C90 (Chicago TRACON) kudos

If you add up EWR + JFK + LGA you get 1.2M operations. Not sure how much MDW contributes but bravo for bravo, I'm pretty sure NYC is busier than Chicago.
 
MDW supposedly has 256,000 according to airnav. That plus ORD is still less than EWR, LGA, and JFK combined. And NY can allow VFR transit, why can't/won't Chicago?
 
EdFred said:
At what field? ORD? The VFR corridor is right over the top. Departures don't interfere at all.

And of course it's turned sideways.
Click to expand...

How wide is the VFR corridor going to be? How long does it take an airliner to climb that high? Keep in mind that these aren't point-in-space problems, these are hockey-puck problems and there's always some slop baked into the system so that a single mistake doesn't cause a catastrophe.

I don't expect wholesale changes to the 7110.65 or ORD airspace to accommodate us... And if you do expect that, arguing with a couple of front-line controllers is going to get you exactly nowhere.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
How wide is the VFR corridor going to be? How long does it take an airliner to climb that high? Keep in mind that these aren't point-in-space problems, these are hockey-puck problems and there's always some slop baked into the system so that a single mistake doesn't cause a catastrophe.

I don't expect wholesale changes to the 7110.65 or ORD airspace to accommodate us... And if you do expect that, arguing with a couple of front-line controllers is going to get you exactly nowhere.
Click to expand...

I figure 2nm is plenty wide, I'd be happy with 1nm. Northbound traffic gets 4 and 6, southbound gets 5 and 7. Make it /G with way points if necessary. I offered a proposal, and the response is "we don't do it that way now." Well, no ****. If you did do it that way now, there could be a VFR corridor. I ask for more info and get brushed aside Pelosi style. We're told we don't know what's going on, and when we ask, we're not allowed to know. How quaint.

And hell, this is only for VFR. I'm not not even proposing an IFR corridor. That I know would be a pain in the ass.
 
MarkZ said:
We utilize every available altitude to keep the primary and satellite airports moving with respect to IFR operations. ATC's primary responsibilities are the safe and efficient movement of aircraft in the National Airspace System and the issuance of safety alerts. If the operation changed to create a corridor to allow VFR aircraft safe transit over ORD, VFR aircraft would have at best a 500 foot window to make that transit. Doing so would require all arrivals to enter dump zones higher, which would accrue delay to arrivals for sequencing. I could explain why, but that would get very technical (boring). Moreover, would you feel comfortable transiting busy airspace with no other outs should the weather be anything less than clear and unrestricted visibility?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the experience for GA pilots around Chicago is often NOT "safe and efficient," especially the efficient part. I'm guessing there are LoAs in place that prevent surrounding facilities from handing flivvers off to you under normal circumstances, and that's the start of it - Even if there was room to squeeze us through, we'll never get it because we'll never talk to you in the first place.

As far as "transiting busy airspace" in less than CAVU weather, we're doing that already, going down the lakeshore. Instead of being squeezed between your arrivals and departures, we're squeezed between buildings, the Bravo, and a large, cold lake, so I really don't do it in marginal weather anyway and have to go way out and around.

VFR isn't really the problem as long as we can shoot down the lakeshore. It's IFR that's the big pain - I have to go 83 nautical miles out of my way to go east (and that's compared to the lakeshore route, not compared to direct over the lake). Any suggestions?
 
I haven't flown VFR in NYC since... Well, a long time. That said, back when I did, they were not accommodating whatsoever. It was 1400 by the Alpine Tower, or vectors well out of your way.
Way back there was a legendary controller named Rocky. He was a trip... He had so many complaints that he ended up teaching in Ok City.
 
EdFred said:
Convenient. Maybe a change is in order.
Click to expand...

Again, you won't get change from bitching at front-line controllers on a web forum. You want change, start talking to your congresscritters and/or some people at the FAA who actually could effect a change.
 
EdFred said:
I figure 2nm is plenty wide, I'd be happy with 1nm. Northbound traffic gets 4 and 6, southbound gets 5 and 7. Make it /G with way points if necessary. I offered a proposal, and the response is "we don't do it that way now." Well, no ****. If you did do it that way now, there could be a VFR corridor. I ask for more info and get brushed aside Pelosi style. We're told we don't know what's going on, and when we ask, we're not allowed to know. How quaint.
Click to expand...

No, if you read the response(s) in full, there's a pretty good explanation of what's going on now and why a VFR corridor where you suggest wouldn't work.
 
EdFred said:
The numbers in bold add up to way more than 881,933, and they do just fine handling VFR guys.
Click to expand...

Why don't you add in the 215,000 MDW operations, as well as the 100,000 from DPA, and the 100,000 for PWK, and 100,000 for LOT and you'll be there.
 
ahkahn said:
Why don't you add in the 215,000 MDW operations, as well as the 100,000 from DPA, and the 100,000 for PWK, and 100,000 for LOT and you'll be there.
Click to expand...

And NYC doesn't have TEB or any other airports? I already accounted for MDW.


And Kent, I did read. What they do NOW won't work. Duh. I'm saying do something different. I don't have enough money for anyone in congress to listen to me. Maybe if I had the pockets of UA or AA they might listen.
 
EdFred said:
Convenient. Maybe a change is in order.

Though that might require some effort on the Fed's part, and we know can't have that. "We've been doing it this way for years, we aren't going to change!"
Click to expand...

Again, not a C90 guy, but do you think the ORD downwind should be closer to ORD or further away from ORD than 4 to 5 miles?
 
What's the big deal about going around or under the outer ring?
 
NY Class B airspace is larger than ORD class B, too...the density of airplanes-to-airspace is different in Chicago vs NYC. The outer rings around ORD are higher too. I see near JFK the bottom shelf is 1500'. Even accounting for the difference in ground level, theirs is more restrictive. We could lower ours by 1000' and clear more airplanes into it, too.

But, I would say that the ORD class B could be changed since the airport is now east/west 95% of the time. By the same token, it should be 500 feet lower near DPA as well, since the arrivals into 9L join the final west of DPA at 4000, and we have had plenty of issues with airplanes at 3900 feet.

The whole outer ring of the class B could be raised to 5500 feet from the 340 radial clockwise to the 020 radial in my opinion.

But, all this again is from somebody who only works the airspace 6 days per week, but only flies through it occasionally. It's funny to think that every air traffic controller in Chicago who is also a GA pilot is anti-GA.
 
My experience of working with Bravo airspace is mainly with the Cleveland Class B, since that's where I'm based. In my experience, you will very often hear "Cleared into the class bravo airspace". You will then be vectored around such that you maybe clip the edge, but in reality you'd be just the same going around and under.

The only difference I hear and have experienced with C90 is that they don't accept flight following handoffs from neighboring facilities. I don't know why that is. Like I said in a previous post, once I was dropped and called up on my own I received excellent service. I've got to believe that accepting VFR handoffs, even if they don't get into the bravo, should be a relatively straightforward change and would result in reduced workload when those VFR flights that were dropped no longer have to call up cold, and a better perception by the GA community.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
EdFred said:
I figure 2nm is plenty wide, I'd be happy with 1nm. Northbound traffic gets 4 and 6, southbound gets 5 and 7. Make it /G with way points if necessary. I offered a proposal, and the response is "we don't do it that way now." Well, no ****. If you did do it that way now, there could be a VFR corridor. I ask for more info and get brushed aside Pelosi style. We're told we don't know what's going on, and when we ask, we're not allowed to know. How quaint.

And hell, this is only for VFR. I'm not not even proposing an IFR corridor. That I know would be a pain in the ass.
Click to expand...

Well, if you really want to know why you can't do a VFR corridor North/South above ORD.

Aircraft flying the north or south downwind are at 7,000 or 9,000 feet descending to anywhere from 4,000 feet to 7,000 feet depending on which runway they're going to and whether they're shooting visual approaches to the outers or triple simultaneous ILS approaches.

Any aircraft flying a southwest or southeast STAR (BENKY, TRTLL, VEECK, ESSPO) needing to transition to the north downwind will nearly overfly the airport. Same with an aircraft flying a northeast or northwest STAR (FYTTE, WYNDE, ERNNY, MADII) needing to transition to the south downwind.

There's also the issue of departure traffic. You've got 5 south departure fixes where aircraft are climbing to 5,000 to stay underneath the arrival traffic, then climbing once they are clear of arrivals on the downwind. You also have MDW departures out to the west staying below (IIRC) the ORD departures.

Same issue to the north. To have a VFR corridor north/south you'd essentially have to be above 9,000 feet, as everything below that has some sort of arrival or departure traffic.
 
A lot of times, controllers won't know, or won't think to ask, if a pilot circumnavigating airspace wants a shortcut. I've asked pilots if they would like direct routing only to have a pilot advise me he/she would rather stay on filed route. It happens. For that reason, it never hurts to ask ATC if there is any chance of a shortcut. It helps to include the requested fix. This is within reason of course: a controller might outright deny direct an airport, but be able to work on an intermediate fix down the road. The controller working your aircraft calls the controller in question to see if such a request is feasible.

What's the worst that happens? An unable? Please remember, unable does not mean "I don't want to do that." Unable means "I can't safely do that." There could be an arrival/departure rush, or a special activity in the airspace (emergency, other unusual situations). Again, I've only been a controller for thirteen years, two of which are at C90. I have yet to meet a controller, anywhere, that is out to "screw someone."

To those that feel compelled to compare airspace locales, all I can say is that would be like comparing a Cessna Skyhawk to a Cessna Centurion as similar aircraft. Or a Piper Cherokee with a Piper Malibu. It's apples and oranges. Each locale of airspace in the NAS has their own nuances and intricacies that make them busy or complex in their own right. Sometimes it's terrain. Sometimes it's multiple busy airports close to each other. Sometimes it's sheer volume at one airport. To attempt a direct comparison from one airspace to another is to show how little one knows of what goes on in the NAS. It strikes me as confrontational. Given the tone from some of the users in this thread, it makes me wonder where their true motivation derives from. I wonder if they engage in such activity as an uneducated attempt at constructive conversation, or simply to allay a few cheap shots at air traffic controllers. I hope it is the former.
 
Kritchlow said:
What's the big deal about going around or under the outer ring?
Click to expand...

Not a big problem VFR. It's when you're trying to go somewhere IFR that it's a pain, mainly because of the position of Chicago in relation to Lake Michigan, a body of water cold enough that most of us don't want to fly over in a single.

So, IFR I have to go over 80nm further to go way out and around because unless you're taking off or landing at an airport that C90 controls, you won't get a clearance close enough to Chicago to even talk to them. From Milwaukee, I get BULLZ T265 EON, from Madison I get direct KELSI direct destination.

I've only gotten through the Chicago Bravo three times ever - Once VFR, twice IFR. The two I didn't talk about in the OP were both very late on Sunday nights or possibly into the wee hours of Monday morning. Prior to the OP, it had been about 8 years since the previous one.
 
MarkZ said:
A lot of times, controllers won't know, or won't think to ask, if a pilot circumnavigating airspace wants a shortcut. I've asked pilots if they would like direct routing only to have a pilot advise me he/she would rather stay on filed route. It happens. For that reason, it never hurts to ask ATC if there is any chance of a shortcut.
Click to expand...

Mark,

That's great, if we're talking to C90 already.

The problem is that if I'm talking to MKE TRACON or ZAU or someone besides C90, and I ask for something that will get me talking to C90 in the first place, they just say "Sorry, they won't take handoffs" or something to that effect. They've never gotten on the phone to ask, they just "know" from previous experience that the likelihood is low enough it's not worth the call.

In addition, we NEVER get "cleared as filed" for a route that will put us in touch with C90. For example, I was once flying from KMSN to KMIE and was filed via V177 at 5000 feet. MSN Clearance said "Cleared as fi...uh, no, that's not gonna work" and gave us the standard KELSI detour.

So how do we ever get to ask for any sort of shortcut through C90 airspace? :dunno:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Not a big problem VFR. It's when you're trying to go somewhere IFR that it's a pain, mainly because of the position of Chicago in relation to Lake Michigan, a body of water cold enough that most of us don't want to fly over in a single.
Click to expand...

flyingcheesehead said:
BTW, FWIW, here's my track from the flight in the OP:

http://www.foreflight.com/s/track/1417395060-47252838-567A-4C0D-9224-97F44926CD2F/
Click to expand...
Seems like you would be happy with your clearance..??

On a side note, at my old job we used to come from that direction but were landing PWK. I can't remember the exact fix names, but they would often give us a route just skimming the eastern limit of the B, but generally not in the B as they kept us low below the ring. This was in a jet (IFR) so I understand that you may not want that route in a SE.
I never gave it a second thought, as all my life I've been kept well clear of the primary airport of the Bravo.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
So how do we ever get to ask for any sort of shortcut through C90 airspace? :dunno:
Click to expand...

Here is the big secret: file two flight plans .... MSN to DPA then DPA to MIE. When you check in with Chicago approach, say "we have an IFR on file off DPA to MIE and we'd like to pick it up in the air now".

"Roger, cleared to MIE via vectors EON, as filed..."

The controller on 133.5 probably won't care, but if he asks why, an answer like "schedule change" will do just fine. Having the next leg of the flight sitting there at the scope will make it almost seamless. And if you have to pee, just land at DPA.
 
Last edited:
RudyP said:
If you add up EWR + JFK + LGA you get 1.2M operations. Not sure how much MDW contributes but bravo for bravo, I'm pretty sure NYC is busier than Chicago.
Click to expand...

If you add ORD and MDW, you get more than 1.1M operations with far less class B airspace.
 
Jmcmanna said:
Here is the big secret: file two flight plans .... MSN to DPA then DPA to MIE. When you check in with Chicago approach, say "we have an IFR on file off DPA to MIE and we'd like to pick it up in the air now".

"Roger, cleared to MIE via vectors EON, as filed..."

The controller on 133.5 probably won't care, but if he asks why, an answer like "schedule change" will do just fine. Having the next leg of the flight sitting there at the scope will make it almost seamless. And if you have to pee, just land at DPA.
Click to expand...

Ahh, the Midwest version of the "Salinas Subterfuge".

Is KDPA the best airport to file to? KPWK and KMDW are much closer to the desired route...

But if we can do this trick, why can't we just get an equivalent clearance through? :dunno:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Ahh, the Midwest version of the "Salinas Subterfuge".

Is KDPA the best airport to file to? KPWK and KMDW are much closer to the desired route...

But if we can do this trick, why can't we just get an equivalent clearance through? :dunno:
Click to expand...

I just picked DPA out of a hat...you could use PWK. If you pick MDW, you may be subjected to flow delays and vectored over the top of DPA anyway depending on airport config.

The LOA between C90 and all the surrounding facilities says no IFR overflights, period, between 6am and 10pm. Whether or not that should be changed is a different debate. Filing into a C90 airport, then another outbound is a workaround. Another frequently used trick is to just fly down the shoreline VFR and pick up a clearance in the air off GYY...WX permitting, it saves from having to go either 20 west of ORD or 10 miles off the lake shore to get around ORD.
 
Jmcmanna said:
Another frequently used trick is to just fly down the shoreline VFR and pick up a clearance in the air off GYY...WX permitting, it saves from having to go either 20 west of ORD or 10 miles off the lake shore to get around ORD.
Click to expand...

Yup, I do that frequently. File off GYY for my ETA there, go VFR down the lakeshore, get flight following on 120.55, and let them know I'd like my clearance off GYY after I get handed off to 128.2. Works like a charm when MDW isn't landing on the 22's, the Bears and White Sox aren't playing, and the weather doesn't suck.
 
So today I took up MarkZ's offer and toured the Tracon with him. First of all, what a great group of controllers!

At no point did I ever sense any type of attitude towards pilots or anything other than a genuine sense of helpfulness. In fact, most of the controllers I personally interacted with were pilots... the last one that took over the spot that I got to sit with was even a CFI. That was pretty impressive to me.

After seeing the setups, I can understand how often-times controllers can come off sounding like they may have an attitude, upset, or short. It's really a very quiet room, library quiet to be precise, and so your voice when speaking quietly can come across very low and stern. Think of trying to use a cell phone in a library. It's tough. I also witnessed a couple of occasions where several pilots came across simultaneously and they have to sort things out rather quickly and prioritize to work through the requests, etc.

I could go on more about the tour, but overall I can say that if you've had a negative experience with Chicago Tracon it was either a misunderstanding on your part, much more to the big picture than they really can get into over the radio, or you're expecting the impossible.

Thanks, MarkZ for the tour! I encourage any other pilots in the Chicagoland area to contact him and go! It's something that every pilot should see at least once. Tip: You'll get the most out of it being instrument rated or above, but that's not a prerequisite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top