Chicago Flying

[Marty]

A question to all you IL.guys.

How has flying down the Chi.lakefront changed since 9/11?

I used to fly down the lakefront quite regularly when I lived up there. It
was always a nice finish to dinner at Lake Lawn. I kinda miss the chats with
the Miegs :-( and Midway folks.

Marty

[Jim Macklin]

No place to land anymore.



"Marty" > wrote in message
...
|A question to all you IL.guys.
|
| How has flying down the Chi.lakefront changed since 9/11?
|
| I used to fly down the lakefront quite regularly when I
lived up there. It
| was always a nice finish to dinner at Lake Lawn. I kinda
miss the chats with
| the Miegs :-( and Midway folks.
|
| Marty
|
|

[Jay Honeck]

> How has flying down the Chi.lakefront changed since 9/11?

I haven't done the Chicago VFR corridor since King Daley bulldozed Meigs,
but I've been told it's actually much easier to fly it, now that Meigs is
gone. You can buzz right over the old island now, unimpeded.

What an idiot Daley is -- through ignorance, ineptitude, and criminal action
he has actually made it far EASIER for an aircraft to crash into downtown.

I was just watching a video of us landing at Lake Lawn (circa 1996) last
night, and the place was PACKED, including biz jets. Have you heard
anything about the runway at Lake Lawn? The resort is in the middle of a
zillion-dollar renovation, and I'm wondering if they're going to upgrade the
airport, which the last owners had abandoned a few years ago.

Last time I landed there (2004-ish) it was pretty sad.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Travis Marlatte]

No change other than no tower at Miegs. I regularly fly down the lakeshore
and around the city - either looping around on the west side of the city and
back north or squeeze between Midway and O'Hare and out west. Not much space
to work with either vertically or laterally but it works.

Midway controllers are pretty understanding and helpful but I know that
there is reluctance to bother them. Some pilots monitor O'Hare approach,
some monitor Miegs. Few bother to make contact. Bottom line - less safe as
its all up to see and avoid.

Now we are going to have a heliport right downtown. I haven't been able to
determine the exact plans but I don't think that they are going to staff a
tower. Even if there is not a lot of traffic, it will have to come in over
the lake mixing with any fixed wing passing through. Bottom line - even
more less safe.

It would be nice if they designated (and published) a CTAF for traffic along
the lakeshore so everyone could freely broadcast position reports. Is there
any precedent for such a thing or does it depend on grassroots effort to
start an unofficial convention?

--
-------------------------------
Travis
"Marty" > wrote in message
...
>A question to all you IL.guys.
>
> How has flying down the Chi.lakefront changed since 9/11?
>
> I used to fly down the lakefront quite regularly when I lived up there. It
> was always a nice finish to dinner at Lake Lawn. I kinda miss the chats
> with the Miegs :-( and Midway folks.
>
> Marty
>

[Nathan Young]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:10:50 -0600, "Marty" >
wrote:

>A question to all you IL.guys.
>
>How has flying down the Chi.lakefront changed since 9/11?

Now that Meigs is gone - we no longer have to talk to anyone, although
because of traffic, it is always a good idea to get flight following
from Approach.

I have not flown the lakeshore for a few months, but I believe there
is now a soundstage for the concerts held on the North end of the
field. Even in an emergency, I am not sure you could land
successfully on the field.

[RNR]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:04:35 GMT, "Travis Marlatte"
> wrote:

snipped...
>
>It would be nice if they designated (and published) a CTAF for traffic along
>the lakeshore so everyone could freely broadcast position reports. Is there
>any precedent for such a thing or does it depend on grassroots effort to
>start an unofficial convention?

There is a traffic reporting frequency for the VFR corridor up the
Hudson River in NYC. It is quite effective. I don't have any idea
what is involved in establishing such a thing.
Rich Russell

[Jim Macklin]

122.9
"RNR" > wrote in message
...
| On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:04:35 GMT, "Travis Marlatte"
| > wrote:
|
| snipped...
| >
| >It would be nice if they designated (and published) a
CTAF for traffic along
| >the lakeshore so everyone could freely broadcast position
reports. Is there
| >any precedent for such a thing or does it depend on
grassroots effort to
| >start an unofficial convention?
|
| There is a traffic reporting frequency for the VFR
corridor up the
| Hudson River in NYC. It is quite effective. I don't have
any idea
| what is involved in establishing such a thing.
| Rich Russell

[Rachel]

Nathan Young wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:10:50 -0600, "Marty" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>A question to all you IL.guys.
>>
>>How has flying down the Chi.lakefront changed since 9/11?
>
>
> Now that Meigs is gone - we no longer have to talk to anyone,

And we're all safer for it!

[Ron Natalie]

Marty wrote:
> A question to all you IL.guys.
>
> How has flying down the Chi.lakefront changed since 9/11?
>
I don't have to call Miegs anymore...I still talk to Gary.
Gary was always more talkative than Miegs was anyhow.

[Ron Natalie]

Nathan Young wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:10:50 -0600, "Marty" >
> wrote:
>
>> A question to all you IL.guys.
>>
>> How has flying down the Chi.lakefront changed since 9/11?
>
> Now that Meigs is gone - we no longer have to talk to anyone, although
> because of traffic, it is always a good idea to get flight following
> from Approach.
>
I actually found Chicago approach to be difficult and useless. Gary
provides decent advisories on their BRITE until you get too far
from them. I've dealt with approach controls all up and down
the east coast and as far west as Denver, but Chicago is the
most difficult to deal with VFR.

[.Blueskies.]

"Rachel" > wrote in message ...
> Nathan Young wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:10:50 -0600, "Marty" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>A question to all you IL.guys.
>>>
>>>How has flying down the Chi.lakefront changed since 9/11?
>>
>>
>> Now that Meigs is gone - we no longer have to talk to anyone,
>
> And we're all safer for it!
>

Just watch out for the helicopters...coming soon

[Travis Marlatte]

Maybe it's because I've done all my training here plus I probably have that
Chicago state of mind but I don't find them all that bad. I have a lot more
trouble with Milwaukee. Of course, if they are busy, forget about it.

Why did Jim suggest 122.9? I just checked the Chicago Terminal chart and
don't see it listed there. I think contacting Chicago App is the official
way to go.

Midway is very helpful and they are watching the same radar as O'Hare but
their world is pretty boxed in. If you feel nervous, your're on the south
side of Chicago, and Chicago App is too scarey, go for Midway.

If I am flying around the Class B, I usually monitor the appropriate Chicago
App frequency. If I hear them call me out as an unverified VFR traffic, then
I'll call up. Of course, there could be twenty other guys monitoring and
motoring along.

--
-------------------------------
Travis
"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Nathan Young wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:10:50 -0600, "Marty" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> A question to all you IL.guys.
>>>
>>> How has flying down the Chi.lakefront changed since 9/11?
>>
>> Now that Meigs is gone - we no longer have to talk to anyone, although
>> because of traffic, it is always a good idea to get flight following
>> from Approach.
> I actually found Chicago approach to be difficult and useless. Gary
> provides decent advisories on their BRITE until you get too far
> from them. I've dealt with approach controls all up and down
> the east coast and as far west as Denver, but Chicago is the
> most difficult to deal with VFR.

[Jim Macklin]

http://www.fly-ul.com/navfreq.html


Not all usable frequencies are listed on a chart. The
question was for air to air, general communications not ATC.
AFD lists all the ATC frequencies assigned, but the AIM
lists other frequency assignments.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.




"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in
message
hlink.net...
| Maybe it's because I've done all my training here plus I
probably have that
| Chicago state of mind but I don't find them all that bad.
I have a lot more
| trouble with Milwaukee. Of course, if they are busy,
forget about it.
|
| Why did Jim suggest 122.9? I just checked the Chicago
Terminal chart and
| don't see it listed there. I think contacting Chicago App
is the official
| way to go.
|
| Midway is very helpful and they are watching the same
radar as O'Hare but
| their world is pretty boxed in. If you feel nervous,
your're on the south
| side of Chicago, and Chicago App is too scarey, go for
Midway.
|
| If I am flying around the Class B, I usually monitor the
appropriate Chicago
| App frequency. If I hear them call me out as an unverified
VFR traffic, then
| I'll call up. Of course, there could be twenty other guys
monitoring and
| motoring along.
|
| --
| -------------------------------
| Travis
| "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
| m...
| > Nathan Young wrote:
| >> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:10:50 -0600, "Marty"
>
| >> wrote:
| >>
| >>> A question to all you IL.guys.
| >>>
| >>> How has flying down the Chi.lakefront changed since
9/11?
| >>
| >> Now that Meigs is gone - we no longer have to talk to
anyone, although
| >> because of traffic, it is always a good idea to get
flight following
| >> from Approach.
| > I actually found Chicago approach to be difficult and
useless. Gary
| > provides decent advisories on their BRITE until you get
too far
| > from them. I've dealt with approach controls all up
and down
| > the east coast and as far west as Denver, but Chicago is
the
| > most difficult to deal with VFR.
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

Actually 122.75 would be a better choice.


"Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message news:9okJf.395621$0l5.191086@dukeread06...
| http://www.fly-ul.com/navfreq.html
|
|
| Not all usable frequencies are listed on a chart. The
| question was for air to air, general communications not
ATC.
| AFD lists all the ATC frequencies assigned, but the AIM
| lists other frequency assignments.
|
|
| --
| James H. Macklin
| ATP,CFI,A&P
|
| --
| The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
| But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
| some support
| http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
| See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and
duties.
|
|
|
|
| "Travis Marlatte" > wrote
in
| message
|
hlink.net...
|| Maybe it's because I've done all my training here plus I
| probably have that
|| Chicago state of mind but I don't find them all that bad.
| I have a lot more
|| trouble with Milwaukee. Of course, if they are busy,
| forget about it.
||
|| Why did Jim suggest 122.9? I just checked the Chicago
| Terminal chart and
|| don't see it listed there. I think contacting Chicago App
| is the official
|| way to go.
||
|| Midway is very helpful and they are watching the same
| radar as O'Hare but
|| their world is pretty boxed in. If you feel nervous,
| your're on the south
|| side of Chicago, and Chicago App is too scarey, go for
| Midway.
||
|| If I am flying around the Class B, I usually monitor the
| appropriate Chicago
|| App frequency. If I hear them call me out as an
unverified
| VFR traffic, then
|| I'll call up. Of course, there could be twenty other guys
| monitoring and
|| motoring along.
||
|| --
|| -------------------------------
|| Travis
|| "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
|| m...
|| > Nathan Young wrote:
|| >> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:10:50 -0600, "Marty"
| >
|| >> wrote:
|| >>
|| >>> A question to all you IL.guys.
|| >>>
|| >>> How has flying down the Chi.lakefront changed since
| 9/11?
|| >>
|| >> Now that Meigs is gone - we no longer have to talk to
| anyone, although
|| >> because of traffic, it is always a good idea to get
| flight following
|| >> from Approach.
|| > I actually found Chicago approach to be difficult and
| useless. Gary
|| > provides decent advisories on their BRITE until you get
| too far
|| > from them. I've dealt with approach controls all up
| and down
|| > the east coast and as far west as Denver, but Chicago
is
| the
|| > most difficult to deal with VFR.
||
||
|
|

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:aIsIf.81413$QW2.33577@dukeread08...
>
> 122.9
>

122.75

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> Why did Jim suggest 122.9?

It's commonly used for air-to-air communications, the proper frequency for
that is 122.75.

[Travis Marlatte]

122.9 is commonly used for air-to-air communications? I thought it was a
designated UNICOM frequency for airports where no other UNICOM frequency was
published. There are specific air-to-air frequencies, right? And 122.9 is
not one of them, right?

I guess that's my point. There are several, if not many, frequencies that
could be used. Unless one is officially designated or at least publicized as
the right one, what are the chances that a collection of pilots flying along
the Chicago lakefront (or around the Class B in general) will just happen to
pick the right one?

122.75 makes more sense to me than 122.9, since the purpose is basically
position reporting between airborne pilots and their planes. There is no
reason why Joe Pilot would choose that frequency above all others (unless
they happen to be reading this thread of discussion).

Someone mentioned that the VFR corridor around New York had a published
frequency. Is it one of the air-to-air freqs or a designated CTAF or ATC
frequency? Who took the initiative to get it published? Was is ATC trying to
offload VFR flight following or a grassroots effort by pilots?
--
-------------------------------
Travis
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>>
>> Why did Jim suggest 122.9?
>
> It's commonly used for air-to-air communications, the proper frequency for
> that is 122.75.
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> 122.9 is commonly used for air-to-air communications?
>

Somewhat.


>
> I thought it was a designated UNICOM frequency for airports where no other
> UNICOM frequency was published.
>

MULTICOM.


>
> There are specific air-to-air frequencies, right?
>

Right.


>
> And 122.9 is not one of them, right?
>

No.

[Ron Natalie]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> http://www.fly-ul.com/navfreq.html
>
>
> Not all usable frequencies are listed on a chart. The
> question was for air to air, general communications not ATC.
> AFD lists all the ATC frequencies assigned, but the AIM
> lists other frequency assignments.
>
>
No actually, 122.9 is NOT air-to-air. It's the multicom
frequency for traffic calls, etc... for airports without
a designated unicom frequency.