General aviation pilot expressed concern regarding the ATC procedures used to handle IFR aircraft fl...

Narrative:

I filed an IFR flight plan from ugn; over lake michigan. I only do this in late summer and in daytime as the cessna T210N is a single engine light aircraft. I filed for 11;000 ft and way points that would keep me clear of the class B outer ring centered on ord. My goal is to climb as fast as possible to have glide range in the event of an issue. If I file a lakefront route; chicago approach vectors me far to the west adding 40 minutes or more to my flight time; as compared with a victor airway lakefront routing (I've tried and they won't grant). On this flight they restricted me to 4;000 ft. I asked chicago approach I was told I could not climb due to O'hare traffic. I have tis and saw no traffic at all the entire episode within 12 NM and +/- 3;000 ft. When I was switched to chicago center I asked again and got the climb but a vector which extended my time over water significantly. There should be a reasonable method to allow small aircraft to cross the minimum distance and climb quickly over the water so as to minimize the risks. I think this is a policy issue more than any ATC conflict rules. Whether a lake crossing; or a trip on the victor airways across the lakefront or a trip around the west of chicago; under IFR the controllers vector me way out of the way; increasing risk. If I were to cancel; or fly VFR (outside of the class B or under); I could fly any route I choose; not participate in the flow; and fly the safest route. It makes no sense that by filing IFR I am put at much higher risk; whereas if I fly VFR I reduce my risk but put other aircraft at risk; and push the controllers to keep IFR aircraft clear of me. Chicago TRACON should adopt a lakefront IFR corridor for small aircraft; a west IFR corridor; and a lakefront overflight corridor that allow safe flight.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: General Aviation pilot expressed concern regarding the ATC procedures used to handle IFR aircraft flying in the vicinity of ORD; indicating IFR handling results in high risk over water flights compared to VFR operations.

Narrative: I filed an IFR flight plan from UGN; over Lake Michigan. I only do this in late summer and in daytime as the Cessna T210N is a single engine light aircraft. I filed for 11;000 FT and way points that would keep me clear of the Class B outer ring centered on ORD. My goal is to climb as fast as possible to have glide range in the event of an issue. If I file a lakefront route; Chicago Approach vectors me far to the west adding 40 minutes or more to my flight time; as compared with a Victor airway lakefront routing (I've tried and they won't grant). On this flight they restricted me to 4;000 FT. I asked Chicago Approach I was told I could not climb due to O'hare traffic. I have TIS and saw no traffic at all the entire episode within 12 NM and +/- 3;000 FT. When I was switched to Chicago Center I asked again and got the climb but a vector which extended my time over water significantly. There should be a reasonable method to allow small aircraft to cross the minimum distance and climb quickly over the water so as to minimize the risks. I think this is a policy issue more than any ATC conflict rules. Whether a lake crossing; or a trip on the Victor airways across the lakefront or a trip around the west of Chicago; under IFR the controllers vector me way out of the way; increasing risk. If I were to cancel; or fly VFR (outside of the Class B or under); I could fly any route I choose; not participate in the flow; and fly the safest route. It makes no sense that by filing IFR I am put at much higher risk; whereas if I fly VFR I reduce my risk but put other aircraft at risk; and push the controllers to keep IFR aircraft clear of me. Chicago TRACON should adopt a lakefront IFR corridor for small aircraft; a West IFR corridor; and a lakefront overflight corridor that allow safe flight.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.

Attributes
ACN	1024618
Time
Date	201207
Local Time Of Day	0601-1200
Place
Locale Reference	UGN.Airport
State Reference	IL
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C 210D
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Climb
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Single Pilot Pilot Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Multiengine Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Private
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 100 Flight Crew Total 4000 Flight Crew Type 300
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types

General aviation pilot expressed concern regarding the ATC procedures used to handle IFR aircraft flying in the vicinity of ord; indicating IFR handling results in high risk over water flights compared to VFR operations.