I mean, there is radar coverage…
What I’m talking about is ATC
I may be wrong but I think what he is saying is you are asking for realistic separation but you aren’t monitoring your own device.
I can’t help but ask if you’ve read my original thread. No, I’m not asking for pilots to observe spacing, only for there to be speed rules on oceanic paths.
I pretty sure some tracking on FR is down by satellites and not radar
So if you aren’t asking about spacing why then do we need speed rules?
No, what I said was is that I’m not asking for constant flight monitoring, only a speed which we all observe on oceanic paths. This in theory and using basic maths would make it impossible for collisions.
What happens if two planes arrive at the track at the same time, going the same speed, then they will still collide or be really close. It’s more the fact people arent on their device for all the flight
I understand, but my suggested fix would cut back on potential collisions a lot.
You can argue so, yes, but I personally wouldn’t as flying uneconomically and either too high or too low speeds with speeds set by TFR is far less realistic in my opinion.
The answer here isn’t speed restriction but sensible altitude separation. If realism and collision avoidance is important to you, upon approaching the first waypoint of the oceanic track have a look on the map of similarly approaching aircraft and choose a level that will keep you clear of a conflict respecting the east west rules. Would take less than 5 mins to assess then climb/descend as required
I must admit, this is rather big brain.
My technique has actually been to fly at the highest reasonable speed (not faster than .85 or MMo) that would not cause conflict with another aircraft in front of me. NAT track congestion is actually a problem RN not because just of traffic volume in IF, but also due to reduced volume IRL causing there to be less tracks than normal.
Also, you could just choose an altitude where there is no one nearby. The even-odd rule doesn’t apply in NAT airspace, and especially the tracks are usually opposite IRL.
I have to admit, I didn’t realise the two were connected
I’m not sure of spacing on the Oceanic Tracks but in general and in IF it’s 1000ft vertically and 3nm horizontally :)
I do wish that there was an oceanic track on here for getting to NZ and our Trans Tasman neighbour Australia 😔
Recenetly, (in real world aviation) aircraft separation has been lowered from 40 nautical miles (74 km) longitudinally to 14 -17 nautical miles (26 - 31 km). Additionally, lateral separations were reduced from 23 to 19 nautical miles (43 to 35 km). And I think as of October 2020, lateral separations were even further reduced to 15 nautical miles (28 km).
(Now bare in mind these are real-world aviation regulations, not IF regulations. Always follow IFATC Controller’s instructions if present)
NAT Organised Track System (OTS)
The westbound OTS message is designed and published by Shanwick daily.
The most northerly track of a day OTS is designated as NAT Track Alpha; the adjacent track to the south, as NAT Track Bravo; etc.
The valid times are 1130 to 1900 UTC at 30°W.
The flight level profiles normally published are FL310 to FL390.
The eastbound OTS message is designed and published by Gander daily.
The most southerly track is designated as Track Zulu; the adjacent track to the north, as Track Yankee; and so on.
The valid times are 0100 to 0800 UTC at 30°W.
The flight level profiles normally published are FL310 to FL400.
FL310 is available on New York tracks only.
Eastbound traffic routing, south of both the night datum line and the main OTS, should plan their flight using FL310, FL340, FL360 or FL 380.
New York Tracks entering Shanwick OCA that cross, or route south of, the night datum line may be any combination of FL310, FL340, FL360 or FL380.
You can also check out out my tutorial: North Atlantic Track (NAT) Organised Track System (OTS) .
I hope it will help provide some understanding of NAT/OTS.
Well, technically we do have this in IF, but nobody ever controls the oceanic frequencies
Ive notice you gotten this from old Air New Zealand website lol and no that not what Im reffering to. What I’m referring to is putting tracks for Australia and NZ. Something like this for example:
Los Angeles to Auckland Track:
Los Angeles to Sydney Track:
The information I have obtained actually not from is not from an old Air New Zealand website as you have suggested. What you have displayed is a screenshot of an automated flight plan from flightplandatabase.com if I’m not mistaken.
As you can see from https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/flextracks/text.asp?ver=1 there are no specific Track names only fixes/waypoits… which are in actuality what AUSOTS encompasses as mentioned before. AUSOTS is similar to that of PACOTS.
If you would like, you may look at my tutorial covering PACOTS : The Pacific Organised Track System (PACOTS) & NOPAC (Particularly No.s 4 & 5: PORC and CEP) Both display actual preferred real-world aviation routes.
Alternatively, you, along with the general public, have open and free access to IFR Charts provided by the FAA for reference.
I hope that helps :)