QR777 not obeying North Atlantic Tracks ?
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Near an airport
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Magical Planet
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Near an airport
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by wiggy; 28th Mar 2016 at 09:30.
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 !
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
