Frequency changes in Northwest Ontario

[stef]

I've been asked for input on this. Anyone have issues?

My comments were that pilots should use the enroute frequency while enroute, and that airports in close proximity should use the same frequency.

It is MTO that is asking. I'll forward a link to this site if there is any input.

[Bushav8er]

There are procedures already in place, people should be using them, what's MTO's real issue here? The MTO fields already have a freq; 123.2 or 122.8 in most cases.

MTO managers shouldn't be messing in the federal arena. Follow the procedures already established to do otherwise induces 'local anomalies' which don't help anyone.

[stef]

MTO has changed a few ATF frequencies. There has been some negative feedback, in part due to frequency congestion on 122.8 near Red Lake with pilots using it as enroute freq. as well as for the ATFs. Also, apparently with the change there is a pair of airports in close proximity to one another where pilots are required to use different fequencies now.

[stef]

MTO managers shouldn't be messing in the federal arena.

I don't think they are. I think their aim is to make the ATFs match the ARCAL freq. Not a big deal at all.

[Bushav8er]

in part due to frequency congestion on 122.8 near Red Lake with pilots using it as enroute freq.

Thanks for proving my point. Pilots should know better. If they must 'chat' do it on the correct freq. >

AIM 5.13.3 Air-to-Air
For air-to-air communications between pilots within the
Canadian Southern Domestic Airspace, the correct frequency
to use is 122.75 MHz; in the Northern Domestic Airspace
and the North Atlantic, the frequency allocated by ICAO is
123.45 MHz.

I don't think they are. I think their aim is to make the ATFs match the ARCAL freq. Not a big deal at all.

Sounds fair. Sorry, I always get my hackles up when I hear stuff like this.

[Sidebar]

Inadequate communications have consequences: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 5h0008.asp

[CLguy]

They should make it real simple, below 4000' 122.8, above 4000' 126.7. Red Lake is a real problem as are other areas and TC has been aware of it for decades but has once again buried their heads and did nothing about it. You transmit your position and intentions on 126.7 as required only to find out no one is listening to you because everyone locally is flying around monitoring 122.8.

[stef]

Or simpler still, guys could just use 126.7 enroute.

This isn't what the MTO is asking about, but I agree it is important.

[SAR_YQQ]

You transmit your position and intentions on 126.7 as required only to find out no one is listening to you because everyone locally is flying around monitoring 122.8.

It's those kind of local procedures that screws the visiting aircrew. Unless 122.8 is specifically placarded on the VFR and IFR charts as the frequency to monitor within XX DME of XYZ VOR - why do it? 126.7 is not so congested that a 5 sec broadcast can't be made.

[1202 hauler]

I agree with Clguy on this one. I have been saying the same thing for years. I have brought it up to transport on several ocassions too.
2 of the airports in question here are only 24 miles apart. They are both also right on route for some other places around, so it is not a safe environment to have several aircraft on 2 - 3 diferrent frequencies that close to one another. What if you get a Hawker and a Beech 1900 in conflict and they are on diferrent freqs, they are closing in on each other a over 500 miles an hour. That speed makes short work of the 24 miles.
Pv8 and ZSJ are even closer together and have the same scenario there.
Around Red Lake it has always been 122.8 for locals and float guys as Pik is only 53 miles north and so many other aiports are close as well that staying on the MF for these airports did away with the problem of 2 or 3 frequencies. Seemed simple back in the day, but now we have the huge influx of faster higher flying and ifr machine to throw in to the mix. Not so simple now. Some days coming in to a place like Red Lake a person can be on as many as 5 diferrent frequencies in a 20 mile stretch. At 4 miles a minute that is 5 minutes. That leaves 1 minute to wait for an opening, make a radio call, wait for any conflicts to say thier peice and then reply. Not enough time in my opinion. I think an altitude cap would simplify things a great deal.

[chicken hawk]

I have to agree with CL on this one too. This whole frequency thing around the Nakina area has been a huge frustration for me in the last year or so. I have been here for nearly seven years and up until last winter everyone has been on 22.8. With the busy float and IFR traffic in our area, we really should be on the same frequency.

[superiorwhore]

I agree with CJ, only difference is I was taught anything below 3000 is 22.8, above 26.7. The problem with everyone on 26.7 is that with the float operators and ifr all doing calls on there, hell throw in perimeter at 20000 feet over lake winnipeg doing a position report there is just TO much chatter.

So break it down, below 3-4000 floats go to 22.8 and than it will not conflict with the higher IFR. Simple

[Bushav8er]

The problem is that to many people are talking up the 'hey bud, where ya goin'? Yeah, stop by for a brewsky sometime." BS on the WRONG freq(s).

I was taught anything below 3000 is 22.8, above 26.7

There is the problem too - people were 'taught' to not follow established procedures.

will not conflict with the higher IFR.

Sure if you're talking overseas Air Canada. Thing is there are IFR ops very near the altitudes the float guys are at because of the short distances involved. There was almost (another) mid-air one day as a 185 float guy reported one altitude but was actually FOUND in cloud as a 1900 descending for approach. BTW bush guys, the IFR guys are allowed and legal to fly in crap - if you have to '.. run' stay away from airports by at least 5 nm.

Perimeter I agree is a pain. Seems to be a bunch of newbies with TCAS. Even after reporting that they have the traffic on it they continue with a 10 minute traffic avoidance conversation! Is it an immediate threat or going to be? Then shut the *&% up.

I agree with SAR_YQQ

It's those kind of local procedures that screws the visiting aircrew.

or anyone following CORRECT procedures.

The only difference between NW Ontario and the rest of the country is attitude.

My two suggestions are this:

1) follow procedures as already established,
2) keep 'chatting' to a minimum and ONLY on the freq approved for this nonsense (see above)

Rant over...for now.