Chicago airspace changes

gprellwitz

gprellwitz

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
12,762
Location
Romeoville, IL
Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
Just got back from the Chicago CDM 2009 (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/artcc/chicago/). Of interest to GA pilots are a few items:
- The ORD VOR is scheduled for RELOCATION in 2012. That's a ways out, but it will have impact ranging from modifying approaches to many satellite airports to MOVING THE CLASS BRAVO.

Speaking of Class Bravo, the new configuration is currently open for comments. They expect it to become operational in October or November of this year.

They are also working on a new STAR for the Chicago metropolitan satellite airports.

A lot of the information centered around O'Hare, as one might expect. Let me know if you're interested in anything in particular. In short, they're going to double or triple the rate of construction there until about 2014. A LOT of configuration changes.
 
Do you have a link to a map of the proposed Bravo changes? I remember seeing one a while back....

Thanks!
 
purdue1014 said:
Do you have a link to a map of the proposed Bravo changes? I remember seeing one a while back....

Thanks!
Click to expand...
http://www.palwaukee.org/docs/Class_B_redesign.pdf has the proposed new configuration. I'm not aware of any tweaks from that one, though they're still open for comments.

The meeting yesterday wasn't about the Class B redesign. But, as part of the O'Hare Modernization Program (OMP), the city wants to physically relocate the VOR. The FAA is trying to make sure that they understand that the ramifications of that extend well beyond the local environs of O'Hare. But I didn't get the idea that it was just a tentative think; it's pretty definite that it's going to happen. It is not reflected as part of the redesign, however.
 
Last edited:
Moving the VOR will make it harder to find the rings if all you have is DME as they are all centered on the current location. 3CK and 10C do not use ORD VOR for their approaches, who besides ORD does use that VOR on their approach plates?
 
smigaldi said:
Moving the VOR will make it harder to find the rings if all you have is DME as they are all centered on the current location. 3CK and 10C do not use ORD VOR for their approaches, who besides ORD does use that VOR on their approach plates?
Click to expand...
That's the point; they may very well need to actually move the Class B airspace.

I'll need to look up the airports that use it. MDW, DPA and ARR all use it. PWK uses it for their SID. It's also used on a number of STARS, including at least one non-Chicago one.
 
Last edited:
I don't suppose they're moving the ORD VOR east, so the lake shore route has a lower shelf above it.

There are places like PWK and Shaumburg that are very much on the edge so a mile move would have a severe impact. It may mean they need somr new cutouts in the Bravo.
 
gprellwitz said:
http://www.palwaukee.org/docs/Class_B_redesign.pdf has the proposed new configuration. I'm not aware of any tweaks from that one, though they're stoll open for comments.

The meeting yesterday wasn't about the Class B redesign. But, as part of the O'Hare Modernization Program (OMP), the city wants to physically relocate the VOR. The FAA is trying to make sure that they understand that the ramifications of that extend well beyond the local environs of O'Hare. But I didn't get the idea that it was just a tentative think; it's pretty definite that it's gonig to happen. It is not reflected as part of the redisign, however.
Click to expand...

Thanks!
 
gprellwitz said:
But, as part of the O'Hare Modernization Program (OMP), the city wants to physically relocate the VOR. The FAA is trying to make sure that they understand that the ramifications of that extend well beyond the local environs of O'Hare.
Click to expand...

This being Chicago, I imagine the city is going to pick it up and move it whenever and where-ever it damn well pleases and the FAA can go **** up a rope.
 
flyersfan31 said:
This being Chicago, I imagine the city is going to pick it up and move it whenever and where-ever it damn well pleases and the FAA can go **** up a rope.
Click to expand...

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

I guess we should feel fortunate all the Nike AA missile batteries have been decomissioned...


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

I guess we should feel fortunate all the Nike AA missile batteries have been decomissioned...


Trapper John
Click to expand...
Well they officially say that they are decommissioned. But what real proof do we have? A couple of years ago a 172 jsut NW of Chicago, along the lakefront went missing. That could have been an accident, then again it may have been a conspiracy.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • tinfoilhatcat.jpg
    tinfoilhatcat.jpg
    27.2 KB · Views: 345
Any news? I have not heard anything in a several months. I was at the TRACON in May and the only thing I was hearing from the controllers that a change was coming but they had not seen final designs nor started any training.
 
ScottM said:
Bueller?

Anyone heard anything yet?
Click to expand...
Info just crossed my desk, though it was actually published in the Federal Register on 5/14/2010. Here's the proposal. I see a preponderance of "The FAA does not agree" with the commentator's requests, though they did incorporate some changes. It's open for comment until 7/13/2010. The instructions are in the PDF.

Comments can be submitted at www.regulations.gov.
FAA Docket No. FAA-2010-0347 and Airspace Docket No. 07-AWA-2
 

Attachments

  • ORD NPRM.pdf
    121.9 KB · Views: 25
Last edited:
bbchien said:
Great. Impossible to understand. Expansion to area F. WTF.
Click to expand...

If you understood it, they might have to give you clearance through the Bravo... :rolleyes2:

Seriously, I found the document full of references to keeping GA out of the Class B.
 
Area F was where I wing-wagged an airliner turing into me nose to nose just above me as we both turned right to give a wider berth. I was at 3300 feet and the jet must have been just over the 4000 foot floor.

I guess the jets don't like the TCAS alerts....

AND per usual, this airspace change wouldn't change a thing.
 
Could someone explain why they need to block down to 4000MSL 30 miles out over the water? That is just crazy.
 
BillTIZ said:
That picture does not match what is in the NPRM.
Click to expand...
Aunt Peggy's image is the one linked May of 2009 that formed the basis of the informal comment period. It looks like the major change is the reduction in the Area E over the lake. In other words, no changes of any consequence.
 
BillTIZ said:
Could someone explain why they need to block down to 4000MSL 30 miles out over the water? That is just crazy.
Click to expand...

Ummmmm....ta get duh mare his no fly zone so he doesn't bulldoze any more airports?
 
From what I understand they want to have the jets on the glideslope 25-30 miles out of the airport, and apparently that is their "justification" for this massive airspace grab. What I don't get is the 4000' floor. If my math is correct, at 25 miles out on a 3 degree glideslope you are at around 7000' agl.
 
vontresc said:
From what I understand they want to have the jets on the glideslope 25-30 miles out of the airport, and apparently that is their "justification" for this massive airspace grab. What I don't get is the 4000' floor. If my math is correct, at 25 miles out on a 3 degree glideslope you are at around 7000' agl.
Click to expand...
Well, it looks like they want multiple glideslopes because they'll have up to six simultaneous approaches and departures using them, and need 1000' vertical separation:
This new Area F would be established with the floor extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 feet MSL. The FAA has determined that the need to descend aircraft low enough for an approach to all of the present and future runways, while maintaining 1,000 feet vertical separation between simultaneous arrivals and departures, requires that the lowest of the final approach courses be at 4,000 feet MSL between the 15 and 30 nautical mile arcs of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME antenna. This new area would ensure IFR arrival aircraft flying simultaneous visual and instrument approaches to the existing Runways 9L, 9R, and 10, as well as three additional parallel runways planned for the future, are contained within the confines of Class B airspace throughout the approach. This proposed new area would also ensure segregation of IFR aircraft arriving ORD and VFR aircraft and gliders operating in the vicinity of the Chicago Class B airspace, yet provide navigable airspace below and above Class B airspace for VFR aircraft operations.
Click to expand...
 
AuntPeggy said:
I deleted it. Do you have a link to a correct image?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, it appears as if they only prepared the nice color overlay for the informal airspace meetings. The diagram of the final proposal in the federal register is just the black and white sketch showing the shoreline and the towered airports in the area. It remains unclear to me whether they are basing it on the old or new location of the ORD VOR.
 
I just talked to my airport manager, and he said that he's unaware of any color graphic overlays of the new final proposal. The best we seem to have is the interim proposal.
 
gprellwitz said:
Well, it looks like they want multiple glideslopes because they'll have up to six simultaneous approaches and departures using them, and need 1000' vertical separation:
Click to expand...

I don't think the airlines are going to be happy with a 4000MSL restriction 15 miles from the airport.. drive em low far out and drive em in.. seems like a waste of fuel.
 
BillTIZ said:
I don't think the airlines are going to be happy with a 4000MSL restriction 15 miles from the airport.. drive em low far out and drive em in.. seems like a waste of fuel.
Click to expand...
I've gotten it in a King Air before, and we weren't happy either. In addition to the fuel burn, there's the passenger comfort factor!
 
flyersfan31 said:
This being Chicago, I imagine the city is going to pick it up and move it whenever and where-ever it damn well pleases and the FAA can go **** up a rope.
Click to expand...

I like the code words for the FAA statement to pilots:

Two commenters stated that the
proposal would have an economic
impact on general aviation traffic due to
increased fuel burn. The FAA partially
agrees with this comment. Although
some aircraft would need to fly added
distances or different altitudes to remain
clear of the Class B airspace, the FAA
believes any increase in fuel burn would
be nominal.
 
Let's come out and say it. The airspace expansion (there's no other accurate word for it) around O'Hare is geared to segregate more volume for the airliners going into/out of O'Hare and to lock out those planes, even IFR, turboprops, and jets, going into other airports in the area. They wrap it in terms of "safety" and "separation" to make it more difficult to argue against it, but it's all about creating a de facto TFR around O'Hare so they don't have to deal with the flivvers if they don't feel like it.
 
ApacheBob said:
I like the code words for the FAA statement to pilots:

Two commenters stated that the
proposal would have an economic
impact on general aviation traffic due to
increased fuel burn. The FAA partially
agrees with this comment. Although
some aircraft would need to fly added
distances or different altitudes to remain
clear of the Class B airspace, the FAA
believes any increase in fuel burn would
be nominal.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think this is more to the point:

The ad hoc committee recommended
the FAA reduce the size of the original
proposed Area E in order to provide
general aviation and glider communities
with additional airspace to operate
within.
Click to expand...

which clearly implies that general aviation will not operate in the Class B. There are numerous other statements like it throughout the document.
 
wsuffa said:
Actually, I think this is more to the point:

which clearly implies that general aviation will not operate in the Class B. There are numerous other statements like it throughout the document.
Click to expand...

You're not from around here are ya? We keep you telling that - and no radar services for you unless you're an airliner - is pretty much law and gospel in Chicago.

You know. You just don't get that it's the busiest airspace in the world and all.
 
mikea said:
You're not from around here are ya? We keep you telling that - and no radar services for you unless you're an airliner - is pretty much law and gospel in Chicago.

You know. You just don't get that it's the busiest airspace in the world and all.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know. Even GA IFR is bad. BTDT several times.
 
Just a note that the airspace changes are going into effect October 21st. If you have a Chicago Sectional or the CF-18 WAC, you'll want to get a replacement!
 
I don't get it. WHY is Chicago such a nightmare? Onerous airspace changes, poor ATC service...really, why? Other major class Bs in the US don't have this history of ... mediocrity.
 
sba55 said:
I don't get it. WHY is Chicago such a nightmare? Onerous airspace changes, poor ATC service...really, why? Other major class Bs in the US don't have this history of ... mediocrity.
Click to expand...

Nothing Mayor Daley (or his successor Rahm) can't fix.... :wink2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top