routing thru/around Chicago

[twdeckard]

Any suggestions on the routing to expect/request to get from door county down the West side of Lake Michigan enroute to Ohio.

For those who have met me, its the standard calculation: the family will sit in an airplane for exactly four hours and if I am to go any further -- we must go faster. In this case, its warp-182 and I am flirting with the absolute endurance limit. I'd rather not get flushed too far out over The Big Lake, are there preferred fixes for a north-to-south thru Chicago?

I could manage 12,000 but I seem to recall that, if I insisted on IFR, this provided no majik optimal path.

 

[roncachamp]

Any suggestions on the routing to expect/request to get from door county down the West side of Lake Michigan enroute to Ohio.

What is your destination in Ohio and what are your navigational capabilities?

 

[twdeckard]

Greetings Steve, I was hoping you would chime in on this!

182/G. I am headed to I19 (using DAY) in Ohio (leaving from 2P2).

Todd

 

[W. Stewart]

On my only trip up your way, to bring home my 210 from New Richmond, WI to its new home in NC, I was told on one of these boards to expect to be routed through KELSI (intersection a bit SW of Chicago). The 30,000 hour CFI that accompanied me had me file something different, which we were initially cleared for. As we approached Chicago, we were re-routed .. . through KELSI.

I am betting you get KELSI!

Wells

 

[bbchien]

Cross the ORD Bravo at 11,000 (it ends at 10,000). They will not let you go there if you are on VFR advisories- you'll get vectored away and then you'll have to drop FF anyway. They NEVER let you into their "turbojet only" airspace.

Land and get fuel on the other side- SBA or the FWA if you can make it, lunch, refuel, file.

That's the only way to deal with C90. They want nothing to do with you. I routinely cross at 16,000 with oxygen for all aboard, IFR. I have tried every other way.

The only other way is RFD JOT RBS. Long, long long.

If you have engine troubles, you can at least use your emergency authority and land, rather than expose your family to the 55 degrees of Lake Michigan waters. I have never understood how C90's total exclusion of GA serves safety.

 

[twdeckard]

Yes the Kelsi routing is what I was expecting on the West Side. I have used the bait and switch (file to Meigs and then amend) but I was hoping that there was some magic secret corridor.

Todd

 

[gismo]

Todd, where in Door County are you departing from, KSUE or 3D2? You might want to consider crossing Lake Michigan. Straight across from 3D2 towards KACB keeps you within 19nm of the shore at all times. If you climb to 14,000 or higher I think you'd be able to glide close enough to land that you wouldn't have to swim, just wade ashore. You can legally remain at 14000 for 30 minutes but that does pretty much guarantee that your mental processes will be slowed but by flying a parabolic or triagular vertical profile you can minimize the time spent above 12,000. Alternatively you could borrow my portable O2 system as I don't expect to need it for a while.

By flying across the lake you'll eliminate the need to deal with ORD completely.

Edit: When I was a member. TCC7 had one or two portable systems available to members. Is this still true?

 

[twdeckard]

Straight across from 3D2 towards KACB keeps you within 19nm of the shore at all times. If you climb to 14,000 or higher I think you'd be able to glide close enough to land that you wouldn't have to swim, just wade ashore.

This is a good idea, I had plotted about 25nm halfway from KSUE to Frankfort (I am departing 2p2 but figure I'd test out the engine with the continous power climb down the peninsula). Actually I am thinking about going round the north way and calling it a trip to Mackinac. If it involves horses I suspect my daughter would make the trip in an open cockpit biplane followed by a parachute drop.

Your right the club does have an oxygen system for checkout, I've used it before out West. Thanks for the offer though!

I'll doodle out some scenarios. I was hoping Steve could offer some kind of ATC open-sesame that was craftier than filing to Gary and then changing my mind over the skyway. I am inclined to try V7 and make sure I have some altitude.

Thanks all!

 

[roncachamp]

Greetings Steve, I was hoping you would chime in on this!

182/G. I am headed to I19 (using DAY) in Ohio (leaving from 2P2).

DAY or DQN?

2P2 direct RFD V128 SMARS direct DQN direct I19 will avoid Chicago approach.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

DAY or DQN?

2P2 direct RFD V128 SMARS direct DQN direct I19 will avoid Chicago approach.

Yep, right through KELSI.

Todd, any reason this has to be IFR? Best way "around" Chicago is to shoot down the lakeshore VFR.

Options:

* The "Screw it, I'm going direct" way: 365nm.
* 2P2 to the little outcropping near Institute, WI across 42nm of water to the point near KFKS direct I19: 391nm.
* 2P2 down the lakeshore, under the Bravo, direct I19 from Gary: 431nm.
* 2P2 to Schoolcraft (ISQ) to Beaver Island (SJX) to I19: 445nm.
* 2P2 -D> KELSI -D> I19: 504nm (gets a hair close to C90 on the WNW side, may have to do the next route)
* Steve's suggestion (and I'm guessing it's one that comes from experience!): 2P2 RFD V128 SMARS I19: 520nm - A 42% increase over direct.

I think you're beginning to see why I want a twin!

 

[roncachamp]

Cross the ORD Bravo at 11,000 (it ends at 10,000). They will not let you go there if you are on VFR advisories- you'll get vectored away and then you'll have to drop FF anyway.

You might want to consider a VFR cruising altitude.

 

[roncachamp]

I'll doodle out some scenarios. I was hoping Steve could offer some kind of ATC open-sesame that was craftier than filing to Gary and then changing my mind over the skyway. I am inclined to try V7 and make sure I have some altitude.

V7 at 12,000 puts you through Chicago approach, that just ain't gonna happen.

 

[roncachamp]

Options:

* 2P2 to Escanaba (ISQ) to Beaver Island (SJX) to I19: 445nm.

Escanaba is ESC, ISQ is Schoolcraft County. 2P2 to ISQ to PLN would always be within 10 miles of terra firma.

 

[ScottM]

My suggestion is to schedule a fuel stop at Lansing, IL. There the family can enjoy Shannon's landing and you will be routed most likely first to EON but then get vectors once you are handed off to Chi-App and avoid having to actually going there.

Then refile and you can easily get RV to JOT, north at 3000 feet and then direct to I19 once you get to about where 3CK is.

 

[sba55]

I'd go direct VFR, staying within gliding distance of the shore. Why go the extra distance?

Light piston twins just give you more time until the crash.

 

[gismo]

This is a good idea, I had plotted about 25nm halfway from KSUE to Frankfort (I am departing 2p2 but figure I'd test out the engine with the continous power climb down the peninsula). Actually I am thinking about going round the north way and calling it a trip to Mackinac. If it involves horses I suspect my daughter would make the trip in an open cockpit biplane followed by a parachute drop.

Your right the club does have an oxygen system for checkout, I've used it before out West. Thanks for the offer though!

I'll doodle out some scenarios. I was hoping Steve could offer some kind of ATC open-sesame that was craftier than filing to Gary and then changing my mind over the skyway. I am inclined to try V7 and make sure I have some altitude.

Thanks all!

If you stop at MCD you can catch the horse drawn taxi ride to town, but that's about the only horse experience you'll get other than what they leave behind on the ground.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Escanaba is ESC, ISQ is Schoolcraft County. 2P2 to ISQ to PLN would always be within 10 miles of terra firma.

Gaaah! I knew that. I don't know why I said Escanaba. I meant Schoolcraft County. I got the identifier right at least!

My suggestion is to schedule a fuel stop at Lansing, IL. There the family can enjoy Shannon's landing and you will be routed most likely first to EON but then get vectors once you are handed off to Chi-App and avoid having to actually going there.

Then refile and you can easily get RV to JOT, north at 3000 feet and then direct to I19 once you get to about where 3CK is.

Uhhh, Scott - I19 is in Ohio. I don't think they're gonna take him north at all, and nowhere near 3CK.

I'd go direct VFR, staying within gliding distance of the shore. Why go the extra distance?

Because "direct" and "within gliding distance of the shore" are mutually exclusive in a 182 along the direct route.

 

[ScottM]

Uhhh, Scott - I19 is in Ohio. I don't think they're gonna take him north at all, and nowhere near 3CK.

Silly me. I thought Door County was north of Chicago. Did us FIBS move it so that we don't have as far to drive?

But I see I was routing him from Ohio to Door County when he really wanted to go from Door County to Ohio.

In that case just fill the other way to an airport around Chicago. That will avoid the over water clearance and far to the west (RFD area) routing.

If it is VFR file to 10C, Cancel with MKE-APP and then when you get in Chi-App airspace pick up your new clearance which will be basically south to DPA and the RV to EON and east. Form 10C to EON you will be under 4000 MSL.

 

[sba55]

Because "direct" and "within gliding distance of the shore" are mutually exclusive in a 182 along the direct route.

No, it's not if you're high enough. And if you want to go lower, you either alter your course so that you're not too far from shore or you are out of gliding distance for a few minutes.

This doesn't seem like it needs to be a hard problem.

 

[mikea]

No, it's not if you're high enough. And if you want to go lower, you either alter your course so that you're not too far from shore or you are out of gliding distance for a few minutes.

This doesn't seem like it needs to be a hard problem.

It's not a hard problem, as I remember my calculations said I need to be at 27,000 feet.

Narrowest point on Lake Michigan is 50 sm. Best glide, 90 MPH, 1000 FPM...and you need a landing spot E-W or allow for a turn for the beach.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

No, it's not if you're high enough.

Yes, it is. We're talking 42nm of water if you go straight across (not direct destination, but roughly perpendicular to the shoreline) at the narrowest spots. The 182 does not glide well at all, and to be within gliding distance of shore you have to go higher than the airplane's service ceiling. So, like I said:

"direct" and "within gliding distance of the shore" are mutually exclusive in a 182 along the direct route.

I've attached the spreadsheet I created a few years ago to work on this problem. The performance numbers listed are real-world numbers for the 182 that I fly, gathered by actually flying the airplane.

And if you want to go lower, you either alter your course so that you're not too far from shore or you are out of gliding distance for a few minutes.

I generally go as high as I can without oxygen. My exposure time is relatively short, but if I lose it in the middle I'm going to hit the water a long way from shore. That's why I do this only during peak boating season.

This doesn't seem like it needs to be a hard problem.

I used to think so, too. Then, one of the planes I have flown ended up at the bottom of the lake. The pilot survived the ditching (he was able to make a 911 call from the surface), but died from hypothermia/drowning despite being a competitive swimmer. Since then, it hasn't seemed quite so easy.

 

[gismo]

It's not a hard problem, as I remember my calculations said I need to be at 27,000 feet.

Narrowest point on Lake Michigan is 50 sm. Best glide, 90 MPH, 1000 FPM...and you need a landing spot E-W or allow for a turn for the beach.

Actually the narrowest crossing is only 36 nm or 40 sm overwater. According to the POH for a 1981 182 the power off glide covers 1.45 nm per 1000 ft of vertical descent. With the lake at about 600 MSL you'd need to be at 13,000 MSL to reach the shore from the center of those 36 nm. Flying direct from 2p2 to i19 never puts you more than 21 nm from the nearest shore and by my calculations you'd only need 15,000 MSL to reach the shore.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Actually the narrowest crossing is only 36 nm or 40 sm overwater.

Where's that?

According to the POH for a 1981 182 the power off glide covers 1.45 nm per 1000 ft of vertical descent.

Based on my real-world testing, that's what I'd call "highly optimistic." Of course, there are the usual caveats about how the book numbers come from a well-trained test pilot flying a brand-new airplane... In the real world, it's more like 1.3nm per 1000 feet. The spreadsheet (which I really did attach to my message now ) indicates that a 36nm crossing point would require 16,115 feet MSL to stay within gliding distance of shore.

 

[wsuffa]

Perhaps you file IFR to terminate at a point outside the Chicago B, climb up and over, and file another IFR plan from the south side of the B.

St. Louis gave me a hard time one day when I was filed at 13,000 and they wanted to send me 60+ miles out of the way - "cancel IFR, I'll go over the top as VFR" netted me a clearance over the top as IFR (they decided they'd rather talk to me). It WON'T work with Chicago, but the principal will: file IFR to some point outside the B, VFR over the B, then another clearance on the south side.

I19 is a nice airport. Dayton controllers are hit/miss with VFR traffic. You'll probably get routed around the C even on IFR.

 

[roncachamp]

Actually the narrowest crossing is only 36 nm or 40 sm overwater.

Actually, the narrowest crossing is only three miles, between Point La Barbe and McGulpin Point. There is no point more than 35 NM from land.

 

[sba55]

Yes, it is. We're talking 42nm of water if you go straight across (not direct destination, but roughly perpendicular to the shoreline) at the narrowest spots. The 182 does not glide well at all, and to be within gliding distance of shore you have to go higher than the airplane's service ceiling. So, like I said:

No. Assuming your 1.3 glide ratio number, 42nm means that you'd have to be at 16,000', well within the capabilities of that aircraft. So, either do that, or go at 12,500', and then you'd be out of gliding range to the shore for 4 minutes.

I used to think so, too. Then, one of the planes I have flown ended up at the bottom of the lake. The pilot survived the ditching (he was able to make a 911 call from the surface), but died from hypothermia/drowning despite being a competitive swimmer. Since then, it hasn't seemed quite so easy.

That's great, I'm not telling you that it's easy for you. Just that it's not a very hard problem, even in a 182.

 

[gismo]

Actually the narrowest crossing is only three miles, between Point La Barbe and McGulpin Point.

Ahh, rrright. I should have said the narrowest east-west crossing and specified that the distance across must be less than the distance from the line to the nearest shore to eliminate the .1 nm E/W "crossing" .05nm from shore near Gary IN.

 

[gismo]

No. Assuming your 1.3 glide ratio number, 42nm means that you'd have to be at 16,000', well within the capabilities of that aircraft. So, either do that, or go at 12,500', and then you'd be out of gliding range to the shore for 4 minutes.


That's great, I'm not telling you that it's easy for you. Just that it's not a very hard problem, even in a 182.

Given that the pilot Kent mentioned ran out of fuel with clearly way to little to make it across and that he had no floatation gear at all on board leads me to believe his flight could easily have turned out a lot better for him. Four minutes is a long time if you're sweating about low fuel, and 4 miles is a long way for anyone to swim in LM without something that floats. Granted that most of the year, the water temp isn't conducive to survival.

 

[nyoung]

I am based at 3CK (NW chicago suburbs) and have gotten exactly one ORD Bravo transit in my 12 years of flying here. That was very late at night, maybe 1am. I was VFR FF, center actually handed me off to approach (which is surprising itself) and then approach asked me my intentions of going around the Bravo. I said 'Lakeshore', and he said standby. A minute later, I was cleared into the Bravo, at I believe 8500 ft, told to fly directly over MDW and then ORD then direct 3CK. They kept me at 8500 until 1-2 miles from 3CK, and then let me divebomb back down.

Anyway - the point of telling this story... ORD transitions are very uncommon VFR or IFR, and if you file over ORD IFR... I expect they will vector you the long way around the Western edge of the Bravo. Departing 3CK towards the East, I usually file DPAv, JOTv, CGTv. But often do not get that... instead vectors.

When is your trip scheduled? With the exception of 1 day of 'isolated tstorms', the 10 day forecast in Chicago calls for Sunny weather !
Go VFR down the lakeshore and take in the view. If not comfortable with that - fly high and go VFR over ORD's airspace.

 

[ScottM]

I am based at 3CK (NW chicago suburbs) and have gotten exactly one ORD Bravo transit in my 12 years of flying here. That was very late at night, maybe 1am. I was VFR FF, center actually handed me off to approach (which is surprising itself) and then approach asked me my intentions of going around the Bravo. I said 'Lakeshore', and he said standby. A minute later, I was cleared into the Bravo, at I believe 8500 ft, told to fly directly over MDW and then ORD then direct 3CK. They kept me at 8500 until 1-2 miles from 3CK, and then let me divebomb back down.

Anyway - the point of telling this story... ORD transitions are very uncommon VFR or IFR, and if you file over ORD IFR... I expect they will vector you the long way around the Western edge of the Bravo. Departing 3CK towards the East, I usually file DPAv, JOTv, CGTv. But often do not get that... instead vectors.
.

Yep. I am based at 10C, 7 miles north of 3CK and I have gotten 1 and only VFR bravo transition. I have gotten into the bravo a few time while IFR. That has been towards the south when the active runways at ORD are the 27 and 28 ones.

Chicago Approach is set up and thinks of themselves more as O'Hare approach. All other operations are a distant 2nd priority and the airspace is exclusively for ORD. That is jsut the way it is around here.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

No. Assuming your 1.3 glide ratio number, 42nm means that you'd have to be at 16,000', well within the capabilities of that aircraft. So, either do that, or go at 12,500', and then you'd be out of gliding range to the shore for 4 minutes.

Maybe I miscalculated in my head - But if you look at the spreadsheet I posted, you'll see that the minimum altitude to remain within gliding distance of shore along that route is 18,705 feet which is above the service ceiling of the airplane. You said

I'd go direct VFR, staying within gliding distance of the shore. Why go the extra distance?

which is simply not possible on that route in that airplane.

Given that the pilot Kent mentioned ran out of fuel with clearly way to little to make it across and that he had no floatation gear at all on board leads me to believe his flight could easily have turned out a lot better for him.

Yep. He pulled a stoooopid. It was more the thoughts of dying via a cold bath that got to me. I wouldn't be running short of fuel over LM for sure, but you never know what else might go wrong.

Four minutes is a long time if you're sweating about low fuel, and 4 miles is a long way for anyone to swim in LM without something that floats. Granted that most of the year, the water temp isn't conducive to survival.

Yup. "Four minutes" doesn't sound like much, because it's 4 minutes at cruise speed. It's long enough at swimming speed to be fatal in the cold water most of the year.

Anyway, I don't like single-point failures in flying. The engine quitting in those four minutes, most of the year, represents a single-point failure: That one thing happens, and you are dead. I have a pretty high risk tolerance, but that's one of the few things I will not do.

 

[bbchien]

Light piston twins just give you more time until the crash.

If you are a moron, that's true. It doesn't have to be, Felix.

 

[sba55]

If you are a moron, that's true. It doesn't have to be, Felix.

True. Few people (I'm sure you're one of them) fly their A/C in a way that would make their second engine useful were the first to quit. Think SE service ceiling at 4000', full gross, low time, and hot weather.

 

[sba55]

Maybe I miscalculated in my head - But if you look at the spreadsheet I posted, you'll see that the minimum altitude to remain within gliding distance of shore along that route is 18,705 feet which is above the service ceiling of the airplane. You said .

So it's not 27,000', like you (or somebody) claimed. 42 NM at 1.3/1000 would require an altitude of 16,000', which is easily attainable in a 182.

which is simply not possible on that route in that airplane.

See above. It is.

Yep. He pulled a stoooopid. It was more the thoughts of dying via a cold bath that got to me. I wouldn't be running short of fuel over LM for sure, but you never know what else might go wrong.

There isn't that much. Eliminating fuel exhaustion, engine failure are rare. And they are really rare if you have an engine monitor and know what to look for.

Anyway, I don't like single-point failures in flying. The engine quitting in those four minutes, most of the year, represents a single-point failure: That one thing happens, and you are dead. I have a pretty high risk tolerance, but that's one of the few things I will not do.

Fair enough. The risk is minimal - probably much lower than being hit by lightening - but it's certainly there.

-Felix

 

[flyingcheesehead]

So it's not 27,000', like you (or somebody) claimed. 42 NM at 1.3/1000 would require an altitude of 16,000', which is easily attainable in a 182.

That was Mike, who also owns a flying brick. I don't know what the performance of his airplane is. But did you READ my post? The actual altitude required to remain within gliding distance of shore (21nm) in the 182 that I fly is 18,705 feet which is above the service ceiling of the airplane.

<channeling Chris Tucker> Do you understand the words that are coming out of my keyboard?</channeling>

There isn't that much. Eliminating fuel exhaustion, engine failure are rare.

True - But they do happen. All failures are rare, does that mean we shouldn't plan for them?

 

[twdeckard]

...and having had an abrupt failure once (on the West side of Chicago) it makes me a little tentative about a long jaunt on the East side of it. Now I do own a home on an island, and I have flown to the Bahama's, but in those cases its a deliberate operational necessity. For most of the flights that bump into Lake Michigan -- you can go around.

Current scheming involves Macinack.

I really appreciate all the responses, I got a lot of flight planning scenarios for free!

 

[twdeckard]

If anyone is curious the west side routing was 2P2 SIMMN KELSI I19. The reciprocal was the same except when south of Chicago my daughter announced she had to go to the bathroom, pointed at a runway 5000ft below us and said "don't care if my ears pop, land there." VFR from KRZL to Gary then North along the lakeshore. Much shorter and frankly much prettier.

Even dodging the banner towers I was always within range of land except just around Milwaukee when they turned us out to sea to make room for a 25 approach. Even there -- if I had been more assertive with negotiating an altitude change far enough out I could have stayed feet dry the whole time.

I am filing IFR too often simply out of laziness or TFR phobia.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

If anyone is curious the west side routing was 2P2 SIMMN KELSI I19

Heh... Always, always KELSI. Forget a mid-air over a VOR, someday it's gonna rain aluminum at KELSI!

VFR from KRZL to Gary then North along the lakeshore. Much shorter and frankly much prettier.

I am filing IFR too often simply out of laziness or TFR phobia.

Funny, I'm going in the opposite direction - I call FSS for TFR's and then I don't wanna talk to anyone any more.

 

[roncachamp]

Current scheming involves Macinack.

Mackinac. You have a wandering k.

 

[poadeleted20]

Going from Findlay OH to Lone Rock WI at 8000 yesterday, we were given the choice of V38 KELSI or across the middle of the lake. We chose the "overland" route. The let us turn north about 15 east of KELSI.