QR777 not obeying North Atlantic Tracks ?

[Dutch Mill]

Just saw on the "radar" site that ends in 24, that QR777 on March 25th is crossing the assigned North Atlantic Crossing tracks. Are they allowed to do so on their DOH-MIA leg?

[Hotel Tango]

They're doing it secretly hoping nobody will notice, least of all ATC. But now that you've stumbled across their dastardly plan I guess the game's up. ;)

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

It's unthinkable that a professional crew would do such a thing unless it was properly approved. If I had a $ for every time I saw errors on FR24 I'd be very, very rich.

[wiggy]

HT you tease....

Dutch - almost certainly following an approved (with ATC) "Random" Route.

It's not that uncommon to cross the tracks, or use part of a track.

[kcockayne]

HT you tease....

Dutch - almost certainly following an approved (with ATC) "Random" Route.

It's not that uncommon to cross the tracks, or use part of a track.

It's a long time since I was at Oceanic , but it was always possible to route off the Track system, as long as separation was maintained on the random track & between the random track & the organized tracks. I would have thought that this possibility still exists (subject to these provisos). Or, have things changed ?
In any case, I am certain that pilots would not take it upon themselves to "ride roughshod" through the tracks.

[Hotel Tango]

HT you tease....

I know, it's one of my many bad traits! It comes from the cynic in me which reads an insinuation rather than a genuine question. :\

[Dutch Mill]

I know, it's one of my many bad traits! It comes from the cynic in me which reads an insinuation rather than a genuine question. :\
HT: Question was really genuine, never saw such a crossing before. However amazes me that it's possible to do "random" on organized North Atlantic tracks.

[kcockayne]

Dutch Mill

No need to be amazed. All that ATC is. there to do is to separate the traffic from each other. They achieve that in obvious ways &, over the NAT, Organised Tracks is one of them. If a particular a/c requests a routing outside of these tracks & there is no conflicting traffic, than it can happen. That is not to say that this can be accomplished easily, or on a frequent basis.
These days, it might not be as easy to do as in the past (with the greater levels of traffic now); & it might be that there are heavy restrictions on it. As I often say, things have changed since I was there & it might be banned altogether, for all I know !

[Dutch Mill]

But: ..... accross atlantic, the radar coverage is zero. Running random tracks based on radio transmitted tracks seems pretty risky.

[kcockayne]

Yes, but there are other ways of providing separation. Even with Procedural Separation, if one random track a/c is above (or below) the other a/c on the tracks that it crosses, then it is quite safe to allow it to fly on that random track. What tends to screw this type of operation up is the sheer amount of traffic at all the usable Flight Levels; so that attractive Flight Levels are simply not available for the Random Track a/c to use. This will be compounded by the Random Tracker cutting across more than one track during its journey.
In these circumstances, ATC will be particularly mindful of the density of one directional traffic (eg. the Westbound Flow) & will not sanction a "one off" Random Tracker. But, if they have vertical separation (& it can be maintained without adversely affecting the a/c complying with the Organised Tracks), then why not allow allow random tracking - on a very limited basis !

[Dutch Mill]

No problem though, I've reported the observation to navcanada.ca, in charge of Gander Oceanic FIR, and asked for their response. Flight QR777/25MAR DOH-MIA.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I'd be interested to hear their response, unless your observation is already in the round tray!

[Dutch Mill]

HD: I'll keep you posted!

[kcockayne]

Don't forget that Oceanic ATC have access to ADS B - in the same way that FR24 have. So, they should have been aware of any unauthorised departure from required procedures. Nevertheless, I very much doubt that a professional flight deck crew would make an unauthorized deviation of this sort & get away with it !!!

[DaveReidUK]

Don't forget that Oceanic ATC have access to ADS B - in the same way that FR24 have.

Interesting. I hadn't realised that satellite-based ADS-B monitoring was in widespread use yet (most of the Atlantic being out-of-range of ground-based stations).

Do you know long that's been the case ?

[kcockayne]

No, Dave. You are probably right. I have no real experience of the ADS B usage - I just assumed that this was the case ! Oops.
I bow to superior knowledge.
Nevertheless, I don't believe that anything untoward happened in this case.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I visited ATC in Auckland a good few years ago - possibly late 90s - and they had a "radar" display showing the Pacific from Japan across to western USA and down to NZ and Australia. How it worked I do not know but there were a good few aircraft showing and I wonder if that was some sort of ADS-B via satellite or something....

[MarkerInbound]

But: ..... accross atlantic, the radar coverage is zero. Running random tracks based on radio transmitted tracks seems pretty risky.

The OTS is just a bunch of random tracks. They are just today's approved random tracks. I've done a few crossings at the end of the herd and been cleared a random route. Our flight planning computer has different ideas than what Gander and Shanwick came up with 12 hours earlier.

ADS-C has been required between FL350 and FL 390 in the NATS airspace since February 2015.

[Hotel Tango]

If a specific FL is allocated for a random track and that FL is exempt from the designated tracks I don't see what the problem is.

[WHBM]

Long been practiced and permitted, especially by those routing in a different direction, not Western Europe to Eastern North America. How do you think the Keflavik to Tenerife holiday flights manage ?


Random Tracks were commonly used as well by Aeroflot from the Soviet Union to Cuba, which would cross the tracks at an angle. Contrary to some belief, these were all properly flight planned and complied with Shanwick. I am guessing the Qatar flight mentioned may have been on a somewhat similar routing.

[crewmeal]

I suspect that many Oceanic flights will take a northerly route with all these deep low pressure systems around regardless of originating airport. I'm sure storm Katie will present some 'different' routes on Monday.

[kcockayne]

WHBM

You pretty much say it all on this subject in your succinct post, WHBM. This occurrence appears to be a "non-event". I suppose that it is just possible that there was some "intrigue" involved here but , overall, it seems that this was just an example of an a/c flying a simple Random Track. Nothing more, nothing less. Perfectly safe & perfectly permissible.

[Check Mags On]

So let me get this straight, you have reported something to NAV Canada based on FR24.
Hmmm.

You are actually always random tracking in MNPS airspace unless you go the full length from entry point to exit point of a NAT track and cross 30W during the hours of operation.

Can't wait to see the reply.

[Danny2]

Don't come here often these days but to read that some spotter calling him or herself 'Dutch Mill' has reported a flight to NavCanada because said spotter thinks they have breached some imaginary rule and wandered across the OTS solely based on their observation on FlightRadar24… give me a break! No wonder I had to sell this site.

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/56894887.jpg

[Check Mags On]

Best post for many a year.
Well said Danny.

[Dutch Mill]

Thanks for all the "positive" comments in the spotters area of this site. I was here with a positive attitude, but am being burned down completely. It proves that some of you are not able to communicate in a fashionable and respectful way. So I wish you "spotters" the best of luck with your 300mm lenses next to the runway! I won't be back here anytime soon.

[mgahan]

HD, re your post #17.

At that time it was probably provided with surveillance data using ADS/C from suitably equipped aircraft. Thanks to the FANS1/A project.

Had you visited Brisbane Oceanic you would have seen surveillance data from the same sources. Sama sama Fiji. Oakland (US) came along a little later.

Big difference in the technology and systems for ADS/B and ADS/C.

MJG

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Mgahan.. many thanks for that. Much appreciated.

[Check Mags On]

Thanks for all the "positive" comments in the spotters area of this site. I was here with a positive attitude, but am being burned down completely. It proves that some of you are not able to communicate in a fashionable and respectful way. So I wish you "spotters" the best of luck with your 300mm lenses next to the runway! I won't be back here anytime soon.
Dutch Mill your post is proof of the theory that a little bit of knowledge is dangerous.
This page is also frequented by many pilots. Lots of us who operate in that part of airspace.
We would have gladly explained the rules, regulations and goings on of MNPS airspace.
But no, you saw fit to use FR24 to report something to NAV Canada.
Hence the responses from people in the know.

On my last trip across it showed me flying backwards.

[wiggy]

Dutch - just in case you do come back.

You raised issue with something you saw that you didn't understand, fair enough. Looking at the user names of those who replied I recognise a lot of contributors who either are professional pilots with lots of hours over the Atlantic, professional ATCers, or industry professionals in some capacity.

Despite all those explanations you start stamping your feet and yelling that you've reported what you've seen to nav canada....and then to cap things off you start chucking comments around insulting everybody who tried to help you out.

I wouldn't complain of being burned, I think you've got off lightly.

[THR RED ACC]

Danny2, I'm glad you bailed out because you destroyed this site at the time.

[kcockayne]

Danny2, I'm glad you bailed out because you destroyed this site at the time.

Dutch Mill

Don't be like that. You, perhaps innocently, raised an issue which you thought warranted attention. Perhaps unwisely, you resorted to making a report in the probably mistaken understanding & interpretation of what you saw.Your reporting action was, in the likely circumstances, "over the top". You were mistaken in doing this. You got definitive answers to your question ; from knowledgeable people. Only one or two people were a little rude in criticising you - but, you did ask for it ! You should have accepted the answers you got & moved on. Put it down to experience & be a bit more discerning next time. You should know that I, & many other people, have made fools of ourselves on PPRune before now !

[+TSRA]

No disrespect to Dutch Mill, but this is the exact problem with sites like FR24, Flight Aware and the like. They allow spotters to take their hobby to a level that can be considered interference with the professional level. They allow the layperson to know too much about flight operations without any background information.

For example, my mom once watched my youngest sister take a flight from YYZ to AMS. About 150 miles from YYT both FR24 and Flight Aware showed them suddenly on approach to BOS. My mom panicked and even though all my rational explanations about lack of radar coverage, bad data, the system not knowing what to do with itself, she still wanted to call KLM to find out why they were landing in Boston. You can imagine what she did when the damned thing dropped right off her screen saying "No Data." I can only imagine what she would have done had she had the same level of knowledge shown here.

Now...to this report from Dutch Mill. Unfortunately, the flip side to this "helpful hand" is that someone at NavCanada will actually have to respond to this report. There is no way that a report just gets dumped in today's world. It will have to go through their SMS. So instead of someone in Ottawa examining a runway incursion that has serious safety implications, that someone will have to take their time to investigate this report. No doubt it will be filled under "monitor for reoccurrence" but even that still requires a look back over any data, a look at the rules, the clearance given, etc. A total waste of time for a non-event.

Someone said before that a little information is bad. Unfortunately with aviation spotters (and I say this being a former spotter turned career) is that many think they have all the information because they read a book, go to the airport and listen on a scanner to then go home and play flight simulator. They then think they are justified in filing what they feel is a safety report or otherwise telling professionals they did a good/bad job.

But you're not. I don't tell you how to do your job or how well you're doing it, so don't do it to me...or any of the people I work with.

Please, enjoy your hobby. That's how many of us got into the profession in the first place. But keep it a hobby. Don't start interfering with the process because you 'think' you know better or 'want to help.' You may unwittingly cause more harm than good.

My god...apparently I had something to get off my chest!

[Megaton]

I was offset two miles right of track yesterday. Will someone be telling the teacher?

[jackieofalltrades]

Perfect post +TSRA. You sum up what I was feeling very succinctly and eloquently.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Megaton.... look out the window... two big guys in dark glasses walking up your drive.,