Hey JD,Will you have some some proposition for proper Natrack crossing? I know that full rule might be hard to adapt, but at least the option of registering to enter the trace within certain rules that apply? Just a thought, but it might be interesting as flying thru North Atlantic is quite interesting :)

Hey JD,Will you have some some proposition for proper Natrack crossing? I know that full rule might be hard to adapt, but at least the option of registering to enter the trace within certain rules that apply? Just a thought, but it might be interesting as flying thru North Atlantic is quite interesting :)

There is always a limit to the new features that can be added in each consecutive version that is released, but Jd always keeps an open ear and a open mind during the process. So far Jd says oceanic clearances aren't ruled in or out, so it'll all depend on how all the remainder of the coding & testing goes. There is still a lot to do in other areas that jd would like to get finished first.Hope this helps,Subs

That great to hear. Really this product rocks! What is even better is that it can be upgraded :)Regarding Oceanic clearences. I have no clue how complicated it is to implement, but maybe you could go into something "light"? Something that is simulating it in some bit at least. I would say that entering track and alt clearence that would have to be obtained would be enough for a start. Along the way switchin to HF radio - simulated by RC of course - would bo ok too. Yet again, I have no idea how much work it is for you.

I second the motion for NAT capabilities. I'm about to purchase RC4 and am not completely familiar with it. I would like to jump in with simulated NATs or as close as I can get within the limitations of the software. Could that be done with two separate clearances - the first from point of departure to the start of the NAT and the second picked up at the endpoint of the NAT?

My honest understanding is that very few aircraft use HF anymore for ATC purposes during the crossing / obtaining clearance over the Atlantic.

Hi JET1 just to let you know. HF is used daily over oceans & land areas where there is no VHF infrastructure.The Atlantic still has a family of frequencies in use as do the Pacific and Indian Oceans.Unfortunately FS9 does not model the NAT waypoints very well.

Many areas have moved to satellite links for NATC and PACC communications with HF as backup. The sat links allow automatic reporting in data format similar to a transponder and a text/data link similar to ACARS plus digital voice to crossing ATC. They found it is much less to misinterpretation due to the higher quality in all transports.For NATS you do not have entirely fixed waypoints with respect to coordinates as I understand it but the tracks move with climate properties. PACC waypoints are stable. Here's one track for today sourcehttps://www.notams.jcs.mil/common/nat.html :221424 CZQXZQZX(NAT-1/2 TRACKS FLS 310/400 INCLUSIVEFEB 23/0100Z TO FEB 23/0800ZPART ONE OF TWO PARTS-R LAKES 59/60 60/50 60/40 59/30 58/20 SUNOT KESIXEAST LVLS 320 340 360 380 400WEST LVLS NILEUR RTS EAST NILNAR NIL-I don't think the numbered coordinates exist in FS. For RC purposes it only matters that whatever flight planner you have provides coordinates for waypoints in the plan file whether waypoints are text labeled or numbered. Various planners can download NAT and PAC tracks and implement them into the plan file.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Track

Hi JET1 just to let you know. HF is used daily over oceans & land areas where there is no VHF infrastructure.The Atlantic still has a family of frequencies in use as do the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

I know the HF infrastructure and that the system still exists and is being used, but what I'm saying is more and more aircraft, airliners mostly handle their transatlantic comms with ACARS. Can't say how many percent but it's significant if memory serves me right. I could look it up..

Yes the NAT do vary daily depending on the jet stream and general 200/300mb wind pattern.It's also right to say that the North Atlantic doesn't have fixed waypoints except at the Oceanic FIR entry points.From there it's Lat/Long cordinates or in some areas random tracks.The latter often apply from the Carribean to UK.As Ron says the Pacific is more stable but Air New Zealnd for example have a computer programme for best use of the upper winds so they may go"off route" from AUK to LAX for example.There's also ETOPS to take into account for twins like 767/777/757/A330 etcHF is still in quite extensive` use though.All over the world despite the advances in teechnology

Keep in mind that 99.9% of those twins crossing the ocean has certification for 180 and this covers most places except extreme crossings from Australia to South Africa and some time New Zeland - to LAX.

True ST1322.ETOPS is not a problem for most places these days.The Tahiti to LAX route is another one that has to deviate to accomodate it.I've not looked into it but I image the South America to New Zealand routes might as well but I've only ever seen 4 engined planes on those routes.

This depends on the airlines operating routes as well as on the equipment they use. Another aspect is... safety. It is clear that 4 engine ships can continue the flight without deviation with one failure and even with two out - it may get bumpy but still ok.

ST1322,It would be interesting to ascertain how many aircraft do use other means of communicating over the non VHF areas of the world.I've never piloted trans oceanic routes myself but I know a few who do and they mainly still use HF.I think expense is a consideration!Most of the major US and EU airlines can be heard on HF every day,over the Atlanic and the Pacific but I was once in the jump seat of a Cathay 747 en route Hongkong when a certain amount of data linking was being done.Cheers

ST1322,It would be interesting to ascertain how many aircraft do use other means of communicating over the non VHF areas of the world.I've never piloted trans oceanic routes myself but I know a few who do and they mainly still use HF.I think expense is a consideration!Most of the major US and EU airlines can be heard on HF every day,over the Atlanic and the Pacific but I was once in the jump seat of a Cathay 747 en route Hongkong when a certain amount of data linking was being done.Cheers

I tried to google it (could find it this time) but there used to be a website with a updated wealth of knowlege and stats about all things aviation ACARS/HF/Datalink stuff. I just wish I knew the address for it. It had great stats on the number of ACARS messages downlinked, uplinked, how may had errors, etc etc. It would have been great to provide that info to those interested in this thread.I know the site must be somewhere on the net still :(Subs

Hi SubsYes I hear a lot of ACARS on VHF here and have decoded it on occasions.I don't know how much it is used for position reporting instead of HF radio though.It will be interesting if you do find that web siteCheers