What happened over Hudson Bay today?
Check out the track log. At 1:35 JAL7 goes from 56 N to 43 N. Must be a flight with similar flight number?
And dropped from 34000 to 11500 at that same time.
JAL web site shows the plane near Cambridge Bay ( CYBC ) . But I don’t see JAL 7 yet.
Ok, so… JAL7 Jumped from 34,000 ft at 56.47 LAT at 12:35 ETZ to 11500 ft at 43.78 LAT only a minute later. There is a mistake here corect!? Glitches?
Sure seems like a glitch. Maybe one of the FA staff can explain this one.
The Japan Airlines page indicates that JAL7 is over the arctic in Northern Canada now.
There’s a lesson to be learned here. Once an aircraft is deep into Canadian airspace or someplace else outside of USA airspace, don’t trust the tracking. This isn’t FlightAware’s fault.
Thanks, Damiross – I’m learning!
This isn’t really about discussion about a fault with FA. The original poster questioned first the return of JAL7 from a point over Hudson Bay. Upon futher inspection of the track log, it appeared that JAL7 went from 56 N to 43 N at 1:35pm today. The question then became why did this happen. it is no longer a mechanical, but information issue. Most flights are tracked into the Canadian Arctic quite well, though there seems to be a limit at to how far north the track can be " tracked ". JAL5 is in flight as I speak. Will the same sinario occur?
JAL5 just " disappeared " as well, so maybe lack of radar data in the middle of Hudson’s Bay
So sorry to have created confusion because of my post. My initial question after reading the enroute log, was what could have happened to have the flight drop altitude so quickly, then track at such a slower speed back toward JFK? I’m a novice and just beginning to become “flight aware”! Thanks, everyone, for all your helpful input. It’s beginning to make sense.
There’s something strange with that JAL7 track, but I have no idea what.
Usually these threads start as " Unusual Activity " or " Strange Track " after the fact.
I think what interesting here is that this thread occurred " Real Time " as the anomaly happened.
I agree. Very cool.
If you look at the time between 12:36 in the track log [Time that the a/c supposedly went from 56 LAT to 43 LAT] and 12:57, note that some of the reported speeds are quite close to the stall speed of a 747.
After 12:57, there is no track data until log resumes at 16:21, with the correct altitude, reasonable speed and in the general vicinity of where that 747 logically ought to be.
This tends to make one assume that, for some reason, track was lost on the 747 after 12:36 and picked up at 16:21. Part of that lull is filled by the track of another a/c. Which one? Why? Search me!
The last two track points were not there earlier. I forgot the my times are Atlantic TZ, so my 1:35 time may not jive with everyone elses.
folks - what about changing the elevation to meters as they cross into Russian controlled airspace north of Canada? You gotta think three dimensionally here.
The track is an artifact of some sort. It would make sense to change to meters elevation over Russia controlled airspace
This would head us right to Confusionland. If we had to follow that logic, flights over Canada should also be recorded in meters. [In case you don’t know, Canada’s official measure system has been metric since the late 70’s, but the intensity of transborder air traffic has forced Canada, for safety’s sake, to continue using imperial units in aviation. ]
Oh, and we’re talking FAA data, here.
Does the FAA Track flights all the way into Russian airspace?
They track it to Russian airspace but not into it.
Many, if not most, countries in the world use imperial (i.e. non-metric) measurements for aviation. Russia and the former USSR never have.