airtraffic

Author Topic: ZLC #'s 1 & 2  (Read 4552 times)

Offline MIAMIATC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
ZLC #'s 1 & 2
« on: May 14, 2015, 05:46:56 PM »
Since we now have 2 ZLC feeds up and running may I make a suggestion on frequency usage ?

FEED #1(SW SECTORS)
120.275
127.925
125.575
133.6
135.775
133.9

FEED # 2(NE SECTORS)
125.925
128.35
127.7
119.95
124.35
133.25

Suggestion and Discussions ?



Offline MIAMIATC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
Re: ZLC #'s 1 & 2
« Reply #1 on: May 14, 2015, 10:22:35 PM »
The gentleman that has the ZDV feeds running has a good setup and that's with about 10 to 12 frequencies per radio. This suggestion only has half of that . Secondly the present setup has a couple of redundant frequencies that appear on both radio feeds simultaneously
« Last Edit: May 14, 2015, 10:24:53 PM by MIAMIATC »

Offline JetScan1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 963
Re: ZLC #'s 1 & 2
« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2015, 10:00:32 AM »
Thank you very much to the person providing these feeds. It's always great to get more enroute coverage ! Very much appreciated.

Quote
Out of curiosity, is typical frequency congestion/usage known? Doing a geographical split is nice and orderly, but if it causes a large imbalance of busy frequencies all ending up on one scanner then we wouldn't be seeing the maximum potential from the two feeds.

I agree. Sometimes the geographical split works, sometimes it doesn't. In this particular case, with good controller reception on some frequencies, large differences in traffic volume between sectors, some sector configurations that combine both areas, and varying aircraft reception in certain directions it might be better to consider these factors rather than just by coverage area alone. I also agree that having duplicate coverage on two radio's is a waste of resources.

If it's not too much trouble, any chance the person that runs these feeds would be interested in trying some different configurations over a few days as a short term test so we can see they might sound like ? (I'd be willing to donate funds for your trouble).

Offline MIAMIATC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
Re: ZLC #'s 1 & 2
« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2015, 10:16:02 AM »
Yes Thank You JETSCAN. I do know that many of these frequencies for a good part of the day are combined as well and are only seperated during high volume flows which in the case of over ZLC is for a short period of time. Thank You also for bringing this up as a temporary experiment to check it out to come to a decision. Not many are up to temporary experimentation and thats only how you make feeds work or not work. Rendundancies are big pain in the rear since alot of feeds many frequencies are duplicate or in some cases triplicate if that is a word ?

Offline JetScan1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 963
Re: ZLC #'s 1 & 2
« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2015, 11:06:28 AM »
This is what I would suggest as an initial test.

Radio #1

127.700
133.800
128.550
125.925
124.350

Radio #2

119.950
135.775
133.900
127.825

Offline bbrasmussen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 55
    • Aviation Photos
Re: ZLC #'s 1 & 2
« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2015, 06:29:58 PM »
I provide the zlc_slc #1 feed. I wasn't aware that we have another zlc feeder until I saw this thread. It's great to have another feeder!

Originally the zlc feed was split in two. I combined all the frequencies and dropped to just one zlc feed in order to provide all of the other KSLC airport feeds.

There are quite a few issues with monitoring in this area. The ZLC is the largest center in the country geographically. Not only is area size a factor, but terrain is also a huge issue (lots of mountains). Reception of both ground traffic (RCAGs) and airborne traffic is limited by high terrain. So monitorable frequencies can be limited based on location.

The frequencies on my feed are basically the ones that can be heard from my location. I have had issues with birdies showing up due to local RFI so at times I've had to lock a couple out. There are two that aren't very effective - 125.57 and 121.15 - because they are so far away, and I have terrain issues in reception. Those two should probably be removed from the scanner and frequency list.

That leaves six that I can reasonably receive from my location. Three of those six are on the new zlc #2 feed - 127.7, 135.77, and 119.95. That leaves three more that are not duplicate - 133.90, 128.55, 127.82.

If it's more beneficial, I can feed those three only and lock out the frequencies that are duplicated by the other feed. Geographically and traffic-wise this would probably be the best scenario. I would have the south and west on zlc #1, and zlc #2 would cover north and east.

As far as traffic goes, the two busiest - the ones feeding in and out of KSLC - are 133.9 and 127.7. In any scenario, as long as these busiest sectors are not on the same feed we get "the best bang for the buck."

If Dave's ok with it, then I can change zlc #1 to feed just 133.9, 128.55, and 127.82. Let me know how that sounds.

Offline JetScan1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 963
Re: ZLC #'s 1 & 2
« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2015, 10:01:39 PM »
Quote
I provide the zlc_slc #1 feed. I wasn't aware that we have another zlc feeder until I saw this thread.

Thanks for the reply, I was thinking it was the same person running both. Then wondering why they were essentially scanning the same thing. Two different feeds, that kinda complicates things trying to coordinate them.

Quote
There are two that aren't very effective - 125.57 and 121.15 - because they are so far away, and I have terrain issues in reception. Those two should probably be removed from the scanner and frequency list.

I agree, scanning distant sectors on the fringe of reception ends up with a lot of weak and hard to read signals blocking stronger clearer ones on other frequencies.

Quote
If Dave's ok with it, then I can change zlc #1 to feed just 133.9, 128.55, and 127.82. Let me know how that sounds.

That setup isn't really ideal because it would put both controllers on one radio and the traffic volume would not be equal and mix up geographic areas.

Just to confirm the frequencies you can you hear the controllers on ? Sounds like 127.700 and either or both on 119.950 and 135.775 ? Is that correct ?

If it can be coordinated I think my suggestion would be the most optimum with ..

Radio #1

127.700
133.800
128.550
125.925
124.350

Radio #2

119.950
135.775
133.900
127.825

This would split the feeds geographically, by traffic volume,  typical sector configuration, and by controller reception.

- 133.800 is used as required and otherwise is merged into 127.700, so both should be on the same radio
- 127.825 is used as required and otherwise is merged into 133.900, so both should be on the same radio.
- 127.700 merges with 125.925, so both should be on the same radio.
- 127.700 and 133.900 are both busy sectors and should be on separate radios.
- 119.950 merges with 135.775, so both should be on the same radio.
- 135.775 is also a very busy sector at times, so no other further away frequencies should be added.
- controller reception on 127.700 would be split from controller reception on 135.775/119.950 (and their merged sectors).

The above was based on personal monitoring from a few years ago, but from what I can tell from recent listening of the current feeds this hasn't changed much. Corrections or updates always appreciated.

« Last Edit: May 17, 2015, 10:05:48 PM by JetScan1 »

Offline dave

  • Site Founder
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4501
    • LiveATC.net
Re: ZLC #'s 1 & 2
« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2015, 10:48:51 PM »
The new feed is a work in progress.  The frequencies are based on what ground side transmitters can be heard, and it isn't totally clear yet what will work from the new location.  So let's not engineer any changes based on this new site yet.