Using User Preferred Routes (UPRs) Strategically in Oceanic and Remote Airspace Operations

User Preferred Routes (UPRs) are critical in oceanic and remote airspace operations, helping business flight operators enhance flexibility, mastering fuel efficiency, and time savings. Unlike fixed tracks, UPRs allow aircraft to fly optimized routes based on real-time winds, aircraft performance, and weather, reducing operating costs and environmental impact. Strategically, UPRs support better scheduling, improve payload capacity, and enhance safety for navigating and managing turbulence or adverse weather.

What is User Preferred Routes (UPRs)?

User Preferred Routes (UPRs) are operator-planned flight paths across oceanic or remote airspace that differ from published track systems (e.g., North Atlantic Organized Track System (NAT OTS), Pacific Organized Track System (PACOTS)). Rather than rigidly following daily tracks or structured routes, UPRs allow each flight to optimize its great-circle path based on winds, flight level, aircraft performance, and operational needs. UPRs are especially valuable for business jets, which operate unscheduled, one-off missions and can leverage Future Air Navigation System (FANS), Controller–Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC), and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) capabilities to obtain flexible routings.

 

In practice, operators file an “as-planned” routing in the flight plan and then obtain an oceanic clearance to follow that preferred track, with adjustments as needed in flight. Well-equipped business jets (e.g. Gulfstream G650, Bombardier Global 7500, Dassault Falcon 8X) with PBN/RNP4 approval and ADS‑C/CPDLC (FANS 1/A) can take full advantage of UPRs. ICAO and FAA guidance – including the ICAO North Atlantic Ops Manual (NAT Doc 007) and FAA AC 91-70 – emphasize that aircraft with robust communication, navigation, and surveillance equipage are “more readily issued” preferred routes and altitudes.

Region-Specific Procedures

Different oceanic regions have different track structures and clearance procedures. Business jet operators should be familiar with each:

North Atlantic (NAT)

The NAT Organized Track System (OTS) is set daily based on winds (e.g. Jet Streams). Approximately half of NAT crossings use the published OTS, while the rest fly “random” routes (i.e. UPRs). Operators are encouraged to submit Preferred Route Messages (PRMs) with their intended tracks to the NAT OTS planners (Gander and Shanwick centers) well in advance. PRMs inform the track design process, which is “created after determination of basic minimum time tracks” taking into account user preferences.

 

A business jet departing Teterboro (KTEB) for Farnborough (EGLF) might file a UPR crossing via Gander and Shannon CTA, exploiting the best eastbound jet and then transitioning to the London FIR. Even when not on an OTS, the flight crew must obtain an oceanic clearance (via CPDLC or voice) to fly the UPR. In NAT airspace, operations above FL285 require RNP4/ADS‑C/CPDLC; equipped aircraft can then use reduced longitudinal spacing (30NM).

 

• Example of North Atlantic Tracks (purple/blue) across the Gander and Shanwick Oceanic Control Areas. Business jets often file UPRs that parallel or cross these tracks. With RNP4 approval and ADS‑C/CPDLC (FANS 1/A), aircraft can achieve the 30 NM longitudinal separation standard.

North Pacific (PACOTS/NOPAC)

The Pacific Organized Track System (PACOTS) provides flexible tracks linking Japan/Southeast Asia with the U.S. west coast/Hawaii. New PACOTS tracks are published daily (e.g. J20, J30 etc.), but operators may elect UPRs instead. For example, a business jet flying Van Nuys (VNY) to Tokyo–Haneda (RJTT) might initially plan via the Japan–Hawaii PACOTS tracks.

 

However, FAA guidance explicitly allows UPRs in the Japan–Hawaii corridor “instead of utilizing PACOTS,” and notes that no altitude or routing penalties apply for filing a UPR that crosses a PACOTS track. In practice, a UPR might route via Anchorage Oceanic into Fukuoka FIR or via Oakland Oceanic and then into Japan. Position reports in Pacific and North Polar areas often use CPDLC and Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Contract (ADS-C), or High Frequency (HF) voice if necessary.

Polar/Arctic Routes

High-latitude flights (e.g. New York to Hong Kong via the North Pole) use track-based or free-routing procedures. Because coverage by VHF and satellites can be limited, business jets must ensure HF or SATCOM voice as a backup to CPDLC. Polar operations impose requirements for cold-weather fuel planning (e.g. fuel temperature restrictions) and performance checks.

 

Communications may involve the Arctic Control Service (e.g. Canada in polar regions) and use of Selcal-coded HF monitoring. Modern applications even allow space-based ADS‑B to reduce separation. For example, eastbound polar tracks are published by the Informal Pacific ATS Coordination (IPACG) group; an operator might file a UPR through these high latitudes on an optimal great-circle, then use CPDLC to obtain a clearance from Anchorage or Shenyang.

South Atlantic / South America / Africa

There is no consolidated “South Atlantic Track System,” but business jets flying Brazil–Europe or Africa–South America still plan optimized routes. For instance, a jet from São Paulo (SBGR) to Lisbon (LPPT) could file a great-circle UPR across the South Atlantic, possibly entering the NAT OCA via Santa Maria, or transiting via West Africa into Europe. FIRs such as Santa Maria (Portugal) and Gander accommodate these flights with RVSM and CPDLC.

 

Crews must check for NOTAMs on transatlantic wind-finding (often via high-altitude jet streams) and avoid prohibited zones. ADS‑C/CPDLC is strongly recommended; without ADS‑C/CPDLC, increased 50 NM or procedural (10-minute) spacing may apply, even for RNP4 aircraft.

Indian Ocean / Australasia

Routes such as Europe–Australia or Africa–Asia cross the Indian Ocean and Southern Hemisphere. Published ATS routes exist (e.g., within Goa FIR or Melbourne FIR), but User Preferred Routing (UPR) remains common—allowing operators to optimize for winds and file direct fixes. Satellite communications and HF radio are essential in remote FIRs with limited VHF coverage, such as on routes like Perth–Cape Town.

Pre-Flight Strategic Planning

Thorough advance planning is essential for UPRs. Dispatchers and operators should consider:

Gather Weather and Aeronautical Data

Obtain high-altitude wind and temperature forecasts (e.g. Jet Stream charts, NOAA grid data) for the expected time over each oceanic sector. Identify favorable tailwinds or strong headwinds, and forecast convective weather or turbulence. Incorporate NOTAMs for special use airspace and Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs). Check aerodrome and ATM constraints at departure/arrival (SIDs/STARs, runway restrictions). Since business jets are weight-sensitive, consider contingency fuel and alternate requirements (ICAO Annex 6/14 CFR).

Define Potential Routes

Based on winds, plot candidate great-circle/optimum tracks between the points of coast (e.g. Gander Oceanic exit to Shanwick entry). In the NAT this means selecting possible track-entry fixes (e.g. DAVIS, NATCO, SLI) and preferred crossings. In the Pacific, choose whether to join a PACOTS track or file a random track via Anchorage/Fukuoka or Oakland/Anchorage.

 

Use performance tools (E6B, FMS profiles) to estimate fuel burn, time, cost for each candidate route at various altitudes. If multiple flight levels are possible, check step climbs or flex altitudes for better winds or fuel consumption. For example, a Falcon 8X might cruise at FL430 westbound into headwinds but descend later as conditions change.

Equipment and Authorizations

Ensure the aircraft and crew have required approvals: Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM), Required Navigation Performance (RNP4) and (for some regions) RNP10, communications (HF and CPDLC), and surveillance (ADS‑C). Most NAT and North Pacific operators will need a CPDLC service provider (e.g. Aeronautical Telecommunication Network). Flight crews must have current charts and long-range communications procedures. Book any needed ATC coordination (e.g. obtain NAT High Level Airspace (HLA) operational approval if under Part 91).

Operational Scenarios

Each scenario highlights both strategic planning (optimizing for winds) and tactical execution (using CPDLC to tweak routing):

Teterboro (KTEB) → Farnborough (EGHQ)

A G650 planning westbound from KTEB might file UPR via OFFSHO (Boston Oceanic), cross NAT at ~50°N into Shanwick. If filed in winter, tailwinds favor more northerly tracks. Using PRM, the operator could advise Shanwick of preferred waypoints (e.g. SUGOL→LORNA→DUMMY) before the 1200 UTC cutoff. Once airborne, the crew obtains clearance from Gander/Shanwick by CPDLC. En route, ADS‑C tracks the aircraft, and CPDLC is used if winds aloft change significantly (e.g. requesting descent to avoid a headwind). Separation is 30 NM (due to RNP4/ADS-C), except near entry/exit where 50 NM may hold until full ADS coverage is confirmed.

Van Nuys (KVNY) → Haneda (RJTT)

A Falcon 8X might file via Los Angeles Center, then UPR (e.g. KVNY VCN SFORD 261N050W 293N100W YADDA JFK) across Oakland/Oceanic, then Fukuoka and into Tokyo. The crew expects to transition through Oakland ARTCC (PACOTS). If the PACOTS TDM shows strong westerlies north of 40°N, they might route higher latitude than published tracks. En route over Alaska/Arctic, CPDLC or HF voice with Anchorage Radio is used. Flight levels above FL410 might require ADS-B/ADS-C (FANS); as FL410 is the CPDLC mandate in many Pacific FIRs, the crew ensures they have CPDLC operational before climb.

Planning Tools and Best Practices

Typical tools include flight planning systems that incorporate wind models and FIR restrictions, long-range FMS performance calculators, and AIP databases. Dispatchers often use industry-standard weather briefings (e.g. graphical high-level wind charts, TAF for remote stations, jet analysis) and NOTAM decoders. Collaboration between pilots and dispatchers is key: discussions about potential UPRs are ideally done a day in advance. Continuous updates from the weather service (e.g. just before entry) allow last-minute tweaking of the filed UPR.

 

Practical tactics: file the full optimized route rather than “file for tracks”; use flight planning software to list all UPR fixes in sequence. Pre-coordinate slot times if needed (Shanwick can limit departures into peak track windows). Many operators will file for a block of preferred flight levels (WAH/WAB restrictions if unsure of ATC assignment). Remember that ATC can always issue a different clearance – expect “cleared as filed” only in well-equipped, low-traffic situations.

FAQs About User Preferred Routes (UPRs) in Business Jet Oceanic Operations

1. How are UPRs coordinated between different FIRs or ATC regions during long transoceanic flights?

When a UPR crosses multiple Flight Information Regions (FIRs), coordination between adjacent Oceanic Control Centers is handled through automated systems like the Oceanic Interfacility Data Link (OFDL) and AIDC (ATS Interfacility Data Communication). These systems forward the aircraft’s track, altitude, and estimated times to the next FIR before entry. This pre-coordination helps minimize manual handoffs and reduces the risk of conflicting clearances. For example, if a Gulfstream G600 departs from the Oakland Oceanic FIR heading toward Nadi FIR in the South Pacific, Oakland controllers use AIDC to pass intent data to Nadi in advance, allowing for seamless continuation of the UPR without rerouting.

2. Can business jets operating under Part 91 in the U.S. file and fly UPRs in oceanic airspace without a third-party dispatch service?

Yes, U.S. Part 91 operators can file and fly UPRs independently, but they must ensure they meet all international requirements. That includes having RNP4 or better, RVSM approval, FANS 1/A (CPDLC/ADS‑C) capability, and qualified pilots trained in oceanic procedures. While not mandatory, many private operators use third-party dispatch services for UPR development due to the complexity of routing, regulatory nuances, and real-time coordination. However, some experienced Part 91 flight departments with in-house flight planning software successfully manage their own UPRs—particularly for familiar city pairs like Van Nuys–London or Teterboro–Geneva.

3. What risks or challenges do UPRs introduce compared to flying on published track systems like NAT OTS?

UPRs offer flexibility but come with operational risks. Since UPRs often place the aircraft away from dense traffic flows, there’s a higher reliance on long-range communication systems. If CPDLC fails and HF propagation is poor, establishing position reports can be difficult. Additionally, ATC workload may increase if controllers have to manually deconflict random tracks from structured traffic. Weather unpredictability—especially in the North Atlantic—can also pose challenges for UPR flights that lack real-time tactical ATC support as found in radar-controlled domestic sectors. Lastly, search and rescue (SAR) coverage in remote oceanic regions may be limited, making emergency diversion planning even more critical on UPRs.

4. Are UPRs useful for short oceanic crossings, such as the Caribbean or Mediterranean Sea?

Not typically. UPRs are most beneficial for long-haul oceanic flights where optimal routing can yield significant fuel savings and time efficiency—such as transatlantic or transpacific legs. In areas like the Caribbean, Mediterranean, or North Sea, radar coverage is more consistent, and airspace is often managed using standard airways or direct routings under radar control. In these cases, the gains from a UPR are negligible compared to the complexity added by coordinating multiple short FIR transitions. However, for overwater flights from Florida to Central or South America, some operators may file “semi-UPRs” based on weather or traffic flows, even if the region isn’t traditionally managed as oceanic airspace.

 

For business aviation, strategic use of UPRs in oceanic and remote airspace offers significant efficiency gains—less time and fuel spent off-optimal tracks. Achieving these gains requires meticulous planning, up-to-date operational knowledge, and full compliance with performance-based navigation and communications requirements. Just Aviation supports operators by ensuring optimized flight and planning route, regulatory compliance, and tailored flight support, enabling seamless and cost-effective transoceanic operations.