Chicago Flying

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.

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.

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.
|
|

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.
||
||
|
|

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.

"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.

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.

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.