North Atlantic IFR routes

[JJ]

When commercial aircraft fly across the big pond during IFR weather, how
does FAA and foreign Air Traffic control keep an eye on them without
radar? I understand most flights to and from Europe go up over
Newfoundland and over south of Greenland and Iceland. Can a radar see
out that far? Just curious. Any web links that show the routes would be
appreciated.

[Robert Moore]

JJ > wrote in :

> When commercial aircraft fly across the big pond during IFR weather, how
> does FAA and foreign Air Traffic control keep an eye on them without
> radar?

There WAS life before RADAR. Ever hear of position reports? :-)

Bob Moore

[John R Weiss]

"JJ" > wrote...
> When commercial aircraft fly across the big pond during IFR weather, how
> does FAA and foreign Air Traffic control keep an eye on them without
> radar? I understand most flights to and from Europe go up over
> Newfoundland and over south of Greenland and Iceland. Can a radar see
> out that far?

Most trips will be out of radar coverage for at least a couple hours. Those
that go over or near Iceland will have more coverage.

However, traffic separation is based on specific Oceanic Clearances based on
specific departure times from near-land fixes, altitude, a system of specific
"Tracks" (routes) during the "rush hours," controlled airspeeds, and position
reports from the airplanes via HF or VHF radio every 10 degrees of longitude.

Radar coverage is not required. Trips across the Pacific go much longer without
ATC radar coverage.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Saryon" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:13:49 -0500, JJ > wrote:
>
> >When commercial aircraft fly across the big pond during IFR weather, how
> >does FAA and foreign Air Traffic control keep an eye on them without
> >radar? I understand most flights to and from Europe go up over
> >Newfoundland and over south of Greenland and Iceland. Can a radar see
> >out that far? Just curious. Any web links that show the routes would be
> >appreciated.
>
> Aircraft entering the NAT (North Atlantic Track) system use
> daily-changing routes which vary depending on weather. Which track a
> specific flight would take depends on where they're coming from, what
> the flight planning shows as best winds, etc etc etc. Since you don't
> have radar coverage out in the middle of the ocean, prior to and while
> in the NAT system they use ACARS

ACARS is a switch, which has little to do with the Inmarsat Satcom the ACARS
routes to the cockpit. In fact the misnomer that ACARS is the data link
only serves to retard progress.

[[email protected]]

I thought the "S" is ACARS stood for "system"

Tarver Engineering wrote:

> "Saryon" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:13:49 -0500, JJ > wrote:
> >
> > >When commercial aircraft fly across the big pond during IFR weather, how
> > >does FAA and foreign Air Traffic control keep an eye on them without
> > >radar? I understand most flights to and from Europe go up over
> > >Newfoundland and over south of Greenland and Iceland. Can a radar see
> > >out that far? Just curious. Any web links that show the routes would be
> > >appreciated.
> >
> > Aircraft entering the NAT (North Atlantic Track) system use
> > daily-changing routes which vary depending on weather. Which track a
> > specific flight would take depends on where they're coming from, what
> > the flight planning shows as best winds, etc etc etc. Since you don't
> > have radar coverage out in the middle of the ocean, prior to and while
> > in the NAT system they use ACARS
>
> ACARS is a switch, which has little to do with the Inmarsat Satcom the ACARS
> routes to the cockpit. In fact the misnomer that ACARS is the data link
> only serves to retard progress.

[Tarver Engineering]

> wrote in message
...
> I thought the "S" is ACARS stood for "system"

Nothing comes "from" an ACARS.

The data link consists of two radios, an Inmarsat satcom and a VDL enabled
VHF com.

SkygodTJ spread ACARS ignorance across usenet, but that can not make it
true. The reason an ACARS is necessary is because someone made a decision
to build the ACARS using Williamsburg ARINC 429. (aka ARINC 628) That means
that the VHF com B and Satcom need the ACARS to communicate with an FMS.

The CNX-80 has VDL and it will be spreading to everywhere.

> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> > "Saryon" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:13:49 -0500, JJ > wrote:
> > >
> > > >When commercial aircraft fly across the big pond during IFR weather,
how
> > > >does FAA and foreign Air Traffic control keep an eye on them without
> > > >radar? I understand most flights to and from Europe go up over
> > > >Newfoundland and over south of Greenland and Iceland. Can a radar see
> > > >out that far? Just curious. Any web links that show the routes would
be
> > > >appreciated.
> > >
> > > Aircraft entering the NAT (North Atlantic Track) system use
> > > daily-changing routes which vary depending on weather. Which track a
> > > specific flight would take depends on where they're coming from, what
> > > the flight planning shows as best winds, etc etc etc. Since you don't
> > > have radar coverage out in the middle of the ocean, prior to and while
> > > in the NAT system they use ACARS
> >
> > ACARS is a switch, which has little to do with the Inmarsat Satcom the
ACARS
> > routes to the cockpit. In fact the misnomer that ACARS is the data link
> > only serves to retard progress.
>

[Colin Kingsbury]

According to my brother-in-law who flies long-haul int'l routes for UPS, the
trans-Atlantic routes are typically out of radar coverage for more time than
the Pacific routes. At least for them, most of their routes go great-circle
up over Alaska, back down along the Siberian coast and on to Japan, Taipei,
or Manila, and are under radar service almost the whole time. Atlantic
routes on the other hand have to be out over the water between Newfoundland,
Iceland, and the UK. But I suppose the NRT-HNL run would have you over the
water quite a while, probably well beyond ETOPS limits.

-cwk.

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:mDXQb.20062$U%5.158553@attbi_s03...

>
> Radar coverage is not required. Trips across the Pacific go much longer
without
> ATC radar coverage.
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Colin Kingsbury" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> According to my brother-in-law who flies long-haul int'l routes for UPS,
the
> trans-Atlantic routes are typically out of radar coverage for more time
than
> the Pacific routes. At least for them, most of their routes go
great-circle
> up over Alaska, back down along the Siberian coast and on to Japan,
Taipei,
> or Manila, and are under radar service almost the whole time. Atlantic
> routes on the other hand have to be out over the water between
Newfoundland,
> Iceland, and the UK. But I suppose the NRT-HNL run would have you over the
> water quite a while, probably well beyond ETOPS limits.

Weiss just posts things, without any idea if they are true, or not.

> "John R Weiss" > wrote in message
> news:mDXQb.20062$U%5.158553@attbi_s03...
>
> >
> > Radar coverage is not required. Trips across the Pacific go much longer
> without
> > ATC radar coverage.
> >
>
>

[John R Weiss]

"Colin Kingsbury" > wrote...
> According to my brother-in-law who flies long-haul int'l routes for UPS, the
> trans-Atlantic routes are typically out of radar coverage for more time than
> the Pacific routes. At least for them, most of their routes go great-circle
> up over Alaska, back down along the Siberian coast and on to Japan, Taipei,
> or Manila, and are under radar service almost the whole time. Atlantic
> routes on the other hand have to be out over the water between Newfoundland,
> Iceland, and the UK. But I suppose the NRT-HNL run would have you over the
> water quite a while, probably well beyond ETOPS limits.

I fly long-haul int'l routes for Atlas Air. In the past 4 years, I have flown
trans-Pacific routes about 90% of the time.

We seldom fly the routes over Russia. When flying on the "NOPAC" tracks between
Anchorage and Japan, there is a significant ATC radar coverage "hole" between
Shemya and Japan, and a smaller one east of Shemya. Once you go off the NOPAC
tracks, the size of the non-radar coverage holes increase significantly. Often,
due to significant Jet Stream winds, we fly well south of the NOPAC tracks,
sometimes as far south as Midway Island. On those routes there is NO ATC radar
coverage from coast-out in Japan to coast-in in the US (LAX or SFO).

IIRC, the LAX-HNL route is the longest overwater route flown under ETOPS.
Between HNL and Sydney, there are more emergency airports available, but no
radar coverage after leaving HNL control until nearing Sydney.

Also, when the NAT tracks over the Atlantic drift northward, Iceland control has
radar coverage for a period.