Moncton Centre sectors, simulcasts, and cross coupling

[novascotian]

Yes that is exactly what I was talking about re 127.125 and 132.7... so they just skip over the one they would be in for just a short time. What I guess I need to get my mind off is the idea that aircraft have to be on the same frequency.. So in this case, as you say, the same controller has both frequencies so he or she hears it all.

Re me saying there wasn't a boundary, I should have been more clear... that there is shown a sector that is only 132.7 but the one under it is both 132.7 and 127.125... I was thinking that they were completely mutually exclusive, but based on what you are saying, an aircraft coming down from the NE on 132.7 would just stay on it into this more southerly sector before it goes on into ZBW space, whereas an aircraft coming out of Halifax and heading west through this area would invariably go on 127.125 and maybe even stay on it in passing through a corner of the sector just to the north.. so thanks for the explanation...

I am assuming that in the cockpit, apart from having TCAS, they have a display that shows the aircraft around them including their id's.. or do they? Like if a flight is passing over another one that is 2000 feet below, do they know who that is, and if so, is that generally true even if it is a military flight.. such as we cannot see on our consumer level flight depiction websites...??

 

[AirScan]

that there is shown a sector that is only 132.7 but the one under it is both 132.7 and 127.125

What that means is that sometimes when the two areas are combined they don't use 127.12 and just put all aircraft in both areas on 132.70.

This is the same for the other areas, like directly to the south they usually use 135.20 for the whole area and then as traffic builds they split off sectors and start using 128.37 and 132.87 as required. From what I've heard from sproradic monitoring over the years when they do this in that southern area (Yarmouth RCAG) they seem to use 128.375/132.875 for the southern sectors only. Might be just a coincidence when I've been monitoring ? Further reports always appreciated.

I am assuming that in the cockpit, apart from having TCAS, they have a display that shows the aircraft around them including their id's.. or do they?

No, I've never heard of a standard TCAS system on an airliner that displays ID's. Although I've heard some general aviation aircraft with ADS-B systems that will show ID's, so it's possible.

 

[novascotian]

That is exactly my understanding, that 135.2 is the normal always used frequency in Yarmouth, then as traffic builds they add in 132.975 to cover offshore and then if even more and farther offshore, 128.375 is added to that.. the latter definitely is not currently heard as much as 132.975...

Similarly in Sydney though not quite the same.. the normal as I see it, is 132.75 along the land and usually extending north to meet the Grindstone and Stephenville frequencies, and south of all this, 125.25 offshore to the south, even if there is not a lot of offshore traffic. I don't think I have ever heard 132.75 being used offshore other than maybe a very close in fringe of coastal waters. Then 133.3 and 133.7 get inserted between the two if traffic warrants.. I am not sure which comes first in insertion or the geographic order. I will have to analyze this a bit.. This is why I was questioning whether 125.25 ever got used to the north of Nova Scotia, i.e. anywhere other than offshore in the Atlantic.

 

[AirScan]

125.25 offshore to the south, even if there is not a lot of offshore traffic. I don't think I have ever heard 132.75 being used offshore other than maybe a very close in fringe of coastal waters. Then 133.3 and 133.7 get inserted between the two if traffic warrants

Thanks for the report. Consistent with what I've been hearing over the years as well.

According to the Industry Canada Database (ICD) the transmitter's for 133.30 and 132.75 are located at the airport, while 125.25 and 133.70 are located at a separate site about 12km northwest of the airport (you can see both clearly on Google Earth).

The ICD also lists the following data for each transmitter site.

Airport Site (132.75 and 133.30)
Antenna Height - 20 meters (above gorund)
Power - 17 dBW
Effective Radiated Power - 15.5 dBW
Antenna Pattern Code - 8000
Antenna Gain - 0.0
Antenna Azimuth - 0.0
Antenna Beamwidth - n/a

Other Site (125.25 and 133.70)
Antenna Height - 30 meters (above gorund)
Power - 17 dBW
Effective Radiated Power - 22.9 dBW
Antenna Pattern Code - 8400
Antenna Gain - 8.5
Antenna Azimuth - 160.0
Antenna Beamwidth - 210.0

I'm not much of a radio techie so I'm not really sure what the significance of the above is ? Does this mean the 125.25/133.70 transmitter is more powerful and directed towards the south ? Which would be consistent with what it seems to be used for ? Bob are you still out there ?

Radio Frequency Search - Spectrum Direct

 

[hfxChris]

Well, in the second one it's a directional antenna, with an azimuth of 160 degrees which would point it generally towards the Atlantic, south-south-east or so.

 

[novascotian]

I never looked these up in such detail before, so that is really interesting that those two are directional and pretty much confirm that are intended for fairly long distances towards the SSE... and that leaves 133.3 being for either just offshore to the southeast but also okay for to the north and NW if needed.. at least that is my take on it.

Also the power is greater on these ones. I am also not a techie and I am hoping a better explanation than mine will come in, but I think ERP effective radiated power.. is a function of transmitter power, height above average terrain, and then the directivity of the antenna....

 

[novascotian]

Based on radio listening, and on the comments and charts posted here, it has seemed to me that Moncton ACC owned or served all of the Gulf of St. Lawrence as far east as maybe the western part of Newfoundland, and perhaps on the west the fringes of Gaspe,and then up above the Gulf into Quebec and perhaps Labrador. But when I look at this chart, very much up to date, at http://marscan.com/narcjune15.jpg it does look like Montreal Ctr has a lot of the territory and Gander out into the Gulf. I don't normally ever hear Moncton handing off to Montreal which I should be if CZUL serves all that territory including Anticosti and the north shore... Frankly I am completely confused by the boundaries shown on this chart as they cannot really show the actual boundaries of CZQM and the others, so I am looking for some comments from those who know more than me... Maybe there are different boundaries for different purposes. This chart should be showing high level jurisdiction.

PS that chart excerpt is on my site but is part of the larger NARC chart I just downloaded from the FAA today.

 

[AirScan]

The map you posted only depicts the FIR boundaries. These do not necessarily correspond with the actual ATC sector boundaries (CTA). You need to look at a more detailed chart to see the difference between the two (FIR vs CTA).

http://www.ivao.ca/charts/enr/hi6.pdf

http://www.ivao.ca/charts/enr/hi1.pdf

 

[novascotian]

Thanks for the charts. So many boundaries overlapping with each other! Would love to see them in a bit higher resolution as I couldn't quite zoom in with enough clarity to read it all. But it certainly does bear out what observation has told me. I get what you and the chart are saying and have thought over the years that FIR's and actual ATC boundaries were different, but when I have tried to look up the difference between the two I haven't had any luck. so what is a flight information region, as compared to the ATC area of jurisdiction, and why would they be different in the first place? I can see pretty clearly a boundary for Moncton high level control going up western Newfoundland, even though that is also clearly part of the Gander FIR.... Looks like it comes back down west of Sept Iles but that isn't as clearly indicated and so far I haven't been able to zoom in on the chart above (HI 1) as it is much smaller scale, to see where exactly Moncton's high area loops around up there.

So that is the question, what is the difference in function between the two, as it seems pretty clear that the geography involved varies, with for example some parts of the Gander FIR being controlled by Moncton Ctr...

I think that the geographic difference is mostly or exclusively in the high flight levels, as it is does seem pretty clear that Moncton's low coverage doesn't extend beyond what the FIR boundaries indicate such as into Newfoundland and Quebec.

But for interests sake...................

Here is a quote from a Nav Canada page that seems to equate FIR and ACC's

QUOTE: Area air traffic controllers coordinate the safe, efficient and orderly flow of air traffic from seven Area Control Centres (ACCs) across the country. Each ACC is responsible for air traffic in a large section of Canadian airspace called a Flight Information Region (FIR). These are further divided into sectors. Controllers track flights within each sector, give pilots enroute instructions, and provide terminal clearances at certain airports. UNQUOTE This was at: http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/about-us/Pages/what-we-do-atc.aspx

And here is another Nav Canada page

http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/careers/PublishingImages/TechOpsSection/nav_canada_facility_map_e.jpg

The article re employment for techs seems to imply for the Moncton FIR that the techs there only go to remote sites that are within the Maritimes, so where does that leave the peripheral sites at let's say Natashquan that clearly are listed elsewhere as belonging to Moncton, or does this mean that even though such sites serve Moncton, they are looked after by techs from the Montreal FIR.


Anyway, lots of questions and haziness about FIR vs ACC......but mainly what is the difference?

 

[novascotian]

I have, since the above message, been able to zoom in better on HI 1 and seen the Moncton control area boundary extend up to south of Goose Bay and then come back down through Montreal FIR area and west of Sept Iles and Mont Joli. All correlates with listening evidence. but the question still remains, what really is a FIR as it clearly is not exactly a control area?

 

[novascotian]

More time has gone by and I have used the NARC chart as a basis for a map to use while I listen and also watch things on planefinder. While this map is tailored for my own use, here it is in case you would like to have a look:

NARC and notes


After all the chat on here I have finally come around to thinking that the sectors themselves don't really matter, except to the controllers who use them, and that really it is the frequencies that matter. So in my map I basically ignored the sectors and placed the frequency labels more or less where they are used. Naturally, any corrections anyone can provide will be welcomed.

 

[EMD91123]

It would be even more wonderful if GRINDSTONE 132.8 and STEPHENVILLE 133.55 would be added to the feed listed on this radio.

AIRSCAN HAVE YOU BEEN GETTING MY E MAILS ?

Those new Charts you put up in the thread ARE PERFECT..andswered alot of questions I ried to e mail you about.

Again if the feeder of the radio is in this thread can you add 132.8 and 133.55 please ?

 

[EMD91123]

I asked over at LIVEATC.NET if there were any Eastern Canada Feeds coming back on line and was told in the plans. Right now this is the only place that has anything near Eastern Canada running.

Second suggestion if anyone can follow through with 5 more feeds

NATASHQUAN--132.95/118.875/132.525
SEPT ISLES------126.325
GOOSE BAY-----133,425
HOPEDALE-------128.325/132.65
WABUSH----------134.0

Those would be my WISHLISTS

 

[hfxChris]

I saw your PM before I saw this, so I'll reply here as well. Unfortunately at my location I can't really get any aircraft on the Natashquan, Stephenville, Sept Isles or Grindstone frequencies. Just very faint static every now and then.

I'll give them all a listen again tonight to make sure I'm not lying (er, not remembering correctly) but I'm pretty sure they're usually pretty quiet to me.

 

[hfxChris]

Ok, I am in fact a partial liar. I've added Grindstone 132.8 to the feed, I'm hearing some aircraft on that one tonight.

Edit: You guys aren't finding this feed now is a little too 'busy' are you? This is honestly more frequencies than I was intending to include from the start.

 

[EMD91123]

Yes I have noticed the addition of 132.8 ...

Thank You for the feed...I really miss these sectors not being covered anymore over at LIVEATC.

 

[EMD91123]

I think thats a good setup with the 132.8 addition. My opinion I think it is great as it is

 

[AirScan]

novascotian,

After all the chat on here I have finally come around to thinking that the sectors themselves don't really matter, except to the controllers who use them, and that really it is the frequencies that matter. So in my map I basically ignored the sectors and placed the frequency labels more or less where they are used. Naturally, any corrections anyone can provide will be welcomed.

You're chart looks pretty good. The only errors I see for Moncton and Gander are, 1) missing Stephenville frequency 135.775, and 2) at Gander should be 124.175 instead of 127.675, (although so far I've never heard 124.175 being used), and missing 132.95 (another frequency I've never heard being used).

FYI for those interested ...

I was in Moncton briefly last week and took a quick listen, early afternoon - late evening. Some observations ...

Low altitude

Excellent (5/5) Moncton Center controller reception on 124.40 and 132.20 and good (4/4) controller reception on 132.50.

Moncton Arrival sector (124.40/135.65) was operating separately (124.40 was cross-coupled with 135.65).

Fredericton and Digby sectors were combined. 132.20 was cross-coupled with 124.30 and 123.90, no aircraft noted on 132.20.

132.50 was simulcasting with 132.20, 124.30, 123.90 but no cross-coupling. YHZ departures towards the northwest (YUL, YOW, YYZ) were on 132.50. Did not hear any traffic on 135.50.

Cape Breton and Charlo sectors appeard to be combined.

High Altitude

Excellent (5/5) controller reception on 127.12 and 132.70.

Initially, late afternoon, the west high area was split into two sectors. One controller working 132.70 and 126.32 (cross-coupled) and another controller working 127.12 and 125.20 (also cross-coupled).

At peak NAT traffic volume, the west area was further split into 4 sectors, 126.32, 132.70, 127.12, 135.20.

The NAT Tracks were widely dispersed and north with the following NAR routes in effect from the Inland navigation fix to the coastal fix, with the corresponding frequencies noted on each route.

S ..QUBIS direct DORYY -- 126.32 >> ? out of range (132.52 or 118.87)
T .. TAFFY direct HOIST -- 126.32 >> ? out of range (132.52 or 118.87)
U .. TOPPS direct NEEKO -- 132.70 >> 132.52
V .. EBONY direct RIKAL -- 127.12 >> 133.55
W .. ALLEX direct TUDEP -- 127.12 >> 132.80
X .. TUSKY direct ALLRY -- 135.20 >> 125.25
Y .. BRADD direct ELSIR -- 135.20 >> 125.25
Z .. DOVEY -- New York HF

The NAR routes for each corresponding NAT Track are published as part of the daily NAT Track message. In addition to the Canada Flight Supplement the NAR routes can be found in the FAA Airport Facilities Directory which you can access online.

Starts on page 541 ...

http://aeronav.faa.gov/afd/20aug2015/NE_rear_20aug2015.pdf

..

 

[EMD91123]

Exactly why I am bringing up the addition of 132.7/127.125 if there is Excellent Controller Reception. WE have determined that 132.525 seems to be out of range so again ultimately the additions of 132.7/127.125/132.8/and 133.55 would be SWEET. Late night there seems to be a delay echo of transmissions that are drowning out actual live transmissions on the feed. Lastly yesterday there was a handoff from 135.25 to 132.525 that was loud and clear(Air Transat).

We urgently need feeds located at Natashquan for the 118.875/132.525 config & Sept. Isles for the 133.35/126.325 config.

I hear its like getting snow in MIami to get in the least feeds at populated area like Moncton/Yarmouth/Gander

 

[AirScan]

Exactly why I am bringing up the addition of 132.7/127.125 if there is Excellent Controller Reception. WE have determined that 132.525 seems to be out of range so again ultimately the additions of 132.7/127.125/132.8/and 133.55 would be SWEET.

I'm confused by your post ? My report was from Moncton, the Broadcastify radio is located in Halifax. As far as I can tell 132.70/127.12/132.80 are already on the Halifax scanner (not sure about 133.55).

Late night there seems to be a delay echo of transmissions that are drowning out actual live transmissions on the feed.

I'm guessing you are talking about the frequency cross-coupling ?

Lastly yesterday there was a handoff from 135.25 to 132.525 that was loud and clear(Air Transat).

135.25 ? Do you mean from 125.25 to 132.52 ? A handoff from 125.25 to 132.52 doesn't really make sense. Do you remember the approximate time, I can check the archives.