North Atlantic Contingency Manoeuvre
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK North
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
North Atlantic Contingency Manoeuvre
Hello.
I'm sure I've read somewhere that the North Atlantic Contingency Manoeuvre is changing wef 16th February 2006, with the parallel track moving from 30nm to a 15nm offset from the planned track.
Can anyone shed any light on this, please?
I'm sure I've read somewhere that the North Atlantic Contingency Manoeuvre is changing wef 16th February 2006, with the parallel track moving from 30nm to a 15nm offset from the planned track.
Can anyone shed any light on this, please?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK North
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Nr Ripley, I now recognise it as where I read it.
But how come there seems to be nothing else - nothing on NATS, CAA, etc?
Have longhaul aircrew been alerted to this?
But how come there seems to be nothing else - nothing on NATS, CAA, etc?
Have longhaul aircrew been alerted to this?
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q)EGGX/QAOXX/IV/NBO/E/000/999/5216N01949W639
FROM 06/02/16 00:01 TO PERM G0021/06
E)IN FLT CONTINGENCY PROC FOR NORTH ALTANTIC REGION CHANGE. CONTINGENCY OFFSET DIST CHANGED TO 15NM AND CONTINGENCY OFFSET ALT CHANGED TO CLIMB OR DECEND 500FT FOR ALL FLT LVL.
FULL DETAILS CONTAINED IN REGIONAL SUPPLEMENTARY PROC (ICAO DOC 7030) AND AMDT TO ENR 2-2-4-12/13 TO BE PUBLISHED AT AIRAC 4/2006.
FROM 06/02/16 00:01 TO PERM G0021/06
E)IN FLT CONTINGENCY PROC FOR NORTH ALTANTIC REGION CHANGE. CONTINGENCY OFFSET DIST CHANGED TO 15NM AND CONTINGENCY OFFSET ALT CHANGED TO CLIMB OR DECEND 500FT FOR ALL FLT LVL.
FULL DETAILS CONTAINED IN REGIONAL SUPPLEMENTARY PROC (ICAO DOC 7030) AND AMDT TO ENR 2-2-4-12/13 TO BE PUBLISHED AT AIRAC 4/2006.
Last edited by PPRuNe Radar; 12th Feb 2006 at 23:41.
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do the people who write these procedures ever try them out on a simulator?
The nat-pco site says that it might be necessary to overshoot the new track when establishing a reciprocal track. However, it still insists that we turn through ninety degrees while establishing a parallel track in the same direction. A 180 degree turn actually causes less of an offset than two 90 degree turns, due to the time taken to reverse the turn. In the simulator a few nights ago we did a 90 degree turn to establish on an offset in the same direction at FL350 and Mach .85. The aircraft deviated 28.4 miles from the original track.
The 90 degree turn technique worked perfectly when we were trying to achieve a 30nm offset, but not with a 15nm offset. I suggest that the procedure should be change to either;
1. If requiring to establish an offset on a reciprocal track then turn through 180 degrees and then continue the turn to achieve the 15nm offset as soon as possible.
2. If requiring to establish an offset on a track in the same direction then turn through 60 degrees and then reverse the turn so as to achieve a 15nm offset.
The 60 degree method gets the aircraft to 7.5nm from the original track (half way between the tracks) in exactly the same time as the 90 degree method, but avoids overshooting the required track. Obviously with the 180 degree turn there is no alternative to slightly overshootong the new track (by about 7nm) but why write a technique that guarantees a large overshoot when there is a much easier alternative?
Airclues
The nat-pco site says that it might be necessary to overshoot the new track when establishing a reciprocal track. However, it still insists that we turn through ninety degrees while establishing a parallel track in the same direction. A 180 degree turn actually causes less of an offset than two 90 degree turns, due to the time taken to reverse the turn. In the simulator a few nights ago we did a 90 degree turn to establish on an offset in the same direction at FL350 and Mach .85. The aircraft deviated 28.4 miles from the original track.
The 90 degree turn technique worked perfectly when we were trying to achieve a 30nm offset, but not with a 15nm offset. I suggest that the procedure should be change to either;
1. If requiring to establish an offset on a reciprocal track then turn through 180 degrees and then continue the turn to achieve the 15nm offset as soon as possible.
2. If requiring to establish an offset on a track in the same direction then turn through 60 degrees and then reverse the turn so as to achieve a 15nm offset.
The 60 degree method gets the aircraft to 7.5nm from the original track (half way between the tracks) in exactly the same time as the 90 degree method, but avoids overshooting the required track. Obviously with the 180 degree turn there is no alternative to slightly overshootong the new track (by about 7nm) but why write a technique that guarantees a large overshoot when there is a much easier alternative?
Airclues
That seems logical and quite likely an attempt to improve capacity within the current dimensions of the Track structure I suppose.
Does not seem like a good idea though, with dubious separation during contingency manoeuvres.
Does not seem like a good idea though, with dubious separation during contingency manoeuvres.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: US
Age: 53
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard the reason it changed to 15nm FROM 30nm is 9/11, on 9/11 several aircraft diverted using an offset, some of these aircraft came dangerously close in the middle. 15NM will give a buffer between the tracks.
Last edited by NorskAir; 7th Mar 2006 at 19:38.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South of 90N
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Captain Airclues
Do the people who write these procedures ever try them out on a simulator?
The nat-pco site says that it might be necessary to overshoot the new track when establishing a reciprocal track. However, it still insists that we turn through ninety degrees while establishing a parallel track in the same direction. A 180 degree turn actually causes less of an offset than two 90 degree turns, due to the time taken to reverse the turn. In the simulator a few nights ago we did a 90 degree turn to establish on an offset in the same direction at FL350 and Mach .85. The aircraft deviated 28.4 miles from the original track.
The 90 degree turn technique worked perfectly when we were trying to achieve a 30nm offset, but not with a 15nm offset. I suggest that the procedure should be change to either;
1. If requiring to establish an offset on a reciprocal track then turn through 180 degrees and then continue the turn to achieve the 15nm offset as soon as possible.
2. If requiring to establish an offset on a track in the same direction then turn through 60 degrees and then reverse the turn so as to achieve a 15nm offset.
The 60 degree method gets the aircraft to 7.5nm from the original track (half way between the tracks) in exactly the same time as the 90 degree method, but avoids overshooting the required track. Obviously with the 180 degree turn there is no alternative to slightly overshootong the new track (by about 7nm) but why write a technique that guarantees a large overshoot when there is a much easier alternative?
Airclues
The nat-pco site says that it might be necessary to overshoot the new track when establishing a reciprocal track. However, it still insists that we turn through ninety degrees while establishing a parallel track in the same direction. A 180 degree turn actually causes less of an offset than two 90 degree turns, due to the time taken to reverse the turn. In the simulator a few nights ago we did a 90 degree turn to establish on an offset in the same direction at FL350 and Mach .85. The aircraft deviated 28.4 miles from the original track.
The 90 degree turn technique worked perfectly when we were trying to achieve a 30nm offset, but not with a 15nm offset. I suggest that the procedure should be change to either;
1. If requiring to establish an offset on a reciprocal track then turn through 180 degrees and then continue the turn to achieve the 15nm offset as soon as possible.
2. If requiring to establish an offset on a track in the same direction then turn through 60 degrees and then reverse the turn so as to achieve a 15nm offset.
The 60 degree method gets the aircraft to 7.5nm from the original track (half way between the tracks) in exactly the same time as the 90 degree method, but avoids overshooting the required track. Obviously with the 180 degree turn there is no alternative to slightly overshootong the new track (by about 7nm) but why write a technique that guarantees a large overshoot when there is a much easier alternative?
Airclues
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NG_Kaptain
Does anyone have info on its effectivity when flying random track routes vs NAT tracks?
Originally Posted by 18Holes
Your alternate might not be behind at all times. Sometimes it might be necessary to turn 90° let's say left, and then 90° right, asssuming your alternate is off at your 10 'o clock.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South of 90N
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CONF iture
According to http://www.nat-pco.org/nat/MNPSA/MNPSA_2005.pdf, it's valid for the all NAT MNPS Airspace.
You did quote Mr Airclues but you didn't read it with attention, and what he said makes a lot of sence.
You did quote Mr Airclues but you didn't read it with attention, and what he said makes a lot of sence.
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
18Holes
We are not talking about an emergency diversion to an alternate, we are talking about the North Atlantic Contingency Manoeuvre, where the aim is to establish on a track offset by 15 miles. If you intend to establish on a reciprocal track then you have no alternative but to overshoot the track. However if you intend to establish on a parallel track in the same direction, then why overshoot it when it is not necessary. A turn though 60 degrees followed by 60 degrees the other way rolls out exactly on the 15 mile offset (I've tried it on the sim). Why insist on a 90 degree turn which overshoots the offset by some 13 miles?
Airclues
We are not talking about an emergency diversion to an alternate, we are talking about the North Atlantic Contingency Manoeuvre, where the aim is to establish on a track offset by 15 miles. If you intend to establish on a reciprocal track then you have no alternative but to overshoot the track. However if you intend to establish on a parallel track in the same direction, then why overshoot it when it is not necessary. A turn though 60 degrees followed by 60 degrees the other way rolls out exactly on the 15 mile offset (I've tried it on the sim). Why insist on a 90 degree turn which overshoots the offset by some 13 miles?
Airclues
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South of 90N
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Captain Airclues
18Holes
We are not talking about an emergency diversion to an alternate, we are talking about the North Atlantic Contingency Manoeuvre, where the aim is to establish on a track offset by 15 miles. If you intend to establish on a reciprocal track then you have no alternative but to overshoot the track. However if you intend to establish on a parallel track in the same direction, then why overshoot it when it is not necessary. A turn though 60 degrees followed by 60 degrees the other way rolls out exactly on the 15 mile offset (I've tried it on the sim). Why insist on a 90 degree turn which overshoots the offset by some 13 miles?
Airclues
We are not talking about an emergency diversion to an alternate, we are talking about the North Atlantic Contingency Manoeuvre, where the aim is to establish on a track offset by 15 miles. If you intend to establish on a reciprocal track then you have no alternative but to overshoot the track. However if you intend to establish on a parallel track in the same direction, then why overshoot it when it is not necessary. A turn though 60 degrees followed by 60 degrees the other way rolls out exactly on the 15 mile offset (I've tried it on the sim). Why insist on a 90 degree turn which overshoots the offset by some 13 miles?
Airclues
