Talk:North Atlantic Tracks

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

re:"If the aircraft is equipped with Automatic Dependent Surveillance, (ADS-C & ADS-B), voice position reports on HF are no longer necessary, as automatic reports are downlinked."

Downlinked to what?? There are no ground stations in oceanic regions.

____________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.235.180.201 (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The tracks reverse direction twice daily. In the daylight, all traffic on the tracks operates in a westbound flow. At night, the tracks flow eastbound towards Europe."

Can this be right? There are NO aircraft flying the other way. Not one between 29,000 and 41,000 feet?

192.100.124.219 (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC) (above comment earlier was posted earlier, but not signed)[reply]

Related to that question (which hasn't been answered in 3 years...), I'd like to know what happens with non-scheduled aircraft that want to make a crossing against the flow of traffic. e.g. if a corporate jet wants to fly to Europe in the morning instead of the evening, must it fly far off a normal course so it can avoid the tracks? (I realize some bizjets fly above 42,000 feet, the upper limit of the tracks, so this question does not pertain to those.)Nojamus (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, between the specified times, there are NO aircraft flying the other way on any routes which would intersect the tracks. Flying the same way they might file random routings, but these must NOT intersect or otherwise interfere with a specified track. Also, the bizjets would also normally file the tracks, assuming they have the required instrumentation to fly on the tracks. NATs are not airline-exclusive, and can be used for navigation so long as your instruments are up to the job. If not, they will indeed stay completely clear of the tracks, or fly under them (flying above them would imply instrumentation sufficient to fly the routes, due to RVSM).

These heavily-traveled routes are used by aircraft traveling between North America and Europe,

This sounds far too general. I have traveled several times between Helsinki or Stockholm and New York or Chicago and the route was much further North (crossing Iceland and/or Greenland). Likewise it sounds hard to believe that aircraft between e.g. Madrid and New York would use these tracks. Maybe the text should read "Western and Central Europe" instead of "Europe"???

192.100.124.219 (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC) just a passenger[reply]

Unnecessary info?

Isn't the "at 30W" in "(valid from 1130GMT to 1900GMT at 30W)" a bit superfluous? GMT is the same all over the world, so GMT at 30E is the same as GMT at 30W. Maybe just get rid of that part of the sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.71.110.38 (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction?

I don't get this: "aircraft going from North America to Europe experience headwinds caused by the jetstream. ... westbound flights tend to be longer in duration than their eastbound counterparts." Why don't these contradict each other? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comment on "automatic reports are downlinked"

...by satellite? I seem to recall this came up when the Air France aircraft crashed in the south Atlantic. On that occasion, ACARS reports were being sent by satellite, I believe, so I would think it is not much more of a leap to send position reports in background from the FMCS (later: ADS-C? See http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Automatic_Dependent_Surveillance_-_Contract_(ADS-C)). If that is the case, why have HF position reports especially as the HF on other, potentially conflicing, aircraft would be probably muted and Selcal would be in use? I don't know but someone else may be able to comment from the ATC perspective. (I still find it odd that the Self-Loading Cargo can enjoy SATCOM from their seats whilst Captain Speaking has to put up with and rely on (at times) dodgy HF when out of VHF range and can then only use voice SATCOM in an emergency....)Longfinal (talk) 08:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American English

Hi there, I have decided to set the English variant for this article to American English. See the earliest revision, using American traveled, and this revision which uses American center. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 19:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]