747 Flights over the water

Ive been look at the VS flight tracker latley on the iphone app and noticed all the macnhester and gatwick orlando flights on the 747 are going straight over the water!! its been like this for the past 2 weeks or so..anyone know why they are using this route and not hugging the US coastline like usual?

Im flying in a few weeks and dont like the thought of going straight over the water with no land in sight!

I think that the flight status / tracker app dosent follow the actual route flown but uses the 'great circle' model (shorted distance between two points on a globe is a great circle that joins the two points right round the globe

As to the actual route flown that will depend on the route allocated to it and weather etc.

BTW whatever route accross the atlantic is used you will not be able to see land for a great part of it.

[honey lamb]

I have done MCO flights which have headed over Land's End and then straight over the Atlantic rather than along the east coast. As tonty said, the flight plan is formulated to take into account weather and also the tracks across the Atlantic assigned for traffic on a particular day. I live on the south west coast of Ireland and under one of the sky tracks. Some days I barely see an aircraft and on others the place is buzzing with them. Flight plans are also decided by the jet stream and at the moment it is more southerly than is normal for this time of year

If you're interested in the routes taken over the North Atlantic, there's an article on Wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Tracks

If the plane comes down no matter over land or water it's going to hurt.

I thought all aeroplanes had to be within an hour and a half of land at all times for emergency reasons with the only exception being the Sydney to South America route. ?|

I thought all aeroplanes had to be within an hour and a half of land at all times for emergency reasons with the only exception being the Sydney to South America route. ?|

There are certain limits but 2 hours comes to mind for some plane types and 3 for multi (3+) engined craft but it is nothing to do with flying over water but time to a diversion airport so it applies to flying over land too.

But even flying at 500mph means a plane can still travel 750 miles in an hour and a half and a thousand in two hours and 1,500 miles in three hours so you can stll be quite far over water and still be within the limits.

I thought all aeroplanes had to be within an hour and a half of land at all times for emergency reasons with the only exception being the Sydney to South America route. ?|

This cannot be correct.
How would you fly HKG - SFO/LAX or even from SFO - HNL.

If the plane comes down no matter over land or water it's going to hurt.

Putting on that life jacket is going to be a waste of time too.

ETOPS only applies to twin engined aircraft. 4 engined aircraft like the 747 aren't subject to the same stringent regulations when it comes to maintaining a close distance to land.

However the flight plans of all flights will incorporate suitable diversion points for each stage of the flight.

For example, when flying from London - HK (or vice versa) the air ways over the Himalayas have numerous 'escape points' so if an aircraft loses an engine it can descend safely away from the high mountains.

I believe there are only a few routes that are designated as 'must be flown by a 4 engined aircraft' and these are routes like Sydney-Buenos Aires. This is because this route has basically no feasible diverson point between NZ and the South American coast line.

If the plane comes down no matter over land or water it's going to hurt.

Not really what a flyer like me wants to hear! but thanks

thanks for all the replys! makes for an interesting ready, especially the wikipedia stuff about the NAT.

and dont forget the brace position !

and dont forget the brace position !

see here

[mcmbenjamin]

Let me share some of the knowledge from my five years of bliss earning my BS Aerospace, Professional Pilot that I really have not used....so I'm going to break that cherry

ETOPS: Engines Turn Or Passengers Swin.

Ok, the real breakdown is ETOPS: Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards.

You will be fine. Remember, four engines for the long haul was a Virgin motto for a while. The 747 can safely fly on three engines. BA has done it a few times on long haul flights. Link to BA article where a BA 747 lost an engine on departure from LAX; BA continued the flight to MAN.

You will be safe. Don't worry. You are flying to save money and time. There are boats from the UK to New York then trains to Orlando...likely at the cost of 13 days each way and $3,000 or more each way.

[Scrooge]

I thought all aeroplanes had to be within an hour and a half of land at all times for emergency reasons with the only exception being the Sydney to South America route. ?|

There are certain limits but 2 hours comes to mind for some plane types and 3 for multi (3+) engined craft but it is nothing to do with flying over water but time to a diversion airport so it applies to flying over land too.

ETOPS/LROPS start at 75 mintues and work up from there.

ETOPS only applies to twin engined aircraft. 4 engined aircraft like the 747 aren't subject to the same stringent regulations when it comes to maintaining a close distance to land.

Nope, ETOPS applied to twins, ETOPS has since been replaced by LROPS (Long Range Operational Performance Standards) LROPS kept everything that ETOPS had and added provisions for aircraft with 3 or more engines.

You then also have non LROPS flights, they are covered by the "over water" rules.

You will be fine. Remember, four engines for the long haul was a Virgin motto for a while.

Actually it was an Airbus motto.

Typically when an engine "fails" it's not actually the engine, but one of its auxiliary systems.

This is why modern twin engined craft have backup auxiliary systems for each engine.

Just in case you ever do a transatlantic on a 777...

[mcmbenjamin]

Or ash.