that you dont, in the US.

[-]

CautiousIncrease7127@reddit

You will not be cleared that way below 800’ or 2 miles vis. You will be cleared to hold short of the ILS Critical Area. Protection of the critical area is automatic. If you’re doing an auto land in conditions above those numbers, you should tell the tower. They will probably still not protect the area because it is an unnecessary disruption to their operation. You can still do it, but you need to keep your guard up. We do autolands in VMC all the time with unprotected critical areas because the airplane and crews need them for currency. None of this is rocket science

[-]

akav8r@reddit

We have areas that are protected during low visibility ops. If anything is broken that doesn’t allow CAT3 approaches, they will be NOTAMd out.

[-]

Wingmaniac@reddit

Ok. This is sure are different down there.

[-]

DoThatPilotShit@reddit

ATC automatically protects the ILS critical areas when weather is below 800’-2.

https://pointsixtyfive.com/xenforo/wiki/03-07-05/

[-]

Super_Link890@reddit

And ATC is suppposed to always do the right thing, the key word is 'supposed to'. I was taught in aviation everyone is trying to kill you, even your captain sometimes.

[-]

CautiousIncrease7127@reddit

That’s stupid.

[-]

DoThatPilotShit@reddit

I don’t see how declaring LVO would guarantee ATC does the right thing.

[-]

Avi8tor_Zeus@reddit

Corporately when flying the 7x (at the time Dassault working on 2 & 3 approach) I was asked if we could accept a Cat 2 approach.

I agree with the above statement sounds like BA needs to work on their SOP’s. Maybe in EASA countries it must be ATC declared? When we fly to other country’s we say it’s not our sandbox to remind us this. I only remember hearing if SMGSS or Low Visibility in effect.

Boston is another such airport in need of the lights in the pavement.

[-]

Wingmaniac@reddit

Yes, but if you fly to an airport and request the ILS approach (at least in Canada) ATC will assume it's the CAT I you're going to fly. They won't know if you are actually going to fly the CAT II, but if you do and the airport systems aren't in place, you're going to get in trouble. That's why in Canada you tell them the approach you want to fly and get a clearance for it.

[-]

Wingmaniac@reddit

Those are different approaches with different plates so you would have to request them.

[-]

Gabriel_Owners@reddit

What's it like to be so wrong

[-]

Wingmaniac@reddit

What it like to only barely understand what's going on around you?

[-]

Gabriel_Owners@reddit

Look man, I get it. You don't understand how things work in the US. That's fine. But we do. That's just one of the many reasons why we all make way more money than you.

[-]

Wingmaniac@reddit

Glad to have made your day. Also glad I am not you. You sound like someone I would not like to meet.

[-]

K20017@reddit

You don't need to request them, you just shoot the approach with whatever minimums you are authorized for. ATC will "clearer ILS 27R". They don't know your equipment or if you have an MEL preventing you from doing a CAT II, III, or even I.

[-]

Wingmaniac@reddit

Maybe that's true in the US, if so TIL. In Canada it requires ground equipment to be switched on so you can't do a CAT II or III without requesting that specific approach.

[-]

CautiousIncrease7127@reddit

The equipment for the ILS completely independent of that the ink on your approach plate says. There is no physical difference between an ILS for 200-1/2 or RA50. There is no ground equipment that makes an ILS go to lower mins.

[-]

Wingmaniac@reddit

No, but for an airport to be certified and an approach to be legal it needs to meet specific parameters. Which leads to situations like I found myself in this winter where I requested an change of approach from the CAT I to the CAT II but told I would have to break off the arrival and hold because the backup generator was off (not NOTAM'd) and would take 5-10 minutes to turn on. It turned out alright because it was just precautionary want the weather held to CAT I mins and we landed.

[-]

ethanflyer@reddit

100% agree.

[-]

questi0neverythin9@reddit

To be fair, and to my knowledge, it is not a status here that would be declared and, for instance, be advertised in the ATIS. It is rather a set of back end compliances and procedures that are a part of normal operations below certain minima. The FAA does require:

“Facility air traffic managers must ensure all operational personnel are properly briefed prior to the effective date of local SMGCS plan. All air traffic procedures included in the SMGCS plan must be contained in a facility directive.”

But I would be surprised if most controllers know what it is, given that its contents are just part of their SOP.

[-]

dvinpayne@reddit

I also dont think there's many controllers who would know of it as LVO. We do SMGCS pretty regularly and I know all of our rules around it, but I'd still never heard that term until this video.

[-]

Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit

The FAA changed the terminology in 2012 to LVO/SMGCS. Fourteen years ago...

[-]

Drunkenaviator@reddit

And the guy is telling you nobody uses LVO here, it's SMGCS. I've been flying that whole time and have not once ever heard LVO used in the US.

[-]

shaun3000@reddit

Are… you the Speedbird pilot?

[-]

PWJT8D@reddit

You’re conflating two different ideas.

Nothing needs be “declared” you just comply with the proper procedures for which conditions you’re experiencing. We don’t hold your soft little bri’ish hand and guide you through each step here.

[-]

Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit

One of the NTSB recommendations following Southwest/FedEx near miss in low visibility was that ATIS or controller should inform the pilot that reduced visibility operations are taking place.

Now whether you call it LVP/LVO/SMGCS or invent an entirely new name just to be different from the rest of the world, the recommendation still stands.

Adding to your comment below, NTSB also found a number of deficiencies when it comes to ATC training on low visibility of operations, so it's not just staffing that is the issue.

[-]

PWJT8D@reddit

Again with the conflation, you tried to shoehorn the Jazz accident at LGA into the conversation as a “gotcha,” but failed miserably because that wasn’t a low visibility operation, that was a runway incursion gone horribly wrong. When I pointed out that your argument is moot, you went to a different incident hoping to find a defensible position.

We don’t need to declare anything, just comply with the charted procedures. The speedbirdies didn’t do their homework (or weren’t properly trained) for operating in another country and didn’t realize the charts are labeled for exactly what they’re asking for.

<1200, follow the appropriate SMGCS chart/plan. This is not difficult and doesn’t require handholding by ATC.

[-]

Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit

I'm a different person you were replying to earlier :)

If a pilot is in doubt, they should seek clarification from ATC. An air traffic controller should be familiar with the term LVO, as that's what the FAA have been using since 2012 (based on the link someone provided).

[-]

Flimsy-Ad-858@reddit

that's what the FAA have been using since 2012

While it's technically correct that they've been using these principles, they're referred to by completely different terminology here and basically treated as an operational given rather than something that has to be switched on or declared. I've been an airline pilot for nearly a decade, including several years as a captain, and this post is the first reference to "LVO" I've ever heard.

[-]

PWJT8D@reddit

It’s not the common term here, by far. I’ve been flying in the airlines for 20 years and I’ve never once heard it used here, including on the west coast where operations at <600 RVR are frequent occurrences.

[-]

Curly1109@reddit (OP)

Check your attitude. Might have saved those Canadian Pilots

[-]

PWJT8D@reddit

I know this is just your pathetic attempt at taking a swing at US ATC, but that had nothing to do with low visibility operations and everything to do with staffing.

Just delete the comment bud.

[-]

Curly1109@reddit (OP)

I have nothing against fellow workers no matter where they're from. I think you're projecting lad

[-]

PWJT8D@reddit

doesn’t fix what you said, just delete it bruv.

[-]

Twarrior913@reddit

The only thing I’ve ever seen loosely related to a “declared LVO” operation is the ATIS saying something to the effect of “SMGCS is in effect,” which isn’t so much as a declaration as it is a notification that ATC maybe taxiing aircraft using those procedures. I don’t think Boeing aircraft are forbidden by the manufacturer from operating in low visibility operations, there are plenty of airports in the US that have CATII or rarely even CATIII approaches without enough ATC complexity to require a SMGCS plan to even exist.

[-]

12kVStr8tothenips@reddit

You’re not getting “gaslit”, it’s a miscommunication. People need to stop using that term so much when disagreements happen.

“Declaring LVOs” is a strange term and FAA ATC doesn’t use that terminology but uses the standards of operations per the aforementioned Advisory Circular. It was obvious the vis was low and BA didn’t know if they could go in current RVR. BA didn’t need to become combative during this situation. Just ask to taxi off until you can clear it up, it’s not difficult.

[-]

Boeinggoing737@reddit

We don’t use the acronym LVO in the states. Below 1 mile visibility tower will report RVR in ft. I am going to guess that it is similar to us when we go to countries that report meters that there is an approved conversion somewhere in your manuals. Our 787 and most aircraft with a hud require 300/300/300 rvr for a cat 3. No hud is usually 500 or 600 ft requirement.

[-]

Super_Link890@reddit

Is it the same guy who didnt understand what a Mayday was?

[-]

icanfly_impilot@reddit

Mayday? Why that’s the Russian New Year!

[-]

cargocapt@reddit

No that is Ascension Sunday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlhewxd30ec

[-]

tomdarch@reddit

Nyet. Iz global day of worker!

[-]

icanfly_impilot@reddit

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DJHeSW0O2Xu/?igsh=MXFrOTZycXBvZXN3dQ==

[-]

SmCTwelve@reddit

Mayday? Ok, but are you declaring an emergency?

[-]

mister_pilot@reddit

That AC clearly states itself as a voluntary program and provides the standardized guidance to develop a local program if desired.

I would be annoyed too if a pilot said they couldn’t take off with less than 1000 RVR and RVR is 1000

[-]

questi0neverythin9@reddit

It’s not really optional for major airports. It is necessary to have international ops from European carriers. All major U.S. airports have a SMGCS plan. This ppt has some history on it:

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/acf/media/Presentations/16-01_RD306_Background_McGray.pdf

[-]

mister_pilot@reddit

The your approval list doesn’t have JFK. There are no published SMGCS charts for JFK. JFK has the most international fights in the USA and where OP’s post occurred.

I’m sure they’re working on a program. It makes sense for both the airport and operator standpoint for safety and efficiency. But I haven’t seen anything that mandates a program and an FAA AC saying it’s voluntary.

[-]

questi0neverythin9@reddit

JFK has a SMGCS. That list is from 2018.

[-]

mister_pilot@reddit

“Use of Charts. A low visibility taxi route(s) chart will be provided, or an electronic equivalent, for use by flight crews. “

That’s directly from your posted AC, which you are saying isn’t really optional. There aren’t low vis SMGCS charts for JFK. I’m glad they have a SOP to address it, but that’s not within the guidance of the AC… because the AC is voluntary and can be modified for local conditions

[-]

21MPH21@reddit

BA FO was exhausting and condescending. I've seen JFK put people in the back of the line for way less.

[-]

Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit

How do you know it was the FO, though?

[-]

21MPH21@reddit

FOs handle ground coms 98-99% of the time.

How are you a top 1% commenter and you didn't know that?

[-]

RegionalJet@reddit

There are many airlines where FOs can taxi while the captain does the comms.

[-]

21MPH21@reddit

It's possible that the FO taxis at my airline, but we don't do it. I did forget that it was BA and do not know their procedures so I deleted my ignorant comment

[-]

SMELLYJELLY72@reddit

woah woah, easy tiger…

you should know as well as i do an insufferable captain can just as easily transmit on ground if they have the will to do so.

[-]

21MPH21@reddit

insufferable captain can just as easily transmit on ground

And I am that CA sometimes! But even then it's not for very long, but yeah I have keyed up. And didn't know BA had the FO taxi sometimes

[-]

Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit

Because FOs taxi the aircraft in BA when they are PF, so captain will be doing the radios roughly 50% of the time.

[-]

21MPH21@reddit

Yep, it's BA. I forgot

[-]

Joehansson@reddit

Like on any modern airliner using a modern aircraft

[-]

Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit

Yeah, but not if the airline is stuck in 1960s mentality.

[-]

Joehansson@reddit

Name the beast by it’s name, because at BA the FO definitely gets to touch the tiller on taxi

[-]

Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit

Most airlines in USA.

[-]

Joehansson@reddit

This is simply not true…

Only aircraft without a RHS nose wheel tiller require the CPT to control the aircraft on the ground. Nearly all modern aircraft have two installed, one in each side.

[-]

amatt12@reddit

Wrong.

[-]

BigBadPanda@reddit

A real Nigel

[-]

Katana_DV20@reddit

Agreed, insufferable FO.

[-]

Fine-Literature-8031@reddit

It is a pilots responsibility to familiarise themselves with local ATC procedures and phraseology.

It’d be cool if the whole world were actually standardised but as much as the US isn’t 100% ICAO phraseology and nothing else, the UK isn’t either.

Nearly every country publishes an AIP that details local procedures and how they may deviate from ICAO. It is a pilots job to understand these procedures and barring that communicate effectively what they are trying to say or don’t understand.

Instead what we have here is two native English speakers more likely than not digging in, and not being willing to speak to one another and for no purpose but to delay a flight 20 minutes and waste likely to 2k lbs of fuel.

For example: Canada has shuttle climbs, in the UK you don’t level off below transition level and descend via the glide and get cleared to land at 100ft at times, in France you intercept an axis not a localizer. In an ideal world everything would be standard but it isn’t. It’s an international pilots job to familiarize themselves with local custom and barring that use their words.

[-]

TheJerkStore_@reddit

Thank you for being the reasonable one in here. The whole “the rest of the world is ICAO, and the US isn’t is just people who’ve never actually operated outside their own country. VATSIM doesn’t count as the real world.

There are variances everywhere, the US might be the most, but it’s still not that difficult to understand. One would think an experienced wide body crew would at least have some global tribal knowledge.

Also the US ATC being worse is just stupid. The staffing is a huge problem, but the controllers are every bit as good as Eurocontrol, especially when you considered places like ORD have almost twice the aircraft movements as LHR.

[-]

Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit

but the controllers are every bit as good as Eurocontrol, especially when you considered places like ORD have almost twice the aircraft movements as LHR.

Ah, the famous Eurocontrol controllers, which control traffic at LHR.

[-]

TheJerkStore_@reddit

Pedantic comment.

That’s said, the UK is still a member of Eurocontrol

[-]

PWJT8D@reddit

That user is in here defending the UK like the revolutionary war is still going on.

[-]

TheJerkStore_@reddit

His post history appears to show he’s not an airline pilot

[-]

Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit

And you base that on... what information?

[-]

Fine-Literature-8031@reddit

I mean if you were an airline pilot you probably would’ve replied with saying you were….

You sound like someone who knows the procedural syntax and rules of phraseology but not like someone who has ever seen the real and imperfect world.

[-]

Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit

I mean if you were an airline pilot you probably would’ve replied with saying you were….

And miss out on all the fun? No way :)

[-]

PWJT8D@reddit

Flight simmer moment

[-]

PWJT8D@reddit

Ahh a flight sim larper who thinks he can talk with the people who do it for real. Interesting.

[-]

Logical_Check2@reddit

I've never heard of LVO before. Only SMGCS.

[-]

HappyGnumff@reddit

The entire world uses LVO

[-]

RobThree03@reddit

Except that part of the world where the majority of aircraft movements take place.

And differences between individual country’s procedures and ICAO standards are clearly communicated in company operations manuals. And it is obvious that the BA pilot failed to become familiar with the applicable procedures in effect at the airport they were operating at. Had they been in the PRC and were given a flight level in meters would they have argued for 20 minutes that flight levels in ICAO were in thousands of feet? If they were over Russia would they argue that they need ICAO standard QNH altimetry instead of QFE?

[-]

HappyGnumff@reddit

Yes we all understand ICAO State differences, except the uneducated chap I was addressing.

[-]

Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit

Yeah but the world ends at the Mexican border, doesn't it? :)

[-]

yaricks@reddit

Do you guys not use LVOs? I'm shocked that a JFK controller doesn't know what it means

Welcome to the FAA world, the US does not mirror ICAO operations and terminology.

[-]

Curly1109@reddit (OP)

I understand certain phraseology, but LVOs are a whole set of procedures. How do they fly when there's fog lmao or is it usually called something else

[-]

PWJT8D@reddit

You use the chart for the reported visibility, nothing need be declared. If your ops specs allow you to depart with the reported RVR… you takeoff.

Why do you need a declaration? Last thing we declared to the bri’ish was the Declaration of Independence.

[-]

ma33a@reddit

So in the rest of the world the airport will declare LVO so that operators know what standard to expect from the airport and ATC. That includes things like increased spacing on approach, and a protected ILS. Without that some operators won't be able to fly or land at the reduced minima as the need those things to be compliant.

What BA wanted to know was if the airport was compliant or not, which is not unreasonable considering the nature of US airports and ATC. For them it just sounded like the airport was operating normally and not in LVO mode.

[-]

PWJT8D@reddit

Trying to apply what the “rest of the world” does is not an excuse. It doesn’t matter what they thought “it sounded like,” either you have the ops specs to depart or not, ATC need not declare anything.

considering the nature of US airports and ATC

Pathetic jab attempt. They’re the best in the world and it’s not even close with the busiest airspace on earth.

Inb4 “but jazz…”

[-]

ma33a@reddit

Our Ops Spec says that the airport has to be in LVO mode to do LVOs. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess BA has something similar.

If you think US ATC is the best in the world then you obviously don't fly anywhere else. Which is probably a good thing by the sounds of it.

[-]

tonekids@reddit

I don't post here because it's rotten with the SWA cowboy jerkoff mentality.

[-]

PWJT8D@reddit

Fly all over the world, sweetie.

I’m glad you don’t fly here. I’m sorry you need ATC to declare something to depart. The rest of the world’s airlines departed just fine.

What did BAW do? They departed in the end anyway after wasting 20 minutes trying to BDE.

[-]

coombeseh@reddit

No fucking way am I doing a CAT III approach or a HUD takeoff anywhere in the world without confirmation one way or another that there's no aircraft sat at the CAT I hold point interfering with the localiser signals - the super easy way to do this is state on the ATIS that LVOs or LVPs are in force.

Speedbird asked for confirmation that the airport notorious for not keeping runways clear in severe CAVOK was doing anything to protect their instrument manoeuvre and got shit back because the US has to be special

[-]

PWJT8D@reddit

That’s certainly your prerogative, skipper, but it’s not regulatory nor is it “declared” anywhere here. You don’t have to do anything you don’t want to do with your ship, but the world keeps on turning whether you want to go or not.

Last point of order, the ILS critical areas are primarily for the glideslope antenna, not the localizer. If someone is on your runway interfering with the localizer for your HUD takeoff, you have bigger problems than “declared LVO”. Surprised a 787 captain didn’t know that. 😉

If it’s less than ceilings less than 800 & vis less than 2 miles the ILS critical areas are protected in the US. The more you know. Maybe you should brush up on worldwide procedures, just as we do. Teamwork makes the dream work, mate.

I’ll do 500/500/500 all day long with the HUD, no declaration of anything required. Built different, I guess.

[-]

coombeseh@reddit

It's an ICAO annex so I wouldn't expect you to have understood it given your America-centric existence, but have a look at Annex 10 and tell me again that critical areas aren't also there to protect localiser transmissions

The US seems to operate, despite multiple recent demonstrations that it doesn't work, on the principal of "we have this regulation, you can just trust us that we're doing it" when declaration is simple, easily done and improves everyone's SA.

[-]

PWJT8D@reddit

Practically speaking such a declaration would do nothing beyond speaking words out onto the airwaves. The procedures are already in place. The ILS critical area hold points are painted on the ground and marked with icao standard signage.

Your company ops specs may preclude you from departing unless you hear them, see them, read them, what have you, but your job is to familiarize yourself with local operations in the country you’re operating within and figure out how to safely operate there. If you can’t depart, you can’t depart and that’s ok.

[-]

coombeseh@reddit

If speaking something out over the airwaves doesn't prove anything then I guess ATC is pointless, and to be fair being cleared to land on a runway that's occupied is apparently standard practice in the US anyway so they might as well be.

The biggest threat listed in our briefings for US ops are the ATC procedures, it's the only country in the world we have specific documentation for how to handle their unique bullshit. We operate safely in the US despite this, because we query things that don't match up to what we expect and (try to) ignore the tirade we get back. I'd always rather have asked the question and ended up in a safer space than make an assumption that everyone has remembered to do all of their job all of the time

[-]

PWJT8D@reddit

You need your hand held every step of the way. It’s the biggest difference between US and European operations. The biggest threat we face is European ATC dictating how to fly our airplane for us.

What about Latin and South American ATC flying you into the side of mountains because terrain separation isn’t their responsibility? How about ATC in Asia denying deviations for massive supercells requiring emergency declarations to be able to avoid them? What about central African ATC being completely non-existent? Operating in the US is safe, tens of thousands of flights happen every single day. Your mates managed just fine despite begging for declarations of things that don’t exist so you can get that comforting feeling of having your hand held every step of the way.

It’s recreational for Europeans to point fingers at us, whether it’s jealousy or spite I don’t really care, but operating in the US is safe, efficient and the radar controllers working the airspace in the northeast are the best in the entire world and it’s not even close.

[-]

Curly1109@reddit (OP)

What are you on about? We're talking about LVOs, what has the declaration of independence got to do with anything?

[-]

PWJT8D@reddit

1) you got wooshed extremely badly.

2) Nothing needs to be “declared” in regards to low visibility operations here.. Read my comment again, but slower this time.

[-]

Curly1109@reddit (OP)

I got told :-(

[-]

PWJT8D@reddit

Come on, I know losing the American colonies is still a big deal over there, but the Declaration of Independence joke was pretty good when we’re talking about BAW demanding a declaration at JFK…

[-]

EtwasSonderbar@reddit

losing the American colonies is still a big deal over there

It really isn't. It's barely a footnote in school history lessons; we spend more time learning about the US' civil rights movement.

[-]

PWJT8D@reddit

It was the setup to the joke that followed right behind it…

Come on, I know it’s not British humor, but it was pretty good.

[-]

FriendlyDespot@reddit

Swing and a miss.

[-]

aviatortrevor@reddit

I can't wrap my head around why the british pilots care for something to be "declared". Either they have the equipment/training/certification to fly at a certain low-visibility, or they don't. And the controller has their requirements about separating aircraft and what minimum distances are nececssary depending on weather criteria.

[-]

coombeseh@reddit

The aircraft, aircrew, airport and ATC needs to be certified, trained and current on a procedure to use it. Declaring LVOs in force tells the aircrew that the airport and ATC are current and following the requirements to operate in a low vis environment. Anything else is an assumption which can leads to all sorts of problems, putting "LVOs in force" on the ATIS tells everyone that the appropriate process has been run to operate in these conditions, and I'm not sat there at 50' over the threshold hoping the guy in the tower hasn't forgotten to use the CAT II/III holding points

[-]

PWJT8D@reddit

This is an aggressively European mindset.

[-]

Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit

ICAO, my friend, not Europe.

[-]

PWJT8D@reddit

You really hold onto that like it’s a lifeline, eh?

Maybe should spend some time familiarizing with theatre of operation instead of memorizing icao annexes in your meaningless ATPL theory courses.

[-]

Flimsy-Ad-858@reddit

The aircraft, aircrew, airport and ATC needs to be certified, trained and current on a procedure to use it

This is an operational given in the US which is why we don't have an LVO declaration. If you have the ops specs, you and the airport are qualified and current for them.

[-]

SamSamTheDingDongMan@reddit

There are some low vis taxi charts for some airports. Then for takeoff RVR is controlling. As long as RVR isn’t too low, you just take off. It’s that easy

[-]

Ruepic@reddit

JFK has low visibility procedures when RVR is less than 1200 feet to 600 feet. They should be declaring it in the ATIS as per their own documentation.

[-]

Temporary-Fix9578@reddit

Leave it to them to rebuke what the rest of the world is doing and choose to be the most special snowflake

[-]

srirachaninja@reddit

I am just a private pilot, but why can't they take off if the tower doesn't declare LVO? If they had said it's LVO, they could have taken off, but not without the declaration? What difference does it make? Is it just a compliance thing, or are there special systems active during LVO?

[-]

Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit

Under ICAO, you can't take off below a certain RVR, even though you have the approval, unless the low visibility procedures are in force. They vary from airport to airport, but usually there is increased separation, limited movement on taxiways/aprons, you could have intermittent stopbars illuminated during taxi, aircraft are holding back further from the runway to protect the ILS signal from interference, etc. While these are normally implemented automatically when the visibility and/or ceiling falls below a certain value, they might not be for a number of reasons, such as equipment failure.

So as a pilot, if you are unsure whether the LVPs are in force, you should clarify with the ATC, which is what the crew did, but the controller wasn't familiar with the term.

[-]

CautiousIncrease7127@reddit

Because it’s not a thing in the US. The ILS critical areas are automatically protected below certain conditions: 8’ ceiling or 2 miles vis. Nobody declares anything.

The other people banging on about how the controllers need to know what kind of approach mins you’re using are also missing the point. The only time you should tell the tower that you’re doing an auto land is when the weather is above the criteria I listed earlier. That way they can ensure the critical area is protected. But 9.9 times out of 10 that we do an auto land it is just for currency requirements for the airplane or for the crew, and the weather is fine. So we tell the tower that we’re doing one and they nearly always tell us that they can’t protect the critical area so it’s at our own risk. Which we then brief and do it anyway.

Otherwise this is all automatic here in the US. If you’re using a reduced mins approach then you should be looking at the taxi plan, too, and those charts have the visibility requirements printed right at the top. I’ve flown widebodies in every theater on the planet and never heard anyone make this kind of stink about visibility. You’ve either got the numbers or you don’t. That’s up to your company manuals, not the controlling facilities.

The BA crew needs to read their long-range manual, or theater requirements, or whatever they may be called in their manuals. This sounds to me like a situation where you have one knowitall crew member who is trying to convince everyone he is right, and two other pilots rifling through the manuals to prove to him he is wrong. For their trouble they’ll waste a bunch of time and still go. He even said they need “1800 meters” which is a stupid error to make when you’re basically berating the tower controller on frequency……while being wrong the whole time.

[-]

Hour_Tour@reddit

Most useful post in this thread. Nice to know that sensitive/critical areas are protected below a certain value, even if it's not stated.

[-]

randombrain@reddit

It is stated.

It's stated in the FAA's publications, the AIM and the AIP. Pilots are expected to be familiar with at least one of those publications before commencing a flight in the US.

[-]

Hour_Tour@reddit

Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant "stated more obviously so that us dummy foreigners don't get confused". Genuinely.

[-]

PWJT8D@reddit

The crew was trying to do something outside of standard procedure and isn’t required here, which is why they met resistance doing it.

[-]

DFWmovingwalkway@reddit

Uh maybe Im just ignorant but company derived procedures drive low vis ops, unless plainly stated in the ATIS, like you have to know what you are internally capable of. I'm shocked that they can't depart in 1,000, I'm not even thinking about it unless I hear less than 500, with center line lights we can go down to 300,300,300 and one can be missing or something like that, not pulling out the FOM to look though so I could be wrong. Even the USAF is way lower than 1,000 though I can't recall what the numbers are off the top of my head, we departed KADW in damn near a fog bank last year and made it work legally.

[-]

Hour_Tour@reddit

I'd wager these pilots was missing something in their company procedures here, surely BA as a whole isn't unprepared by fog operations in the US.

That said, our CAT3 ILS signal protection criteria against vehicles and taxiing/departing/crossing/landing aircraft is NOT met unless we and airport ops initiate a bunch of steps for it. When that has happened, we announce LVPs and put it on the ATIS so that all pilots know they can safely rely on CAT3. It's wild to me that the US does not have something similar.

[-]

PWJT8D@reddit

We have low visibility procedures, just like every icao member nation. It’s not “declared” as these pilots (wrongly) demanded, because it is assumed unless stated otherwise.

[-]

ethanflyer@reddit

BAW failed to read and adapt to local procedures, it's not ICAO standards but FAA. I'm based in Europe too and fly to the US, but I need to familiarize appropriately. I don't come to another airport and tell them what SOP to run and under what criteria.

[-]

mightymac-89@reddit

I once had a British pilot tell me there’s no such thing as runway 1 through 9 it’s 01 through 09 and he questioned me actually being a pilot based on that. Then when I showed him FAA charts showing runway 9L etc he said we are doing it wrong 🤦‍♂️

[-]

williego@reddit

TOWER: "And, Uh 18A Heavy, for our planning purposes, what is a meter"

[-]

Curly1109@reddit (OP)

Haha, poor Nigel mixed up the units

[-]

Saltyspaceballs@reddit

Easily done when USA is the only one to use their own set of units for everything!

[-]

haamster@reddit

THE UK uses feet and inches for bridge heights, miles per hour for speed, miles per gallon for fuel economy, stone for a person's weight, and pints for beer, and then taunt Americans for using customary units.

What unit does icao use for altitude again?

[-]

Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit

What unit does icao use for altitude again?

The default unit is meters, but ICAO permits the use of feet, as they recognise transition to meters would cause a lot of safety issues.

[-]

CautiousIncrease7127@reddit

That’s not true. China is the only country using meters anymore. It’s not just “allowed,” feet is the standard everywhere.

[-]

Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit

Have a look at table 3-4 on page 21 of ICAO Annex 5 and you'll see that the primary unit for altitude is meters, however the use of a non-SI unit (feet) is permitted.

[-]

notnormal999@reddit

It’s also stupid. We could argue all day about the metric system but one area where feet is CLEARLY better is separating aircraft by altitude.

[-]

Saltyspaceballs@reddit

Yeah I will admit we use every unit possible in daily life, but in aviation we do go down the ICAO route. Just saying, when it’s 3am, you’re jet lagged as hell, overworked, coming to a country where units non-standard it’s easy to slip up on units. I’d do the same in China or Russia (if we still went there) I’m sure!

[-]

haamster@reddit

but in aviation we do go down the ICAO route

More than the US does, sure, but in my operations guide the UK has the longest list of ICAO procedures deviations in Europe. So no, they don't.

[-]

DankVectorz@reddit

We’re just using the units that Speedbird country gave us

[-]

ps3x42@reddit

How many washing machine lengths is that?

[-]

-Aces_High-@reddit

This reminds me of when southwest pushed from the gate on an uncontrolled ramp while british airways was doing whatever they were doing, and BA couldnt possibly comprehend and uncontrolled ramp and lost their minds

[-]

RETLEO@reddit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WbHv_DS8WU

[-]

shaun3000@reddit

Virgin. But similar meltdown. The accent certainly doesn’t make them sound less whiny. https://youtu.be/AX8iHTTiEx8

[-]

kesterrice@reddit

That was Virgin Atlantic not BA

[-]

PWJT8D@reddit

It was Brits crying that someone else existed, either way.

[-]

flyingforfun3@reddit

Haha yeah I think that was at Austin.

[-]

Pinecone1000@reddit

That’s going in my report!

[-]

Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit

It shouldn't come as a shock that not only USA doesn't comply with the large chunk of ICAO SARPS, it is also largely ignorant of them.

Make sure you know what "you're on request" means, you know, it's important to know standardised phraseology and all.

[-]

Fine-Literature-8031@reddit

Where have you flown? That mindset is a way to have a bad time flying in Latin America, South America, Africa, and much of Asia.

More than anything else pilots need to be adaptable. Sometimes things just aren’t structured as much as we’d like. Much of the world is uncontrolled IFR and/or non-radar and you just have to make do there. I fly and speak a certain way in countries that are more aligned with ICAO and differently in others.

There’s obstinate rule following and using judgment to meet the moment.

[-]

shaun3000@reddit

Imagine flying a 3 day with that guy. Or, worse, a whole month. Good lord…

I realize that this is a massive generalization, but one of the biggest pricks I ever flew with was an ex-pat Brit. Absolute knob. He was an asst. chief instructor at my school. He killed an engine on me during a stall then yelled at me when I was completely confused by the Vmc roll. 22 years later and I still vividly remember him yelling, “If we were in a Baron we’d both be dead, right now.” (Say it in the same, condescending accent as the British Airways knob yelling at JFK tower)

[-]

CrossBamboAtTen@reddit

BA needs 1800 meters of RVR to depart? That’s 5900 feet. Most US airlines opspecs can depart far far far lower than that.

[-]

Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit

I think they just got slightly confused between feet and meters, since the latter is what the rest of the world uses for both visibility and RVR.

1800ft roughly equals 550m. Below 550m RVR, LVPs (low visibility procedures) must be in force in order to use the lower minima associated with LVTO (low visibility takeoff), and pretty much any airline can go down to 125m (\~ 400ft) without the HUD or 75m (\~250 feet) with the HUD, as the amount of training to get the LVTO approval is pretty minimal.

Outside of USA, the pilots can tell LVPs are in force because the ATIS will advise you so, or absent of that, the controller, which makes it extremely clear to know whether the runway is protected, so you can shoot a Cat 2/3 approach or conduct a low visibility takeoff.

[-]

PWJT8D@reddit

It’s automatically protected here, as has been rehashed numerous times in this thread. You don’t need someone to hold your hand and reassure you that you can shoot the approach. If you have the mins and your ops specs allow, shoot the approach, skipper.

[-]

shaun3000@reddit

Not exactly. Here we will publish NOTAMs stating certain mins are NA. It happens pretty regularly due to cranes, etc. If you’re lucky they’ll include this infoemation in the ATIS. But sometimes it goes to shit, unexpectedly, and there’s confusion as to if the CAT III is protected. Perhaps explicitly declaring it would maybe make it better.

That’s just one tiny piece of our fucked up NOTAM system. But think much of the NOTAM issue is not unique to the US.

[-]

Curly1109@reddit (OP)

He meant feet, he said so earlier. RVR is usually reported in meters so that's where he got muddled up

[-]

Zakluor@reddit

In North America, RVR is reported in feet.

[-]

AceNova2217@reddit

BAW is not a North American carrier, I'd like to point out.

[-]

Zakluor@reddit

Sure. RVR reports, visibility reports, altimeter settings, altitudes, and other measurements are not reported in metric in North America, regardless of the nationality of the carrier.

The pilots have to know what units are expressed when flying in countries other than their own. ATC in Canada and the US don't generally convert for pilots' needs, though sometimes an altimeter setting is converted to metric.

[-]

AceNova2217@reddit

I mean, they said the right number anyway, even if the unit was wrong.

[-]

FrGravel@reddit

He probably meant feet

[-]

554TangoAlpha@reddit

Fuck is a LVO, SMGCS is where it’s at

[-]

Alarming-Pea-3177@reddit

FAA and ICAO phraseology living in completely different universes strikes again.

Controller probably knows the procedures cold, just not the exact terminology BA expected. Happens more than people think once meters enter the chat.

[-]

Gabriel_Owners@reddit

What an insufferable British pylote ignorant to American procedures. Don't like how we do things? Don't come here!

[-]

mister_pilot@reddit

No LVO isn’t a thing in the USA.

Pilots are responsible for knowing procedures for the location where they are operating.

Controllers aren’t responsible for knowing the procedures for pilots of other countries operating in their airspace

Speedbird said he couldn’t take off with less than 1,000 RVR. Speedbird confirmed multiple times RVR was 1,000. Seems like Speedbird has his minimum requirements.

[-]

Curly1109@reddit (OP)

https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/1tkdysk/comment/on7wg55/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

[-]

mister_pilot@reddit

I appreciate the AC but it clearly states the program is voluntary for airports to develop.

[-]

questi0neverythin9@reddit

It’s not really optional. It is necessary to have international ops from European carriers. All major U.S. airports have a SMGCS plan. This ppt has some history on it:

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/acf/media/Presentations/16-01_RD306_Background_McGray.pdf

[-]

z0mbeh8r@reddit

It would seem somebody didn't read up on their local procedures and rules. No declaration needs to be made in the US. The assumption is if you have enough certification to fly an airliner, you are aware of SMGCS charts and know when to use them or not. The assumption is you know the triggers when ATC automatically protects the ILS critical area. The assumption is you can look at the take off minimums on your Jepp chart and know your own company's OPSECs to make a determination on if you are legal to depart or not. It is basic due diligence for a pilot to know these differences in rules and SOPs that exist between different nations and regions.

[-]

Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit

To be fair, it would be a bit easier if USA AIP GEN 1.7 wasn't longer than War and Peace :)

[-]

z0mbeh8r@reddit

It would be cool if everything was 100% standard across the entire globe. But I would expect a wide body pilot to know it’s not. In this case, BA delayed their own departure when they likely didn’t need to. Not really a huge deal from a safety aspect. In other cases, say a pilot not being aware that South American ATC won’t always provide terrain clearance, not being aware of local procedures can literally put you into the side of a mountain. Either way, it is the pilots job to know the rules and procedures of the airspace they are operating in and apply them appropriately under their own OPSECs.

[-]

PWJT8D@reddit

Typically your operator will have a manual or procedure set to guide operating in countries that differ from your own, nobody is requiring you to read an entire regulatory manual… or rather they shouldn’t be doing that.

I have no idea if BAW does or not, but it seems like this crew wasn’t prepared for it appropriately. At my shop we can reference a manual that lays out operating in any place on earth, to brush up on differences or learn for the first time going somewhere to prevent moments that end up on YouTube lol

[-]

Please downvote this comment until it collapses.

Questions about this comment? Please see this wiki post before contacting the mods.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. If you have any questions, please contact the mods of this subreddit.