Chicago airspace changes

ScottM said:
I missed the clueless comment winkie. :ihih:
Click to expand...

Or stir the pot winkie....

Chicago Airspace sucks because the facility manager with the FAA is not serving anyone but the heavy metal at KORD. Lets give credit where credit is due.
Click to expand...

That's well known. I made no suggestion that Daley, et. al., has caused it to be the way it is.
 
ScottM said:
I missed the clueless comment winkie. :ihih:

Chicago Airspace sucks because the facility manager with the FAA is not serving anyone but the heavy metal at KORD. Lets give credit where credit is due.
Click to expand...

BTW, the issue with FAA in Chicago is not just limited to the facility manager. The airspace group (the ones that look at towers and obstructions) was just as problematic, if not more so, to the communications industry. They led the nation in rejecting towers based on EMI evaluations that they did themselves & then tried to get DC to buy off. That stuff started 20 years ago, and was part of the reason I ended up at ITU.

If humor were allowed in my posts, I'd make some comment about the water/environment/etc. up there, but since it's not, I won't.
 
ScottM said:
I missed the clueless comment winkie. :ihih:

Chicago Airspace sucks because the facility manager with the FAA is not serving anyone but the heavy metal at KORD. Lets give credit where credit is due.
Click to expand...
So True.
 
ScottM said:
Chicago Airspace sucks because the facility manager with the FAA is not serving anyone but the heavy metal at KORD. Lets give credit where credit is due.
Click to expand...

It's amazing what a good manager can do for an ATC facility. We've had the same manager since about 1990 and he has more certificates than I have fingers - Super nice guy, with the philosophy that if they can possibly help, they should. I don't think it's any coincidence at all that we've had two Archie League award winners here in the last 4 years.

I also have to give props to NorCal TRACON, they are amazingly helpful. They need to show Chicago how it's done.

That said, Chicago is slowly improving - I think. I've gotten flight following up and down the lakeshore three times in a row now.

Unfortunately, and I think it must be a result of the airspace changes coming up, our IFR clearances out of MSN just got worse. It used to be direct KELSI direct. Last time I got RFD SMARS. :(
 
flyingcheesehead said:
That said, Chicago is slowly improving - I think. I've gotten flight following up and down the lakeshore three times in a row now.

Unfortunately, and I think it must be a result of the airspace changes coming up, our IFR clearances out of MSN just got worse. It used to be direct KELSI direct. Last time I got RFD SMARS. :(
Click to expand...
Possibly that is why. I know that they are bringing on a bunch of trainees and have them sitting a dedicated FF position from time to time. I wish I had a schedule of when that was. But in speaking to the trainees it seems to be on an ad hoc basis.
 
When I fly up the shoreline going to Osh every year I've gotten FF every time. Small data point but data none the less.
 
Why do they need the airspace all the way out to 30 NM down to 4000'????? Assuming a 3 degree glideslope they won't be at 4000' MSL until about 11 NM out, and at 30 NM they will be 10,000'.

Ugh!
 
Sooner or later they'll put folks down there because they can, or its more convenient, or whatever. Something will go wrong on somebody's airplane, and the damn thing will wind up in the drink. People will drown, and people will sue. They'll stop putting planes down there, but the map won't change one bit.
 
I was checking out AOPA's Internet Flight Planner over the weekend. They get their charts from Jeppesen, and it was not showing the updated airspace yet. According to AOPA:
The Navdata on the chart comes from Jeppesen. I asked Jeppesen about this. They informed me that the airspace update did not make it into the last navdata cycle and the airspace will be updated on the next cycle, which is on Nov. 18th.
Click to expand...
 
ScottM said:
Hmm Golden Eagle had the updates on day one.
Click to expand...

Seattle Avionics had the updated scanned CHART and TAC but the digital Chart is wrong. CHI TRACON informed me about it as I was about to enter the new west outer ring area so I dropped to 3500' to go below it.

The scanned IFR chart does not appear to be updated.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
That said, Chicago is slowly improving - I think. I've gotten flight following up and down the lakeshore three times in a row now.
Click to expand...

But not the last time. The good thing is, TIS actually works in Chicago - I thought none of the Bravo radars had it any more. ?

Unfortunately, and I think it must be a result of the airspace changes coming up, our IFR clearances out of MSN just got worse. It used to be direct KELSI direct. Last time I got RFD SMARS. :(
Click to expand...

Maybe just a practice run - On 10/1, I got KELSI again. Haven't flown IFR to the east since the new airspace actually went into effect, though.
 
RMCN172RG said:
Seattle Avionics had the updated scanned CHART and TAC but the digital Chart is wrong. CHI TRACON informed me about it as I was about to enter the new west outer ring area so I dropped to 3500' to go below it.

The scanned IFR chart does not appear to be updated.
Click to expand...

New Sectional and TAC for Chicago were issued on 10/21, the day the new airspace took effect.

The L-28 and IFR Area Charts were not updated, as their cycle runs from 9/23 to 11/18.

Here's how some other products are doing:

ForeFlight:
Chicago Sectional is up to date and correct.
Chicago TAC is up to date and correct.
L-28 is up to date but not correct, as it came from the FAA
Area Charts not supported

Skyvector:
Chicago Sectional is up to date and correct.
Chicago TAC is up to date and correct.
L-28 is up to date but not correct, as it came from the FAA
Area Chart up to date but not correct, as it came from the FAA

RunwayFinder:
Chicago Sectional is up to date and correct.
Chicago TAC not supported.
L-28 is up to date but not correct, as it came from the FAA
Area Charts not supported.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top