C90 (Chicago TRACON) kudos

[flyingcheesehead]

We all pile on Chicago TRACON controllers from time to time, but they are definitely improving... I had a surprisingly good experience with them last night, so I thought I'd share that.

I had stopped at KOXI for fuel and was headed home to KMWC. I filed for KOXI EON AHMED T265 BULLZ KMWC to get around C90 airspace - I'd prefer to have all the magic boxes programmed beforehand than "file direct and take what they give you", especially with bumpy IMC down low and a perfect record of never getting cleared when filing through C90 airspace.

Initially, I was given clearance only from KOXI to the OXI VOR. By the time I got a clearance to go further from South Bend TRACON, I was entering a hold over the VOR. They cleared me to EON via radar vectors, and a while later handed me off to Chicago Center (ZAU). ZAU cleared me to KMWC via MEITZ HERVY SIMMN BULLZ, nearly paralleling T265 but a few miles inside it. That's probably as close as you can get to C90 airspace without being in it.

However, just a few miles west of EON, a surprised ZAU controller cleared me direct DPA direct KMWC. After I read it back and added that "There really is a Santa Claus!", the ZAU controller said that it was C90 who initiated the route change. And unlike the previous two times I'd been into the Chicago Bravo which were both very late on Sunday nights, this time was during the evening push into ORD.

After making the nearly-90-degree turn to the right and contacting Chicago Approach, they put me on vectors. I was at 4000 feet, and despite having picked up no ice in the descent into KOXI or the climb back out, I started getting into the tops and picking up ice, so I had to ask for higher just as I was about to fly under a long line of arriving airplanes... But they gave me 5000 with no hassle.

The service was so good, I had to wonder if MarkZ or Jmcmanna was working and recognized my tail number! Were either of you guys working last night?

 

[Jmcmanna]

I wish I could take the credit; it wasn't my doing last night and MarkZ was off. I sat down at the North Satellite scope (120.55) at around 8:00pm and I remember seeing the tail number; the controller I relieved must have just shipped you off to MKE before I took over. All I remember actually working was a Challenger into PWK about that time, then they combined it up to another sector.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I wish I could take the credit; it wasn't my doing last night and MarkZ was off. I sat down at the North Satellite scope (120.55) at around 8:00pm and I remember seeing the tail number; the controller I relieved must have just shipped you off to MKE before I took over.

That sounds about right. I landed at Timmerman at 8:17 PM, 120.55 was the last Chicago frequency I was on.

 

[MarkZ]

I was putting up Christmas lights here and hanging out with the family last night. Glad to hear it worked out.

Must be the holiday season...On Saturday night, we had an SR20 (I think) go CGT..ORD..BAE towards OSH at 6000. That was later on at night but still, the pilot was very appreciative.

 

[bluesky74656]

I had another good experience with Chicago Approach yesterday I figured I'd share. Flew VFR KCGF VWV V6 3CK. Had flight following the whole way, but was dropped just as I crossed the southern end of Lake Michigan and given Chicago's frequency for further advisories. I remembered another thread here saying that Chicago doesn't accept hand offs but will readily give advisories if you ask, so I called them up. I was about 15nm NE of Gary and wanted to duck under the Bravo, fly up the shore, then turn west north of PWK and continue to 3CK. I got a code immediately, was told to remain outside the bravo, and that was that. Very easy.

So thanks, guys, from Bonanza 9685Y!

PS: If I have to file to get out tomorrow and don't want to go straight over the lake, is there any chance of me getting THORR NILES V6, or should I just plan on going to KELSI around the west side?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ahkahn]

Chicago Approach is full of great controllers. I regularly talk to 19.35 in and out of Clow and am appreciative of all they do to keep the family safe.

Sidenote - clearing me direct to COTRI when doing an approach into Clow from the east/southeast is a fantastic "welcome home" gift!

 

[Kritchlow]

I have flown extensively into MDW and PWK, and now with the latest job ORD. I have always thought the Chicago controllers were great.

 

[MarkZ]

PS: If I have to file to get out tomorrow and don't want to go straight over the lake, is there any chance of me getting THORR NILES V6, or should I just plan on going to KELSI around the west side?

Glad everything worked out for you.

If you are heading eastward, I would file HALIE..GIJ and put in the remarks NO WATER. You should get vectored south around ORD and MDW before going on course.

 

[RudyP]

I think its telling that we congratulate C90 every six months or so for stepping up and handling a GA pilot the way NY approach (and many other busy ATC sectors) handle every bugsmasher day in and day out.

 

[MarkZ]

I think its telling that we congratulate C90 every six months or so for stepping up and handling a GA pilot the way NY approach (and many other busy ATC sectors) handle every bugsmasher day in and day out.

I didn't take the OP or the revival post as congratulatory, but rather as a professional gracious public gesture. Much like one might thank a LEO or any other public servant for a job well done. None of those gestures are meant to say that public servants do not normally do these things in the normal course of their day (as a congratulatory post might suggest), they are a simple public thank you.

Perhaps the OP (and revival) served a secondary function of showing other members and viewers of this forum that ATC facilities like C90 do go out of their way to help out all users of the NAS. I have noticed a common misconception that facilities like C90 regularly reject GA services, which could not be further from the truth. If posts from the OP and revival help serve to dispel that myth, then by all means I welcome them.

At C90, we regularly work small GA aircraft into and out of the Bravo airspace. Photo missions, survey missions, and compassion/angel flights to name but a few. It's not the airspace for student pilots admittedly, however we regularly facilitate practice instrument approaches at our satellite airports. When traffic allows, we offer direct routings and clearances through Bravo airspace to all aircraft. When traffic allows, we reach out to neighboring facilities and offer more direct routing to those who typically have to circumnavigate our airspace (as shown by the OP).

Every airspace and sector in the NAS is unique. They each have their complexities and nuances that make them something like an enigma to a GA pilot. Honestly, the best way to figure out the optimal method to navigate complex airspace is to visit your local ATC facility. I welcome any pilot who wishes to gain a better understanding of ATC operation, and subsequently their role in the NAS, to call their respective facility for a tour. If you are based in the Chicago area, feel free send me a PM.

 

[RudyP]

Perhaps the OP (and revival) served a secondary function of showing other members and viewers of this forum that ATC facilities like C90 do go out of their way to help out all users of the NAS. I have noticed a common misconception that facilities like C90 regularly reject GA services, which could not be further from the truth. If posts from the OP and revival help serve to dispel that myth, then by all means I welcome them.

My impression is that there is no such thing as "ATC facilities like C90" - there are large, busy ATC facilities that do a great job of handling all traffic all day regardless of speed, type, even level of pilot proficiency. Examples include NYC, all of Florida, Atlanta, major cities in Texas, Los Angeles, etc,... and then there is C90. Which will 99% of the time tell any GA plane to 'remain clear of the bravo' if there is so much as a hint of an airliner somewhere in the greater tri-state area.

Sure, there are exceptions at C90, (hence this thread) but the probably of being given a bravo clearance as a VFR bugsmasher, not on a flight plan approaching Chicago vs. NYC is night and day.

When traffic allows, we offer direct routings and clearances through Bravo airspace to all aircraft. When traffic allows, we reach out to neighboring facilities and offer more direct routing to those who typically have to circumnavigate our airspace (as shown by the OP).

This is the part that I find humorous. I get that "when traffic allows" is certainly a subjective phrase but somehow, other sectors manage to "make traffic allow" 99% of the time for reasonable airspace transit request while C90 will accommodate "when traffic allows" if there is abso-effing-lutely no scheduled air carrier operations anywhere near where the GA plane wants to be.

 

[ahkahn]

I welcome any pilot who wishes to gain a better understanding of ATC operation, and subsequently their role in the NAS, to call their respective facility for a tour. If you are based in the Chicago area, feel free send me a PM.

PM Sent!

Thanks, Mark! You and the other controllers are very valuable to us pilots here!

 

[MarkZ]

My impression is that there is no such thing as "ATC facilities like C90" - there are large, busy ATC facilities that do a great job of handling all traffic all day regardless of speed, type, even level of pilot proficiency. Examples include NYC, all of Florida, Atlanta, major cities in Texas, Los Angeles, etc,... and then there is C90. Which will 99% of the time tell any GA plane to 'remain clear of the bravo' if there is so much as a hint of an airliner somewhere in the greater tri-state area.

Sure, there are exceptions at C90, (hence this thread) but the probably of being given a bravo clearance as a VFR bugsmasher, not on a flight plan approaching Chicago vs. NYC is night and day.




This is the part that I find humorous. I get that "when traffic allows" is certainly a subjective phrase but somehow, other sectors manage to "make traffic allow" 99% of the time for reasonable airspace transit request while C90 will accommodate "when traffic allows" if there is abso-effing-lutely no scheduled air carrier operations anywhere near where the GA plane wants to be.

Your "impression" is a shining example why other users felt the need to share their experiences in this thread.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I didn't take the OP or the revival post as congratulatory, but rather as a professional gracious public gesture. Much like one might thank a LEO or any other public servant for a job well done.

This. But...

I have noticed a common misconception that facilities like C90 regularly reject GA services, which could not be further from the truth. If posts from the OP and revival help serve to dispel that myth, then by all means I welcome them.

The problem is, it's not "facilities like C90." C90 has gotten that reputation all on its own. I don't think it's deserved the way it used to be, but in the early days of my flying the relationship between C90 and GA was very adversarial. The "old guard" C90 controllers from before the FAA started hiring again would often (or even "usually") completely ignore VFR aircraft calls, and if they did acknowledge you at all, it was merely a "remain clear" and forget about flight following.

It wasn't until some newer controllers started entering the picture that we started getting better service. Mark, that's a credit to you newer guys - But there's still a ways to go before the facility as a whole is at the level that other Bravos are. There'll always be a spectrum - I'd put Las Vegas on the "Terrible" end and NorCal and NYC on the "Fantastic" end. With the improvements that have happened at C90 over the last 10 years or so, Chicago is finally approaching average on the spectrum.

However, of course, the reputation of the facility will always lag behind the actual level of service. My OP was in recognition of C90's further improvement.

Honestly, the best way to figure out the optimal method to navigate complex airspace is to visit your local ATC facility. I welcome any pilot who wishes to gain a better understanding of ATC operation, and subsequently their role in the NAS, to call their respective facility for a tour. If you are based in the Chicago area, feel free send me a PM.

These visits are incredibly valuable, but I wish some of the information could be disseminated to pilots. We're all on the same team, really! I know a fair amount about airspace I operate in frequently, but it'd sure be nice if we knew the best routes and altitudes to file and expect beforehand - It'd make life easier on both sides of the mic.

 

[MarkZ]

The "old guard" C90 controllers from before the FAA started hiring again would often (or even "usually") completely ignore VFR aircraft calls, and if they did acknowledge you at all, it was merely a "remain clear" and forget about flight following.

It wasn't until some newer controllers started entering the picture that we started getting better service.

See, that is where I believe the misinformation or misconception lies. Sure, it may seem as though the new crop of controllers are more accomodating than the "old guard." But if we are talking about ways to move transient traffic, that's the tip of the iceberg on the whole story.

Until a few years ago, O'Hare utilized consistently changing converging runway operations. Sometimes, runway configurations changed multiple times a shift. Whenever the runway confiiguration at ORD changed, the entire TRACON airspace changed with it. If an aircraft was flying at 4,000 feet in an area that was once satellite airspace, but now belongs to ORD arrivals, that aircraft had to be vectored immediately out of the airspace. Factor in the volume of traffic ORD sees daily, and you multiply the complexity of the airspace and the operation. This rendered being able to allow transient aircraft transition impossible. I'll use your OP as an example.

You're flying your 150 KTAS Mooney around the south of TRACON airspace. An intrepid C90 controller calls Chicago Center and tells the controller to give you a northbound heading as a shortcut. They advise that you'll have to fly at 4,000 feet, but at least you got a great shortcut. The winds are out of the southwest, and ORD is landing Plan Weird (22R, 27L, and 28R). The plan is to take you 15 miles west of ORD at 4,000. This keeps you out of the way of MDW and ORD, and allows the satellite controllers to keep launching ARR, DPA, and other GA satellite IFR traffic without delay.

Fast forward twelve minutes, and you've traveled nearly 36 miles since you told Center there was a Santa Claus. The winds are now calm at the primary airport, and ORD has a huge departure bank taxiing out to the runway. The big evening arrival rush is about to enter the airspace as well. The tower changes the configuration to Plan X (landing 4R, 10L, and 9R - arguably best configuration for departures and arrivals) to accomodate the traffic. Rather than be away from the arrivals and a simple pointout to the satellite positions, your aircraft is now in the grille of every 4R and 10L arrival as they turn to the runway at 4,000. Going to 3,000 will shut down every satellite airport west of ORD, so that option isn't feasible. The controller working your flight has to get you out of the way. He turns you due west until you are near the airspace boundary with RFD approach control. You start to wonder if the controller forgot about you, because you've gone nearly 30 miles off your direct routing. By the time you go direct, you've traveled the same flying miles had you stayed on your original route of flight.

Yes, the configuration at ORD could (and often did) change that quickly.

Things have changed a lot since then. Nowadays, ORD stays primarily in a West Flow/East Flow operation. We utilize parallel approaches on three runways, and rarely does the airport change runway configurations during the course of a shift. That means that offering additional services become feasible rather than an impossible feat. Your flight to MSN can transit more direct, because the airspace configuration doesn't prohibit such an act like it used to.

These visits are incredibly valuable, but I wish some of the information could be disseminated to pilots. We're all on the same team, really! I know a fair amount about airspace I operate in frequently, but it'd sure be nice if we knew the best routes and altitudes to file and expect beforehand - It'd make life easier on both sides of the mic.

I agree. There exists a lot of misinformation and conjecture. This misinformation exists in both the Part 91 community as well as the Part 121/135 community.

A group of us are trying to do something about it. The NATCA locals from Chicago TRACON, O'Hare ATCT, Midway ATCT, and Chicago ARTCC will host an aviation symposium at Lewis University (LOT) on June 6, 2015. I'll create a new thread with the information.

 

[ahkahn]

A group of us are trying to do something about it. The NATCA locals from Chicago TRACON, O'Hare ATCT, Midway ATCT, and Chicago ARTCC will host an aviation symposium at Lewis University (LOT) on June 6, 2015. I'll create a new thread with the information.

Great! I will be there.

 

[RudyP]

So basically you guys won't accommodate a GA plane trying to save some significant time on the offhand chance that something *might* happen that could make your job a tiny bit more complicated down the line. That does check.

At the end of the day, it seems to be a cultural/leadership issue. C90 controllers seem to think that their job is managing airliners into ORD and MDW and any accommodations that they make to transient/GA aircraft are out of the goodness of their own hearts. I'm sure there is much patting oneself on the back when you recall that 3 weeks ago, at 4AM you let a Cessna clip the bravo. Remember that one time? Wasn't that so nice of you guys?

Other busy ATC facilities view it as their job to handle ALL traffic - including the bugsmasher with the terrible foreign accent who doesnt seem to know exactly where he is and wants radar vectors all over your bravo. Those guys get handled in other very busy bravos, believe it or not- and the controllers act like it is their job to work with them, not some huge favor that they grant to the anointed few when the conditions are perfect and they got some action that morning. Believe it or not, other controllers will even occasionall turn or give an altitude restriction to an AIRLINER to accommodate a piston plane!! I know that must seem like sorcery to a C90 controller but it can be done!

 

[ahkahn]

So basically you guys won't accommodate a GA plane trying to save some significant time on the offhand chance that something *might* happen that could make your job a tiny bit more complicated down the line. That does check.

At the end of the day, it seems to be a cultural/leadership issue. C90 controllers seem to think that their job is managing airliners into ORD and MDW and any accommodations that they make to transient/GA aircraft are out of the goodness of their own hearts. I'm sure there is much patting oneself on the back when you recall that 3 weeks ago, at 4AM you let a Cessna clip the bravo. Remember that one time? Wasn't that so nice of you guys?

Other busy ATC facilities view it as their job to handle ALL traffic - including the bugsmasher with the terrible foreign accent who doesnt seem to know exactly where he is and wants radar vectors all over your bravo. Those guys get handled in other very busy bravos, believe it or not- and the controllers act like it is their job to work with them, not some huge favor that they grant to the anointed few when the conditions are perfect and they got some action that morning. Believe it or not, other controllers will even occasionall turn or give an altitude restriction to an AIRLINER to accommodate a piston plane!! I know that must seem like sorcery to a C90 controller but it can be done!

Rudy, I'm not sure how often you travel up to Chicagoland area, but as someone whose home drome is under the bravo and I fly all directions from there, 95% of the time I get great service out of Approach. I think you're being awfully unfair to Mark, and seem to really be showing your unfamiliarity with the airspace up here.

 

[EdFred]

I still don't see why there can't be a VFR corridor that goes directly north south over ORD above 5,000. Even if using 4/22 or 14/32 at ORD, none of the 121 traffic would be at that altitude, and it should be above PWK and the MDW traffic to/from the west as well.

 

[RudyP]

I fly to Chicago probably 4-5 times a year and transit C90 another 4-5 times a year so maybe my limited experience is leading me to be harsher than I need but for me, it has been night and day compared to a lot of other busy airspace (e.g., I fly in NYC airspace every week).

I'll tell you that I have long since given up on trying to go VFR through that area and am 100% IFR now.

 

[ahkahn]

EdFred - Your line looks great, and I agree with you, the only problem is that further south your hitting the Midway arrival path coming off of JOT. To transition through that path you usually have to be below 3000' or so.

Rudy - I can't comment on NYC airspace because I've never flown around it, so I have no comparison. I can say that I did a lot of VFR and IFR flying down in Florida and C90 looks great compared to Miami approach. If you try to go VFR, you'll have to transition west over to KJOT and north up through KDPA. Stay below 3600' and you're good.

 

[EdFred]

EdFred - Your line looks great, and I agree with you, the only problem is that further south your hitting the Midway arrival path coming off of JOT. To transition through that path you usually have to be below 3000' or so.

Rudy - I can't comment on NYC airspace because I've never flown around it, so I have no comparison. I can say that I did a lot of VFR and IFR flying down in Florida and C90 looks great compared to Miami approach. If you try to go VFR, you'll have to transition west over to KJOT and north up through KDPA. Stay below 3600' and you're good.

Well, then move the corridor "down" so it's only 3000-4000 (or even 2500-3500), and you stay under the MDW traffic. Keep in mind, this is all Mode C area, and also see and avoid. This isn't an IFR transition. VFR only. There isn't *that* much traffic in and out of Midway. I've flown in that area quite a bit, and going into MDW it isn't a string of pearls like ORD can be. And you'd still be above the traffic at ORD. I figure any departing traffic at ORD that has to go the opposite direction from take off would be above the corridor by the time they make their turn.

PWK might be an issue at 2500-3500 though.

 

[MarkZ]

Well, then move the corridor "down" so it's only 3000-4000 (or even 2500-3500), and you stay under the MDW traffic. Keep in mind, this is all Mode C area, and also see and avoid. This isn't an IFR transition. VFR only. There isn't *that* much traffic in and out of Midway. I've flown in that area quite a bit, and going into MDW it isn't a string of pearls like ORD can be. And you'd still be above the traffic at ORD. I figure any departing traffic at ORD that has to go the opposite direction from take off would be above the corridor by the time they make their turn.

PWK might be an issue at 2500-3500 though.

Since this "VFR corridor" goes through the Bravo, hence Positive Control Airspace, how does the altitudes you offer give a chance for the controller to ensure wake turbulence separation in accordance with 7110.65 5-5-4f?

 

[EdFred]

Since this "VFR corridor" goes through the Bravo, hence Positive Control Airspace, how does the altitudes you offer give a chance for the controller to ensure wake turbulence separation in accordance with 7110.65 5-5-4f?

f. Separate aircraft operating directly behind, or
directly behind and less than 1,000 feet below, or
following an aircraft conducting an instrument
approach by:

Make sure not to do the bold. Not that difficult. Make sure the heavies cross the VFR corridor more than 1000' above it.

 

[MarkZ]

Make sure not to do the bold. Not that difficult. Make sure the heavies cross the VFR corridor more than 1000' above it.

You forgot the rest of the paragraph...

f. Separate aircraft operating directly behind, or directly behind and less than 1,000 feet below, or following an aircraft conducting an instrument approach by:
NOTE−
1. When applying wake turbulence separation criteria, directly behind means an aircraft is operating within 2,500 feet of the flight path of the leading aircraft over the surface of the earth.
2. Consider parallel runways less than 2,500 feet apart as a single runway because of the possible effects of wake turbulence.
1. Heavy behind heavy− 4 miles.
2. Large/heavy behind B757− 4 miles.
3. Small behind B757− 5 miles.
4. Small/large behind heavy − 5 miles.

Currently, the airspace over ORD is locked from the ground to 5,000 with ORD arrivals in the finals area, and ORD departures everywhere else. 6,000 is in use by MDW, PWK, and sometimes ORD as well. 7,000 and up is in use by ORD arrival traffic. Are you suggesting having ORD arrivals enter dump zones higher than 7,000? What altitude would work in your view?

If that notion be entertained, your graphic suggests starting the corridor at 15 DME ORD, unless drawn that way for simplicity sake. In either case, what altitudes and where would you assign VFR aircraft for safe transition through the corridor?

 

[EdFred]

You forgot the rest of the paragraph...



Currently, the airspace over ORD is locked from the ground to 5,000 with ORD arrivals in the finals area, and ORD departures everywhere else. 6,000 is in use by MDW, PWK, and sometimes ORD as well. 7,000 and up is in use by ORD arrival traffic. Are you suggesting having ORD arrivals enter dump zones higher than 7,000? What altitude would work in your view?

If that notion be entertained, your graphic suggests starting the corridor at 15 DME ORD, unless drawn that way for simplicity sake. In either case, what altitudes and where would you assign VFR aircraft for safe transition through the corridor?

If I could see all the approach/departure corridors it would be much easier. But why do you have anything closed off directly above ORD? No airliners for ORD should ever be there.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Things have changed a lot since then. Nowadays, ORD stays primarily in a West Flow/East Flow operation. We utilize parallel approaches on three runways, and rarely does the airport change runway configurations during the course of a shift. That means that offering additional services become feasible rather than an impossible feat. Your flight to MSN can transit more direct, because the airspace configuration doesn't prohibit such an act like it used to.

Mark,

Thanks for the explanation - Fascinating.

I'm based at MWC these days, so VFR I go down the lakeshore, IFR is even further out of my way than it used to be.

I don't see the need for a VFR corridor through the Bravo as long as the lake shore route is an option. Unfortunately, the stadium TFR messes that up during White Sox and Bears games, the new-ish 22 arrival in to MDW makes things very scary in terms of wake turbulence, and I'm afraid that if Obama moves back to Chicago when he's done at 1600 Pennsylvania that the lakeshore route will become but a memory. Hope not.

IFR, though... Now that things are different at ORD, is there any chance that you guys could start accepting something like OBK ORD CGT (which goes right over the top of MDW too) up in the 6,000 or 7,000 range or higher?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

If I could see all the approach/departure corridors it would be much easier. But why do you have anything closed off directly above ORD? No airliners for ORD should ever be there.

Ed,

I think it's because the tower has an area where they can throw departures into the sky at will (without having to phone the TRACON each time, which would be a significant additional workload with that much traffic) and departure has to be able to accept them and they have to be separated from anything that might be there.

In Madison, for example, they run either a north or south flow. In a north flow, everything south of an east-west line through the airport is for approaches, and north of that line is the departure area and I think it extends 10 miles from the field. Within that semicircle, in the arc from 270 through the 14/32 centerline and from the 3/21 centerline to 090 up to 3,000 is used for VFR departures, and in between the runway centerlines up to 5,000 is used for IFR departures. If you're VFR at 4500, the airport is in a north flow, and you're going to pass within 10 miles, you're either going to get vectored farther north or around the south end of the field, depending on traffic and what you're doing.

That's the kind of information I wish we had access to as pilots. It's been very helpful to me, now I'll climb above 5000 and get direct if I'm going to go through that area. No, I don't expect a Private Pilot candidate to have to know it, but those with more experience, higher ratings, and who travel more often could make things easier on ATC and ourselves if we had a clue whether we'd be helping ATC out by being at a certain altitude, filing a certain route, etc. Kind of like how once you go into Wings enough times, you just go ahead and file to BUNTS on the way in.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Currently, the airspace over ORD is locked from the ground to 5,000 with ORD arrivals in the finals area, and ORD departures everywhere else. 6,000 is in use by MDW, PWK, and sometimes ORD as well. 7,000 and up is in use by ORD arrival traffic. Are you suggesting having ORD arrivals enter dump zones higher than 7,000? What altitude would work in your view?

Mark,

What is a "dump zone"? If it's what it sounds like, why are airliners not flying SIDs and STARs instead of being "dumped" at 7,000 above ORD?

I'm sure the smart people at the FAA who have such an intricately stacked puzzle for getting traffic in and out of Airventure can surely find a couple thousand feet for us flivvers on a defined route.

 

[EdFred]

I picture it this way:

Landing West at ORD, anything arriving from parts north of the field should be OBK -> THORR -> LAIRD -> Final approach course. Let's work backwards from ORD on a 3 degree approach the entire way, but I'm lazy so let's call it 300'/nm which if my math is right, is close. Let's also say ORD is 700' MSL - again, because I am lazy. So from ORD to LAIRD is 14nm - 4200'+700' = 4900' from LAIRD to THORR is 8nm, that's another 2400' which puts the 121'ers at 7300' and another 17nm (5100') to OBK puts them above 12,000MSL. (12,400')

Arrivals from points south, similar, JOT -> NILES -> LAIRD -> Final
Still 4900 at LAIRD,
8500 at NILES (well above Midway landing/departing 31LRC)
and it's 20nm back to the N/S corridor (14500)

Traffic that has to head east would have a similar set up on the west side of the field.
Flip it around for landing/departing to the east.

Obviously straight in traffic shouldn't be an issue.
So, ORD traffic should never be an issue for the N/S vfr corridor.

Now, lets wedge MDW in there.
Landing/Departing 31

Departing 31 from MDW until the ORD 10DME is 4nm, turn to the west to where it hits the N/S corridor is another 4nm. 2400' + 600' for MDW puts departing traffic at 3000'
Landing on 13 puts the 121er at about the same altitude.

So, start the corridor at 4,000, cap it at 7,000 and that gives 1000' of separation with no wake turbulence issues. You could even have American/United cross OBK at 10,000 and have 3,000 vertical feet of separation.

Where have I gone wrong with my suggestion?

 

[SkyHog]

LAX and LAS both have corridors....

 

[EdFred]

LAX and LAS both have corridors....

And New York lets you fly right up the Hudson.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I picture it this way:

Landing West at ORD, anything arriving from parts north of the field should be OBK -> THORR -> LAIRD -> Final approach course. Let's work backwards from ORD on a 3 degree approach the entire way, but I'm lazy so let's call it 300'/nm which if my math is right, is close. Let's also say ORD is 700' MSL - again, because I am lazy. So from ORD to LAIRD is 14nm - 4200'+700' = 4900' from LAIRD to THORR is 8nm, that's another 2400' which puts the 121'ers at 7300' and another 17nm (5100') to OBK puts them above 12,000MSL. (12,400')

Arrivals from points south, similar, JOT -> NILES -> LAIRD -> Final
Still 4900 at LAIRD,
8500 at NILES (well above Midway landing/departing 31LRC)
and it's 20nm back to the N/S corridor (14500)

Traffic that has to head east would have a similar set up on the west side of the field.
Flip it around for landing/departing to the east.

Obviously straight in traffic shouldn't be an issue.
So, ORD traffic should never be an issue for the N/S vfr corridor.

Now, lets wedge MDW in there.
Landing/Departing 31

Departing 31 from MDW until the ORD 10DME is 4nm, turn to the west to where it hits the N/S corridor is another 4nm. 2400' + 600' for MDW puts departing traffic at 3000'
Landing on 13 puts the 121er at about the same altitude.

So, start the corridor at 4,000, cap it at 7,000 and that gives 1000' of separation with no wake turbulence issues. You could even have American/United cross OBK at 10,000 and have 3,000 vertical feet of separation.

Where have I gone wrong with my suggestion?

What do you do with departures? Restrict them to 3000 feet until x miles from the field?

 

[EdFred]

What do you do with departures? Restrict them to 3000 feet until x miles from the field?

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.

 

[Approach_controller]

Mark,

What is a "dump zone"? If it's what it sounds like, why are airliners not flying SIDs and STARs instead of being "dumped" at 7,000 above ORD

I'm not at C90, but a dump zone is slang for the area which the finals controller can descend from the STARs altitude floor. I think what he's getting at is in order to make the suggestion work, the ORD downwind jets will be forced to stay higher by at least 1000 feet, which in my experience necessitates wholesale airspace and procedure changes at a minimum.

 

[MarkZ]

If I could see all the approach/departure corridors it would be much easier. But why do you have anything closed off directly above ORD? No airliners for ORD should ever be there.

Unfortunately, I can't post that information on a public Internet forum. I can tell you that we routinely "turn in" ORD arrival aircraft to different runways, making it necessary to have the aircraft overfly the airport to establish on the proper downwind for the new runway. In addition, your depiction of arrival flows is way wider than we run. We run things tight at ORD to facilitate satellite operations, our downwind legs run no further than 4-5 miles from the runway.

Mark,

Thanks for the explanation - Fascinating.

I'm based at MWC these days, so VFR I go down the lakeshore, IFR is even further out of my way than it used to be.

I don't see the need for a VFR corridor through the Bravo as long as the lake shore route is an option. Unfortunately, the stadium TFR messes that up during White Sox and Bears games, the new-ish 22 arrival in to MDW makes things very scary in terms of wake turbulence, and I'm afraid that if Obama moves back to Chicago when he's done at 1600 Pennsylvania that the lakeshore route will become but a memory. Hope not.

IFR, though... Now that things are different at ORD, is there any chance that you guys could start accepting something like OBK ORD CGT (which goes right over the top of MDW too) up in the 6,000 or 7,000 range or higher?

You are welcome. Honestly, when I see certain users post denigrating responses in what seems an attempt to bait a negatory response, I become hesitant to continue taking part in POA. Thank you for keeping the conversation cordial and professional.

Mark,

What is a "dump zone"? If it's what it sounds like, why are airliners not flying SIDs and STARs instead of being "dumped" at 7,000 above ORD?

I'm sure the smart people at the FAA who have such an intricately stacked puzzle for getting traffic in and out of Airventure can surely find a couple thousand feet for us flivvers on a defined route.

You are correct in assuming a dump zone is the arrival area of airspace controllers utilize to provide final sequencing of arrivals to the runway extended centerline (99.9% of the case at ORD that is the localizer of the runway in use). Arrivals enter the dump zones at 7,000 on a downwind STAR or on a radar vector (non-RNAV equipped or close-in fix aircraft). Using the STAR, our downwind legs are typically 5 miles from the outboard runways. On West Flow, our outboards are typically 28C and 27R. Once in the dump, controllers can descend the aircraft to the appropriate altitude for the approach in use. At ORD we use a standard pattern (downwind, base, final) for all arrivals.

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?

I'm not at C90, but a dump zone is slang for the area which the finals controller can descend from the STARs altitude floor. I think what he's getting at is in order to make the suggestion work, the ORD downwind jets will be forced to stay higher by at least 1000 feet, which in my experience necessitates wholesale airspace and procedure changes at a minimum.

Exactly. Since we are talking about VFR operations, if any VFR could fly over the field, the field will undoubtedly be running visual approaches on the outboards. During those times, we put aircraft as low, as slow, and as close as possible to the airport to afford pilots the best chance of spotting the airport. Sure, we could have arrivals enter the dump zone higher than 7,000 without incurring a delay to the arrivals.

The only time this happens is when we run simultaneous parallel approaches, due to aircraft not being able to spot the airport for a visual approach. In that case, all ORD arrivals turn final at least 18 miles out from the field. It is hardly an efficient operation, but it is the safest operation when weather conditions prohibit usage of visual approaches. At that point, there are very few VFR aircraft in the sky. :wink2:

 

[Jmcmanna]

2014 total Ops:

ORD: 881,933
EWR 402,281
JFK 431,236
LAX 636,706
LGA 370,012
MIA 402,663

ORD does double the traffic of most of the other airports mentioned that are more "GA friendly". LAX has the mini-route, among others, but none of its arrival traffic comes from the west (the pacific landers are routed either north or south) and it's doesn't have a MDW-sized airport 13 miles away with crossing traffic.

ORD class B airspace is designed to accommodate ORD traffic. If you want to come land at ORD VFR, come on it; you may be delayed, because the airport is over-scheduled most of the day, but you'll get in. If you're not going with the flow of traffic, then you have to go around.

If you refuse to come visit the operation and have never worked on the ATC side of the frequency, then you're never going to truly understand how the system works and assume that controllers are being lazy or refusing to provide services for their own amusement.

I personally gave a class B clearance to a PA24 recently as soon as he was past the 28C centerline, restricted MDW departures below him, and made a suggestion as to an altitude and ZAU frequency to ensure that they wouldn't become tangled with a stream of ORD arrivals. I believe that pilot is one of the people in this thread who continues to complain that C90 is unaccommodating and airliners full of people should wait on his airplane as it travels wherever he feels like going.

 

[EdFred]

Unfortunately, I can't post that information on a public Internet forum. I can tell you that we routinely "turn in" ORD arrival aircraft to different runways, making it necessary to have the aircraft overfly the airport to establish on the proper downwind for the new runway. In addition, your depiction of arrival flows is way wider than we run. We run things tight at ORD to facilitate satellite operations, our downwind legs run no further than 4-5 miles from the runway.

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!"

 

[EdFred]

2014 total Ops:

ORD: 881,933
EWR 402,281
JFK 431,236
LAX 636,706
LGA 370,012
MIA 402,663

The numbers in bold add up to way more than 881,933, and they do just fine handling VFR guys.

 

[Jmcmanna]

Three different airports....how come we can discount MDW as its a different airport, but suddenly LGA, EWR, and JFK count as one?